Talk:Dhimmi/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Removal of sourced material.

Its not clear for me what is already covered.Could someone explain in talk why this information was removed.Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

literal meaning of "dhimma"

The reference given for the literal meaning of "dhimmi" is a google search, which is not a reliable source, and the meaning given, "one whose responsibility has been taken" is not meaningful in English. Zero^talk 10:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It was basically referring back to wikipedia, which is like circular referencing. I've fixed it.VR _talk 05:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

absolute horse shit

"Various restrictions and legal disabilities were placed on Dhimmis, such as prohibitions against bearing arms or giving testimony in courts in cases involving Muslims. Most of these disabilities had a social and symbolic rather than a tangible and practical character"

yeah i guess segregation and apartheid weren't too bad either... oh wait, they were horrible. who wrote this shit? Decora (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There are sources for all the information that is present in the article. There is no "shit" in the article, just sourced facts. warrior 4321 23:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

disallowing people from testifying in court is much more than a 'symbolic' disability and has a great deal of 'practical' effects. you can see this in every society where 'inability to testify in court' has been practiced, from the american south to apartheid south africa to nazi germany. Decora (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Then fix it yourself, stop complaining. warrior 4321 03:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that sentence is nothing but apologetics in action and has no place on wikipedia 188.220.169.56 (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is about as neutral as claiming that World War 2 was an armed conflict with some human rights violations, technically true but grossly misleading. --93.104.54.152 (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It is because Wikipedia is run by anti-Semitic Muslims and leftists, just like Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.150.252 (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

non-neutral and fringe source

the book by rod stark is described as following: "In God's Battalions, award-winning author Rodney Stark takes on the long-held view that the Crusades were the first round of European colonialism, conducted for land, loot, and converts by barbarian Christians who victimized the cultivated Muslims. Instead, Stark argues that the Crusades were the first military response to Muslim terrorist aggession." [1]

this is utter nonsense, and represents a fringe view. the additions made by user daisy also violate wp:npov. in addition, there is a restriction-section covering the issue without violating npov or using non-neutral sources.-- altetendekrabbe 17:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Rodney Stark is academic in the field of religion so his view are notable and not fringe at all--Shrike (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

his views on the crusades are fringe, like his views on evolution.-- altetendekrabbe 17:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the supporters of Stark will adopt his weird theories in other articles, such as his whitewashing (p46 etc) of the Crusaders' behavior towards Jews. That's the price of adopting fringe sources, you know. Zero^talk 05:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't verified that, but that's a good point.VR _talk 23:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Rodney Stark's book "God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades" seems more like a polemic in defence of the Crusades than an academic study of the subject. What is the case for reliability of the source?VR _talk 23:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a tough one. It certainly does read like a polemic, and his views on evolution do suggest that he's fringy. On the other hand he is an academic. I suggest asking at WP:RSN for help.VolunteerMarek 23:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly polemical to call the Crusades a preemptive strike. I suppose the Crusades northward were also a preemptive strike to keep the Estonians and Latvians from conquering Europe.

This sort of agenda driven scholarship ignores that it's only because of Islam and its tradition of rational thought--responsible for translations of ancient Greek texts--that what we value as the roots of Western culture even survived. And what did the Church bring in terms of rational thought? Nothing. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Muslim Tolerance

" and "generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century"." Excuse me, but what is the basis for this statement? --41.151.124.7 (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the source is "Bernard Lewis and Buntzie Ellis Churchill, Islam: The Religion and the People, Wharton School Publishing, 2008, pp. 146". You can find it at google books.VR _talk 05:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This would be correct regarding tolerance. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent reverts

Hi

Some of the recent reverts are a result of cherry-picking sources. I do not intend to imply that this has been done purposefully. However, although it is quite easy to find analyses of primary sources that document justifications of harsh discriminatory practises towards the dhimmi, this needs to be contextualised. Two important points stand out in this regard:

Real practices, as oppposed to written sources, need to be considered. The written sources are more often than not most relevant to a current internal political situation. Over the historical record the number of reiterations, as well as the power and wealth accumulated by some dhimmi groups, demonstrate that they were never followed to the letter. In order to present a balanced view, this needs to be reflected.
Practises need to be put in a historical context

I can provide some sources if necessary, otherwise I'll try to present some drafts covering this in the not-too-distant future. Best regards, benjamil (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

What do you consider to be an accurate representation of the various sources that you removed from the article; I presume that you do not advocate a total removal which would certainly be a strange form of 'contextualization'. Ankh.Morpork 11:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

How about trying to get a general picture of what the main sources on the subject say, and write something that conforms with WP:BALANCE?

The lead part needs to be specific. As it was, it appeared to claim that a majority of scholarly authors believe that the dhimmi concept has been practised with the utmost severity by all Muslim communities at all times in all the world. Although there probably are some sources who claim this, they are not WP:RS. Also, it's really poorly worded.
The Hodgson part lacks a citation unless it's cited from Stark, in which case the original should be consulted.
Stark is clearly WP:FRINGE. I don't believe the article currently is large enough to defend including his views without violating WP:DUE.

The rest is nitpicking. Precise and balanced regards, benjamil (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't add unreliable sources. Benjamil is right that Stark is fringe. I can't comment on Nafziger right now (~~he appears borderline reliable~~). But we can certainly include material on discrimination against dhimmis in a neutral way based on reliable sources only. I have tried to just that.VR _talk 15:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

On page 227, Nafziger says that "The inhabitants of any town captured...were either killed of lead into slavery."

At least in the case of the Muslim conquest of Persia, this is just not true.

On page 228, he says that if a Muslim robbed a non-Muslim, "his religion re-affirmed this behaviour". This is just absurd. The property of dhimmis is protected, no less by the saying of prophet Muhammad that "he who harms a dhimmi, harms me." This view also seems Islamophobic.

Please do not restore Nafziger to the lead.VR _talk 16:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The test of reliability is not the extent of conformity with one's own views or the result of OR. You removed several academic works and the one that your explicitly stated was unreliable has been relied upon by the BBC. Ankh.Morpork 17:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop reinstating content en bloque. I will be happy to take Nafziger, Stark and the quotation of Hodgson to WP:RS/N, if that can help settle the issue. benjamil (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Why doesn't he find the original Marshall G. S. Hodgson source? Well, I believe I found it in Google Books here [2] page 448:

"Zealous Shari'ah-minded Muslims elaborated gladly their code of symbolic restrictions on the dhimmî non-Muslims – they must wear certain humiliating garments and signs, they must not build new houses of worship, and so on –"
"As the dhimmî communities dwindled, popular Muslim sentiment more and more readily insisted on stigmatizing the minorities."

The Venture of Islam: The classical age of Islam ISBN 0226346838

That chapter deals with the era of the High Caliphate. So I believe such eras of discrimination should be also covered, but indeed the Stark quote was exaggerating this. PS. The article uses a source AskAMufti.com in the lead to say that dhimmis had the same rights; and after it other text contradicts it. The article should state that dhimmis had full protection from the Islamic state and the same rights inside their own community, but that they could not present evidence against a Muslim in court or inherit for example. page 163 by Clinton Bennett and Majid Khadduri. Any sources like "AskaMufti.com" should be replaced with proper information like that.--Pudeo ' 22:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed the somewhat questionable sources of AskAMufti.com from the lead and instead replaced it with the notion from Bennett's book that they "had their fights fully protected in their communities, but as subjects to the Muslim state, had certain disabilities." The original source had the wording "suffered certain disablities", but for a more neutral lead I used the word "had". I think it's pretty balanced now. Hopefully the edit-warring will be over now that the Hodgson quote is on from a reliable source, perhaps it satisfies both sides. However, if the dispute continues, you should take Nafziger and Stark to WP:RS/N instead of reverting. --Pudeo ' 02:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Good work. I believe that I've read somewhere in Eugene Rogan's The Arabs that the dhimmi contract was rather leniently enforced in Egypt under the Ottoman empire. I'll try to include something about this when I get back from my vacation. benjamil (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright...

... in regard to this contentious edit(s) [3]

I changed "disabilities" back to "restrictions" per just ... good English.
I put the sentence "On the other hand, they were excused or excluded from specific duties... " back to where it was because it provides better organization, and it keeps it clear what claim comes from what source.
I removed the "humiliating and discriminatory" because it comes to being a close paraphrase copyvio.
I removed the stuff about prohibitions on intermarriage and inheritance for two related reasons. First, this is really to much detail for the lede. Second, the situation was a bit more complicated than that - to present the picture accurately you would have to compare these restrictions on intermarriage and inheritance in historical Muslim societies with the same kinds of (often much more severe) restrictions in non-Muslim societies. The two reasons are related because there simply isn't enough room in the lede to do that.
I restored the paragraph about Hodgson to its original version because the other version made it seems like Lewis and Hodgson were engaged in some kind of direct polemic with each other. They were not, AFAIK.

VolunteerMarek 13:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oy, come on guys

This [4] (the reverts between July 11, 7:12 by the IP address and July 11, 12:44) is a pretty blatant case of tag-team edit warring. First some anon IP puts in obviously POV edits. Then Frotz reverts it back in. Then Estlandia reverts it back in. Then reverts again. Then AnkhMorpork reverts it back in. The same people who've been coordinating (perhaps implicitly) their edits against Altetendekrabbe on this and other article. It's blatant. Hell, it doesn't just look like tag-team edit warring but almost like purposeful attempts at baiting a user into a 3RR violation.

Quit it.VolunteerMarek 17:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

ankhmorpork has already filed a bogus case, [5]. very interesting to see how they get away with such blatant attempts of gaming the system.-- altetendekrabbe 18:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Dhimmi communities

I have placed a POV tag on "Dhimmi communities", and here's why. The section does not document the situation of Dhimmi communities as a reader would expect, but instead reads like a polemical tract dedicated to defending Muslim regimes against charges of discrimination.

One reason I get this impression is because of the constant, in-your-face comparison between the supposedly tolerant Muslim regimes to the supposedly repressive states of Christendom:

"Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom... after many centuries of discrimination... Jews saw the Islamic conquests as just another change of rulers, this time for the better.... Jewish dhimmis living under the Caliphate... were still better off than in the Christian parts of Europe... situation of the Jews in the Muslim world was generally better than in Christendom... Islam has "shown more toleration than Europe towards the Jews who remained in Muslim lands."... in contrast to Jews in Christian Europe, the "Jews in Islam were well integrated... they were allowed to practice their religion more freely than they could do in Christian Europe."

However, rather than continually quote the opinions of people who thought Islam was superior to Christianity or Europe in the tolerance department, it would be a much more neutral approach to state some concrete policy differences, and to let the readers form their own opinions. Or, were there areas in which Jews and "unbelievers" - a non-neutral word for non-Muslims - lived in better conditions than under Muslim rule? Secular Europe is cited as an example, couldn't that comparison be developed further? Even better, simply state the restrictions under which Dhimmis lived, without the selective comparisons.

Also, it would also be advisable to state the affiliations of some of the talking heads. It would be useful to note, for example, that Bernard Lewis is a scholar of the history of Islam rather than a scholar of Jewish history.

There are statements such as "generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom", and "Generally, the Jewish people were allowed to practice their religion". This is both a subjective statement and a prompt for the question: what are the cases in which non-Muslim cases had their freedoms restricted? Why are they not enumerated?

The section on Hindus and Buddhists is not as egregiously biased, but it does give the one-sided impression that Muslims were totally benevolent. This seems strange in light of the fact that the Muslim conquest of India and historical Muslim treatment of Hindus had led to serious resentment by Hindus and communal riots in the 20th century. Likewise with contemporary Jews making claims to historical discrimination by Muslims. These viewpoints do not seem to be represented at all in this section, despite their prominence in current affairs.

For some ideas on sources to redress the balance, a quick search came upon three books by Bat Ye'or: The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam, The Decline of Eastern Christianity: From Jihad to Dhimmitude, and Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide. These are by no means the only sources which provide the underrepresented viewpoint, but they are a starting point to understand the arguments of non-Muslim-apologists. Shrigley (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Bat Ye'or is not reliable for history articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

That statement about Bat Ye'or is just another POV. If you can't argue against the message you condemn and reject the messenger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatdafuq (talk • contribs) 05:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

While I'm sure that some Muslim governments discriminate (just like some non-Muslim ones do) I don't see any reason to include the "Discrimination" sidebar in this section (or the article in general). Seems a good bit like POV pushing as well.VolunteerMarek 22:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

What in your view would provide sufficient reason to include it? Ankh.Morpork 23:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong question. Basically, it makes no sense to include a "Discrimination" sidebar in historical articles. Unless you think that we should spam that article into every article concerned with pre ... 21st century Europe. It just simply doesn't belong here, and it's presence is arbitrary, tendentious and pov.VolunteerMarek 00:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork, this could be included in articles like yellow badge (which, unfortunately originated in Muslim societies), Persecution of Bahá'ís (which happens in Iran) etc. In each of these cases the article is wholly about discrimination against an identifiable group. By contrast, some dhimmis were given "mutual respect and cooperation", while others were subjected to "subservience and persecution and ill treatment" (as Lewis notes), making the concept of dhimmi more complicated than a simple case of discrimination.VR _talk 04:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The yellow badge did not necessarily originate in Muslim societies. I suspect it was from the Fourth Lateran Council. I did have a look around for sources that would resolve the question, but didn't get very far. I will look again when I have a moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is a less definite example of unfair treatment, however the entire concept revolves around discriminatory practices, in a literal sense, which affected the obligations and legal status of non-Muslim citizens and this is not disputed. Ankh.Morpork 11:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There are many scholarly articles that describe dhimmi status as discrimination--Shrike (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, irrelevant.VolunteerMarek 13:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you elaborate. Hypothetically, if the overwhelming view is that dhimmi was discriminatory, would you oppose a discrimination sidebar. Ankh.Morpork 16:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that the use of the discrimination sidebar implies some relevance to modern usage or general principles. This would have to be qualified. The dhimmi concept that is the topic of this article is mainly of a historical nature that seems outside the scope of the sidebar.

Regards, benjamil (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

And do you have any policies upon which you base this imaginative interpretation ?Ankh.Morpork 23:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't. Do you have any policies that support your interpretation? Although I'm not able to present an analytically impervious answer to the question "What should be the limitations to the use of the discrimination sidebar?" I believe that the answer should pass the test of consequence. Noting the absence of the sidebar on the following sections and pages should be an interesting point of origin for such a discussion: Goy, Heathen, Patron-client relationship and Matriarchy.

Imaginative regards, benjamil (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

And there are many scholarly sources that say dhimmis enjoyed equality and tolerance. These two sets of sources are both correct, depending on what place and period of time we are looking at.

This is like attaching the discrimination sidebar to the article on African Americans. Yeah, they face discrimination, but many times they are also treated with equality (e.g. President of the United States). On the other hand an articles called "anti-black discrimination", antisemitism would merit the sidebar, and so would an objective article on "anti-Non-Muslim discrimination".VR _talk 15:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the Quran specifically talks about dhimmis being subdued. It matters not whether the treatment of dhimmis was better than in Christian areas or whether it was fashionable or accepted by society. It still remains that the dhimmis were discriminated against. This makes me wonder, what is the problem with the following snippet?

Verse ^{[Quran 9:29]}: "Fight against the Infidel...until they pay the Jizya and feel themselves subdued." has been used to assert that dhimmis must materially demonstrate their submission to the authority of the Muslim state. ^[1]

Please state clearly and exactly why the above snippet is unacceptable. -- Frotz(talk) 22:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Second class citezenship

I have checked the source "Encyclopedia of Islam" and it states quite clear that "dhimmi status, a kind of second-class citizenship" --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

and what does the lines, following after your quote, state? in addition, the subject of the article you are referring to in e.o.i is not dhimmis. you are again trying to misrepresent a source by cherry picking what you want to add, leaving out the the *historical context*.-- altetendekrabbe 13:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

What relevancy it have to second-class citizenship?Moreover this not the only source there are many more for example [6]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

For reference another source [7]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

er, right. if you are not *able* to comprehend that without context, especially historical context, quotes can be used to mislead the reader, then i suggest you take a break from wiki. it is clear that you are unable to make *balanced* contributions to muslim related articles due to your strong pov.-- altetendekrabbe : 14:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content. --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The point that one can misrepresent a source even if one is "quoting" from it is obviously content-related. And very true.

The point that context is important is also content-related.

The point that one shouldn't cherry pick quotes from a source is also content-related.

The point that an editor should be professional enough to realize the above three points in order to be able to adequately edit what's supposed to be an encyclopedia addresses content related actions of an editor. VolunteerMarek 17:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

And I just checked the source itself, and yes, altetendekrabbe is exactly right - this is a case of misrepresenting a source by cherry picking a throw away line from what is not even the main article on dhimmis. It's hard to take these kinds of actions in good faith as they seem to be dishonest. I guess extreme editorial incompetence would be the good faith interpretation.VolunteerMarek 18:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I brought other scholarly sources did you claim this cherry picking too?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I checked out the source being used in the article to support the text. And yes, that was cherry picked and misrepresented the source. If you've got other sources which you want me to look at be specific.

More generally thought, I don't see how including the info about "second class citizenship" is of major importance in the article - remember this is about the historical nature of the concept. Pretty much in almost ALL historical societies, a few aside, the people of non-ruling faith/ethnicity/etc. were second class citizens. What matters from a historical perspective is the relative "secondness" of this status.VolunteerMarek 00:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly right. The status of minorities relies on the benevolence of the ruling class so will fluctuate from good to bad depending on who is in charge. Did dhimmis have a lower status than other minorities in the same societies? Actually the opposite was often true since the status provides a formal right to protection and autonomy that other minorities didn't have (though always at the whim of the ruling class to respect or violate the right). Zero^talk 00:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Why do you compare with one minority to other and not to the ruling class anyhow I brought a scholarly sources that describe the status as a second class.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 04:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Because that is the relevant comparison; you compare like with like. Anyway, can you explain why it's important for the article to state this business about "second class citizens"? That's essentially a modern term but this is an article about a historical concept. I would actually be fine, if you insist, with this phrase being used somewhere in the article but it's UNDUE for the lede.VolunteerMarek 15:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't insist on anything this status is described as second class citezns by scholarly sources so I should be included in the article.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, can you clarify? VolunteerMarek 16:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Again here two reliable scholary source that describe a dhimmi status as discrimination [8],[9],[10]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, in regard to this edit [11] I think it's fine if the whole "second class citizens" thing is mentioned in that particular place in the article, though I would rather see a more reliable source supporting it. ABC-CLIO is a tertiary source (an encyclopedia) and not a very good one at that.VolunteerMarek 17:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Second class citizens

To me, the cited sources are either clearly WP:FRINGE (Gisele Littman/Bat Ye'Or), or should be discussed for reliability (1950s Lebanese Christian writing on Muslims). Best regards, benjamil (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

We have longstanding consensus not to use Bat Ye'or. I will try and check out the other one. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Lebanese Christians don't know about Islam? Wow, what an outrageously ignorant statement.

Check out http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dhimmitude_(definition) which quotes Antoine Fattal states that dhimmis were second class citizens. Do you deny that they were prohibited from carrying arms? Or do you just delete posts that don't whitewash things to your satifsaction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatdafuq (talk • contribs) 22:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Lebanese Christians may be knowledgeable, but for good reasons may be prone to have a strong point of view (see WP:NPOV). The source is also rather obscure, but is being checked out. Please do not imply any motives and discuss content instead. Also, you should consider changing your username, per WP:UN. --benjamil (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That same Lebanese Christian was being quoted on wikiislam.net. And stating that Lebanese Christians might be prone to a strong point of view is implying motives to their statements. If you're gonna quote Wikipedia policy to me then at least abide by it. I have received nothing but chuckles over my username throughout the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatdafuq (talk • contribs) 23:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem in discussing the reliability of sources. Surely you see the difference between implying that someone dishonest to their face (WP:CIVIL) and discussing whether an environment that sparked civil war might have clouded the academic judgment of sources that are 50 years old. I've taken a brief look at wikiislam.net, and from their FAQ it is obvious that they are a source with an inherent POV and a rather conspiratorical mind set, e.g. using select cases to "prove" censorship on Wikipedia. The site might well be mined for sources, but cannot be used as a source in itself. Also, it does not seem to have a secondary source policy[12], meaning that there is no guarantee that analyses are not subject to quality control by anyone else than the users subscribing to wikiislam's worldview (or even a minority thereof) [13]. Seems like a nice recipe for an echo chamber, and an environment that doesn't really foster a mentality of source criticism. --benjamil (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

So you are summarily dismissing Antoine Fattal as a source because he was referenced on a site which you take issue with. What is your impression of teachislam.com? I invite you to read this:

http://www.teachislam.com/dmdocuments/73-4/The%20Ottomans/Government/The%20Status%20of%20Jews%20and%20Christians%20in%20Muslim%20Lands,%201772%20CE.pdf

which has a response by Sheikh Hasan al Kafrawi, an 18th century Muslim scholar in Cairo, to the question of how Christians and Jews should be treated? So please, tell me what is wrong with using this as a source on how Christians were treated (e.g. can't be allowed to ride horses because horses are noble animals). --Whatdafuq (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not summarily dismissing anyone. I'm just saying that it's not obvious that he's a reliable source. He might be. But it might also be difficult to find out. The book is available at my university library, but not in a meaningful format, as far as I've been able to find, on Google books.[14] Based on my very poor French, he gets an excellent review here,[15] and a rather critical one here.[16] Crucially, the last review (the public part of which I'm actually able to review), points at important aspects that have largely been left out in recent edits on this article: Context, and variations in time and space. The last review also suggests that the information the book was used to source is more nuanced in the original. Then again, the quote at Wikiislam contains elements of intellectual rubbish, unless interpreted without connection to historical reality (e.g. in terms of abstract jurisprudence).

The "rather critical" review is not really so critical. It notes the impressive work of Fattal in his research on both the historical and legal aspects of the subject. The criticism, as it is, is that the reviewer felt there was a gap that needed filling between the two. So, I believe we can agree that Fattal is not some crazy Phalangist with an axe to grind and that your comment on his reliability is completely wrong. While Fattal did/does not get universal acclaim he did scholarly work and the body of it is impressive and valuable. So what is your excuse you will now use for removing quotes from Fattal on the dhimmi page?--Whatdafuq (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No social relationship, no fellowship is possible between Muslims and dhimmis.

The counterexamples to this are legion. As for the other stuff, I'll have to look into that another time.

--benjamil (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I missed that quote but these sort of statements are made all the time-- "Americans are ignorant of geography", "Russia is corrupt", etc. The counterexamples to those statements are legion but statements are frequently made with this sort of absolutist wording. The Koran instructs believers to not take Jews and Christians as friends so there is some truth to a statement like that. Granted not all believers follow that just like not all Americans are ignorant of geography (or are obese for that matter) yet one cannot object to these statements whenever and wherever they are made simply because a counterexample exists.--Whatdafuq (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

These sort of statements are also commonly indicative of a polemic as opposed to disinterested mind set. As for the degree of criticism in the review: Yes, for an academic review, this is quite harsh criticism. It says "But while the way in which the author deals individually with both the legal and historical sources is eminently satisfactory, the all-important question of the relationship between the two is left largely unanswered." (my emphasis) This however, is not very important, seeing that Itsmejudith has interceded with knowledge superior to mine. My issue was simply that I didn't accept this rather inaccessible source, mined from an inherently-pov site as reliable without checking it out. It would probably save you some heartbeats if you got used to such minor scepticism. benjamil ^talk/_edits 21:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This academic study is a much better source for Lebanon. Zero^talk 00:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That book "tells the story of Jews of Lebanon in the twentieth century." Which is not really the time that Antoine Fattal was talking about. And "a much better source"... why? Fattal's book is, according to wikiislam, "the benchmark analysis of non-Muslims (especially Christians and Jews) living under Sharia." Another of his books "is a seminal work" on the legal status of non-Muslims living under Sharia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatdafuq (talk • contribs) 05:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, atleast Majid Khadduri describes dhimmi as a "second-class citizen status" too. (War and peace in the law of Islam, page 198). --Pudeo ' 20:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Direct Quotes

There is nothing interpretive in a quote of the Koran on the Jizya. In fact, the section below "Qur'anic verses as a basis for Islamic policies toward dhimmis" mentions the Jizya! It just does so in reference to Hadiths. So it is established on the dhimmi page that the Jizya is an appropriate topic. Therefore a Koranic quote regarding the Jizya should be under the "Qur'anic verses" section.

To quote, "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed." So raising a WP:OR objection is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatdafuq (talk • contribs) 23:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The relationship between what is written in a holy book and what is done by the believers of the book is a very complex one. Your edit suggests a direct relationship but you didn't provide any source for that. It is a classic case of Original Research, exactly what the rules forbid. Zero^talk 00:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Bat Ye'or line of argumentation. Essentialist. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Your tactic of saying "Bat Ye'or line of argumentation" is merely an ad hominem. Care to bring facts to the discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatdafuq (talk • contribs) 05:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Would somebody care to explain why my edits keep getting reverted? I acknowledged that my edit suggested a relationship that was not documented but now I have documented it. All of the other verses in the Koranic verses section relate to tolerance. It should be noted that tolerance of "the other" would be to not treat him differently, that is, not apply a state of dhimmitude to him. In the interest of balance it should be noted that there are some who believe that there is a Koranic justification for asserting that dhimmis are subjugated. In fact, it says "pay the Jizya and feel themselves subdued." Subdued is not tolerance.--Whatdafuq (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Because the paragraph that you're pulling this quote out of, is in fact about clarifying the fact that dhimmi status applies to non-Muslims living in Muslim ruled societies, rather than non-Muslims living in non-Muslim societies, and not about Jizya or tolerance or whatever. You're cherry picking quotes (again?).VolunteerMarek 15:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, no. I'm not cherry picking but you are engaging in a straw man argument (again?). That is where one misrepresents a position for the purpose of creating the impression that you have refuted it. I never said anything about it applying to "non-Muslims in non-Muslim societies". The paragraph specifically mentions the jizya and the paying the jizya ("in submission") was a hallmark of being a dhimmi. So it is quite relevant. You're willfully misrepresenting things (again?).--Whatdafuq (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"Antoine Fattal's Le statut legal des non-Musulmans en pays d'Islam, a general survey, retains its value as an entry point into the study of this subject. It has been supplemented and often surpassed by a variety of more focussed studies, of which Yohanan Friedmann's Tolerance and Coercion in Islam deserves particular mention. A number of works, including Fattals' and especially Mark Cohen's Under crescent and cross, devote considerable attention to comparing medieval Islamic laws governing non-Muslims with their counterparts in Roman, Sasanid and Christian sources. Placed in this context rather than viewed against the backdrop of twenty-first century Western norms, the laws expressed in medieval Islamic sources appear commonplace and even relatively benign; non-Muslims subject to these laws, of course, surely did not see them as such." David M. Freidenreich, "Christians in early and Classical Sunni law", in David Thomas and Barbara Roggema (eds.), Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History. Brill. 2009.

Therefore, we should generally treat as superseded. We are currently underusing Mark Cohen. The last sentence I have taken from Freidenreich is an excellent summary of the current academic consensus, and we ought to make sure we reflect it. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No we should not treat it as superseded. See the reviews for his work above. You even quote that Fattal "devote[s] considerable attention to comparing medieval Islamic laws governing non-Muslims with their counterparts in Roman, Sasanid and Christian sources." which seems quite important to you for some strange reason. It's fascinating that you will quote something that says "non-Musims subject to these [dhimmi] laws, of course, surely did not see them as [relatively benign]." Really? Why would that be? The dhimmi page is all about how wonderfully tolerant the whole experience was. The non-muslim's rights were ensured! He didn't have to serve in the army! What a glorious experience it must've been...oh wait, you're now admitting that people subject to this tolerance and respect were not happy with it? Wow. When one reads the dhimmi page and then the end of this quote of yours there's an obvious disconnect. And furthermore, the page is about what it meant to be a dhimmi. It is not a page on comparing and contrasting medieval laws in Christian lands and Muslim lands or trying to place behavior that might be viewed as hostile in a 21st century backdrop in context. This kind of moral equivalence has no place in the dhimmi page. --Whatdafuq (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

exactly. compared to western democracies the dhimmi-status was indeed brutal and unacceptable. however, compared to other medieval (christian) regimes it was a step forwards. as noted by bernard lewis: "muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century". as a start, why don't you quote freidenreich in the text? -- altetendekrabbe 16:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

But why should the coercion means of either religion be defended against each other? I believe the main intention of the article is not to battle which is worse, Christianity/Judaism vs. Islam. Atleast for me as an atheist there is nothing holy in any of those religions, so I have no problem with having the negative sides in the article too. Rather a problematic situation if religious people defend people their religion here based on what is holy instead of rationality. --Pudeo ' 20:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a matter of comparing religions but of placing facts in historical context. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No it's not. What the Christians were doing to Jews in Europe is not the subject of the page. It's what dhimmitude was all about. It doesn't matter how dhimmitude "compared to other medieval (Christian) regimes". The only purpose of the sort of moral relativism that you wish to engage in is to justify the unjustifiable. "But the Christians did it too!" is not an excuse and it's not the topic at hand.--Whatdafuq (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The point is that the text should be specific about when, where, how, and possibly also why the dhimmi regulations have been practised as they have. In some cases, for example relating to the exodus of sephardic Jews from Spain, discussion of other regimes is definitely in order. Not because it makes the history less grim, but because it helps in understanding the phenomenon and its dynamics. I guess that's the essential word: dynamics. In space and time. benjamil ^talk/_edits 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Second class citizens

To me, the cited sources are either clearly WP:FRINGE (Gisele Littman/Bat Ye'Or), or should be discussed for reliability (1950s Lebanese Christian writing on Muslims). Best regards, benjamil (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

We have longstanding consensus not to use Bat Ye'or. I will try and check out the other one. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Lebanese Christians don't know about Islam? Wow, what an outrageously ignorant statement.

Check out http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dhimmitude_(definition) which quotes Antoine Fattal states that dhimmis were second class citizens. Do you deny that they were prohibited from carrying arms? Or do you just delete posts that don't whitewash things to your satifsaction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatdafuq (talk • contribs) 22:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Lebanese Christians may be knowledgeable, but for good reasons may be prone to have a strong point of view (see WP:NPOV). The source is also rather obscure, but is being checked out. Please do not imply any motives and discuss content instead. Also, you should consider changing your username, per WP:UN. --benjamil (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That same Lebanese Christian was being quoted on wikiislam.net. And stating that Lebanese Christians might be prone to a strong point of view is implying motives to their statements. If you're gonna quote Wikipedia policy to me then at least abide by it. I have received nothing but chuckles over my username throughout the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatdafuq (talk • contribs) 23:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem in discussing the reliability of sources. Surely you see the difference between implying that someone dishonest to their face (WP:CIVIL) and discussing whether an environment that sparked civil war might have clouded the academic judgment of sources that are 50 years old. I've taken a brief look at wikiislam.net, and from their FAQ it is obvious that they are a source with an inherent POV and a rather conspiratorical mind set, e.g. using select cases to "prove" censorship on Wikipedia. The site might well be mined for sources, but cannot be used as a source in itself. Also, it does not seem to have a secondary source policy[17], meaning that there is no guarantee that analyses are not subject to quality control by anyone else than the users subscribing to wikiislam's worldview (or even a minority thereof) [18]. Seems like a nice recipe for an echo chamber, and an environment that doesn't really foster a mentality of source criticism. --benjamil (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

So you are summarily dismissing Antoine Fattal as a source because he was referenced on a site which you take issue with. What is your impression of teachislam.com? I invite you to read this:

http://www.teachislam.com/dmdocuments/73-4/The%20Ottomans/Government/The%20Status%20of%20Jews%20and%20Christians%20in%20Muslim%20Lands,%201772%20CE.pdf

which has a response by Sheikh Hasan al Kafrawi, an 18th century Muslim scholar in Cairo, to the question of how Christians and Jews should be treated? So please, tell me what is wrong with using this as a source on how Christians were treated (e.g. can't be allowed to ride horses because horses are noble animals). --Whatdafuq (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not summarily dismissing anyone. I'm just saying that it's not obvious that he's a reliable source. He might be. But it might also be difficult to find out. The book is available at my university library, but not in a meaningful format, as far as I've been able to find, on Google books.[19] Based on my very poor French, he gets an excellent review here,[20] and a rather critical one here.[21] Crucially, the last review (the public part of which I'm actually able to review), points at important aspects that have largely been left out in recent edits on this article: Context, and variations in time and space. The last review also suggests that the information the book was used to source is more nuanced in the original. Then again, the quote at Wikiislam contains elements of intellectual rubbish, unless interpreted without connection to historical reality (e.g. in terms of abstract jurisprudence).