Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:59, 7 July 2012

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Dhimmi. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Dhimmi at the Reference desk.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Dhimmi. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Dhimmi at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on June 27 2006. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Interfaith Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (Aug 2002–May 2006) Archive 2 (Dec 2005–May 2006) Archive 3 (April–May 2006) Archive 4 (May–June 2006) Archive 5 (April–Sept 2006) Archive 6 (Sept 2006–Feb 2009) Archive 7 (June 2009–Dec 2011)

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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. warrior4321 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. warrior4321 03:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that sentence is nothing but apologetics in action and has no place on[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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."

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 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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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?

1. 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.
2. The Hodgson part lacks a citation unless it's cited from Stark, in which case the original should be consulted.
3. 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 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)

thanks for nice work. i have re-written some parts in order to avoid copyvio. on the other hand, i think that user ankhmorpork has *misrepresented* a source again. just like he did on the british-pakistani page where he was caught red-handed in maligning a whole ethnic group. he has blatantly violated wp:brd by re-introducing stark by edit warring. -- altetendekrabbe  09:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Islam-related articles
• Mid-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles