Talk:Jizya/Archive 1

Imposition vs. derived

The sura from which the word jizyah is derived is Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an, though its specific meaning is not defined there:

viz.

The imposition of jizyah is mandated by Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an, though its specific meaning is not defined there:

Yuber, I think our principal concern with that passage is where the 'imposition' (a term I don't find controversial) of the tax is mandated from, not where the 'word' is 'derived' from. As such, I find Jayjg's language clearer. You obviously disagree, so I'm interested to learn why. Thanks. El_C 06:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I find it strange that zakat is mentioned as "required" of Muslims while jizyah is "imposed" on non-muslims. BOTH taxes were mandatory, so one term should be used. Jayjg and Klonimus have been pushing this POV.Yuber^(talk) 06:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, imposition is accurate, and it is clearly mandated by the Qur'an; I have no idea what zakat has to do with this clear point.

It should be evident that non-Muslims were exempt from zakat. In the description of the zakat, you can either use imposition or required, but not both. As for where the word is derived from, it is a very simple idea. The sura does not call for a monetary tax. However, later the name was applied to a monetary tax. Once again, the name was changed to distance it from the verse because the Caliph Umar did not want people to think it had anything to do with religion. With Jayjg's POV version he is providing original research to the claim that it the specific monetary tax that is jizyah and its imposition is clearly mandated in the sura. This is a false and POV claim. I do not appreciate SlimVirgin running around childishly and reverting everything I do back to Jayjg's version without adding any input, as he has done this on 4 different articles.Yuber^(talk) 07:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

In the current text they are both "imposed", and the current version nowhere says it was a specifically monetary tax, but quite clearly states that the Qur'an does not clearly define jizyah as monetary. There is no question that the sura mandates jizyah, but it is not clearly exactly what the sura means, which the articles states. It also clearly states that de facto it was applied as a monetary tax. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, we have been over this before. Imposition is accurate, and the text doesn't say it was monetary. Why do you keep removing the consensus wording, and arguing with things the text doesn't even say? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Discuss here please. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Here please, Yuber. Right here. Here's where we can discuss your proposed change. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I've already commented on this many times below, but the concept is very simple. The word jizya in the Qur'an does not specifically mean a monetary tax, but the term was later applied to a monetary tax. Therefore it is incorrect to say that the imposition of the monetary tax is mandated by the sura. Now I know the article doesn't say monetary tax but instead says "jizya", however, prior to the sura there should be a clarification of what the word actually meant.Yuber^(talk) 20:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

But the article doesn't says the imposition of the monetary tax is mandated by the sura. I'll repeat that; the article doesn't says the imposition of the monetary tax is mandated by the sura. So why bring up the monetary issue to begin with? And since there is disagreement about what the word actually meant, how can you insert your preferred definition at the top to the exception of all others? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

It should still be clarified because nowhere in the Qur'an does it say to collect monetary taxes from people. Now tell me, what are your objections to this statement and why is it POV?

"The word itself comes from the root jaza which means compensation, though it is unclear if the Qur'an refers to a monetary one. The word jizya is taken from Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an"

Yuber^(talk) 21:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

It's POV because we have two whole paragraphs describing different definitions of the word "jizyah" and different root sources for them, yet you feel the need to pre-empt all that by inserting your preferred definition and root first, before we even get to see where it comes from. The whole point of those paragraphs is to point out that there are different views on what it means and what its root is, yet you insist on shoving your POV up top anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Its not a POV shove, its just a fact pure and simple. I clearly mention that it is "unclear if the meaning refers to monetary one". You can't just shove your POV right before quoting a sura.Yuber^(talk) 21:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all, you insist it means "compensation" and comes from "jaza", when there are a number of sources which say other things. Second of all, you argue against it meaning monetary compensation when it doesn't even say that. POV pushing, and original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Criticism section

Even though it's referenced now, it seems one-sided in its (modern superimposed?) hostility to the tax, but returning to the counter-criticism which I earlier deleted with the rest of the section and is now absent: was it that different (in application) from poll taxes collected by other civilizations, and how? And can the critical description now be seen as a purely negative portrail, in relation to these other paralels by (silent) implication? I think there is a need for more indepth qualification, but I doubt I myself am qualified to enter it. Food for thought though nonetheless. El_C 06:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

My main point is that in the sura it is not defined as a monetary tax. Later, the term was applied to a monetary tax. Also, the caliph umar changed the term to distance it from the sura.Yuber^(talk) 06:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The criticism is brief and and sourced; I'll added the counter-argument by Sir Thomas Arnold. If Yuber wants to bring sourced counter arguments he certainly can. However, what he cannot do is take quotes from ancient and authoritative books of Muslim law and shove them in the "criticism" section. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's brief and sourced, but it's also one-sided, lacking an historically comparative context. Yes, I agree with the need to stress on current scholarship, which I really have no idea on. El_C 07:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The solution is to bring other sourced arguments, then, not to delete material you don't like, or describe fiqh as "criticisms". Jayjg ^(talk) 07:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I only deleted unsourced material. :p El_C 07:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Reverts

Yuber, you're moving material around without checking whether it makes sense. You keep leaving this sentence, for instance: "In return, those who paid the jizyah were not required to serve in the military and were considered under the protection of the Muslim state, with certain rights and responsibilities. , or mandatory charity required of Muslims." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:07, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he's moved text around quite a number of times in a way which makes little sense, leaves gaping holes in the narrative, and is clearly an attempt to push a specific POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

You started the moving, Jayjg, without discussing it or even summarizing it.Yuber^(talk) 07:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

No, actually Yuber, you've been doing all sorts of moving without discussion, and in any event that's off topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

So we both have been moving things, your point is?Yuber^(talk) 07:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

My point is that you're not doing it in a careful manner, and you're leaving behind sentences that make no sense. Now you're deleting large chunks of text. You've been POV pushing on several pages today and all it does is create work for other editors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:30, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I seem to be having difficulty following a lot of this; I'm not especially coherent at the moment though. El_C 07:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. ;-p I meant to add above that it would be helpful if Yuber could discuss proposed changes first on talk. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:36, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it would, instead of his repeated complex reverts. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Criticism section again

Yuber, why do you insist that direct quote from seminal Muslim legal texts are "criticisms", but obvious apologetics for the jizyah by 20th century British historians are not defences of criticisms? Also, I believe you have violated the 3RR at this point. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think they belong in the definition section as they are largely anecdotal and aren't taken seriously. That is why the criticism section is the best place to put them since they came out of a site solely created to criticize the topic. Perhaps a new section called "writings of historians on jizyah" should be created and include all those quotes that you have moved around to subtly insert a POV. As for the 3RR, I do not see how I have violated it and you haven't. I have made sure to try to compromise after each of your edits and we both have made plenty of edits.Yuber^(talk) 07:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "largely anecdotal and aren't taken seriously"; do you have any evidence for that? From what I can tell they are seminal legal works written by eminent medieval legal scholars. How can we possibly define what the terms mean and their intent if we don't use the sources of Muslim law that discuss them? As I said, your deletion of them seems to be at best POV pushing, and closer to vandalism. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:34, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Surely there is, in the pertinent historiography, scholars who criticize these critics and their criticism. El_C 07:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean; you meant there are scholars who criticize the legal works of Al-Mawardi and Al-Marghinani? Also, it's hard not to see how a sentence which specifically defines the terms can't be a definition. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

No, Andrew G. Bostom/Khaled Abou El Fadl and Walter Short. As for the rest, I'm not sure I'm following you. El_C 08:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The criticisms I brought from them are one whole sentence. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Heh, at the time of writing the above, the section only consisted of two sentences. How quickly it has expanded. El_C 08:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, originally it was several paragraphs of pure original research. Now it is three paragraphs, all well cited. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well done! Indeed, it was "several paragraphs of pure original research," which is why I deleted the whole thing on sight. :) El_C 08:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

---

By the way, the work that Yuber describes as "largely anecdotal" and "not taken seriously" is described elsewhere as "the crowning masterpiece of the Hanafi school of law"[1] and "The Importance of this Book can not be exaggerated, it was and still is referred to in all Courts in Muslim India. It is also studied in most Hanafi based Dar-ul-Ulums and Islamic Universities" [2] Jayjg ^(talk) 07:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

From what you describe, it sounds as if it enjoys an authoritative acclaim. Is there a major scholarly current that treats it as 'largely anecdotal' is a question Yuber may wish to answer. El_C 08:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

I fail to see how this is pertinent. Was any place on the planet still collecting this tax at the time of or after the declaration was signed? El_C 08:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Even worse, it's Original research. If someone has made this argument in criticizing jizyah then it might be relevant; as it is, it can't stay. I've deleted it. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Good call. El_C 08:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Jay, I think it's important to note that the traditional imposition of Jizyah violates modern human rights norms. Thats not original research, but instead part of the important work of corsslinking knowledge. Klonimus 08:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

If it's important, someone else will have noted it, and then you can cite them. You can't make up your own arguments against jizyah, regardless of how unfair you think it is. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

JayG, I think you are taking the prohibition on origional research too far in this case. It's not original ressearch to cite wikipedia as a reference to itself. Saying that Jizyah violates the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and would be unconstitutional in almost all modern countries (I.e those that dont accept sharia as a basis for all.) is not original research. It's a statement of fact, and can be verified within wikipedia. Klonimus 06:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Original research often consists of statements of fact, all well cited. It's the combination of these facts to produce an original conclusion which is forbidden. That would include the conclusion that jizyah "violates the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and would be unconstitutional in almost all modern countries". Not to mention the fact that it is unclear how relevant modern notions of human rights are to ancient jurisprudence. In any event, it's obviously an attempt to promote a negative POV about jizyah. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, I'm not convinced I'm comming up with an original conclusion at all. Poll taxes are regressive, a fact which is mentioned in a number of ciritical resources on Jizyah (Bat Ye'or, and that Hindu book you cited). Taxing people on the basis of sex and religion is prohibited by particles 1,2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is also prohibited by First_Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. All of this is stated in a non judgemental NPOV manner.

In my mind, the purpose on an encyclopedia is to aggregate and crosslink information. That the whole point of a hypertext encyclopedia.Klonimus 18:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

If it's not an original conclusion, then surely someone else will have come to this conclusion as well and put it down somewhere. Did Bat Yeor say anything about this? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Hadith of "unverifiable veracity"

Yuber, are the hadith mentioned in the text of special "unverifiable veracity"? Why do you feel you keep having to mention it in this specific case? Do you have any evidence that they are so? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Very simply, if all hadiths are of unverifiable authenticity then a statement should be made right after that comment since not all people know what hadiths are.Yuber^(talk) 07:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, first of all, that they are all of "unverifiable authenticity" is your opinion; the Wikipedia article on hadith states "The overwhelming majority of Muslims consider ahadith to be essential supplements to and clarifications of the Qur'an, Islam's holy book." Second, even if they were (and I see no evidence of it), your argument would mean that 'every single time hadith are mentioned in Wikipedia they would require the words "of unverifiable authenticity" appended to them, which is simply silly. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Well Jayjg, Ibn Warraq claims and provides good evidence to support the conclusion that pretty much all hadith are of unverifiable authenticity. How ever I think we should accept that hadith thought to be authentic by mainstream ulema are indeed authentic.Klonimus

General observations on this article

• I don't think this is the right article to discuss the magnitude, extent, or historical experience with discrimination of various kinds of non-Muslims in non-Muslim lands.
• It should, however, include a description of its basis in Muslim scripture and/or writings, its evolution over time, how it was applied, and what its impact was.
• It seems to me that the dispute is between how it was intended and how it was actually applied. From reading the article, I have no way of knowing whether it was an oppressive, discriminatory tax that kept large people in poverty for hundreds of years; or a benign charge applied inconsistenty the discriminatory effect of which was offset by taxes applied only to Moslems.
• "Imposed upon" and "required" are synonyms, unless one term is meant to imply coercion and the other a rule that was optional. --Leifern 12:34, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, if you read Bat Ye'or she provides ample evidence that Jizyah was unevenly applied but that when ever when it was applied is was discriminatory, oppressive and resented. Compare Mogul emperor Akhbar the great, who did not collect Jizyah and emphasized toleration, with Azurgareb, who collected Jizyah leading to such resentment that civil war started throught india and the decline of the mogul empire began.

Before it was removed as "Original research" I pointed out how a fixed per capita assesment such as the Jizyah is a regressive tax, while the zakat is proportional and included an exemption to correct for any regressive nature. Klonimus 07:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

While your observation about the natures of the tax are correct, this is not an article comparing different Muslim taxes; as it is, the reference to zakat is dubious. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Business about shaking by the throat

|left|thumb|100px|"Pay the Jizyah !!!"

If you're going to quote a source, provide bibliographic specifics of it, or a link to that source, not some POV rant that talks about it.

The link cited reads in part:

Needless to say, every single aspect of jihãd is aimed at the ultimate Islamic objective of conquering the whole world for Islam,

... which leads me to suspect that it may not be entirely objective. See Jihad. BrandonYusufToropov 13:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Al-Zamakhshari, a prominent comentator on the Koran explicated Sura 9.29 as meaning " the Jizyah shall be taken from them with belittlement and humiliation. The dhimmi shall come in person, walking not riding. When he pays, he shall stand, while the tax collector sits. The collector shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him, and say "Pay the Jizyah!" and when he pays it he shall be slapped on the nape of the neck." Ibn Warraq p 228-9 translation of Al-Zamakhshari

As you have asked, so it has been done. See the comment in the text. Klonimus 06:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, good point Klonimus, and in any event the original source provided a quote, which is what was used. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, I still don't see your response to any of these points. It's hard to understand how the legal rulings of Muslim legal authorities on how Jizyah is applied can be counted as "criticism". Jayjg ^(talk) 14:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

It was Ibn Warraqs translation, I don't trust him as an unbiased source to translate the commentary of medieval scholars.Yuber^(talk) 14:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

So it's a "criticism" because you don't trust the translator? And yet there is another source saying essentially the same thing; are they both bad translators? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Ibn Warraq has a far better grasp of english than do most muslims who attempt to translate Islamic texts into english. His translations are accurate and much more readable than most others. Klonimus 02:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just read this now. Frankly, that is an amazingly Biased orientalist statement. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of Muslims who translate Islamic and Arabic Literature into English. What marks Ibn Warraq as unique is that he is of an Anti-Islamic disposition and discards pieces of text he disaproves of. Sheikh Kabbani can give a translation of the same text yet his tranlation will contain quite a bit more. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:35, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where I said anything biased, IMHO Ibn Warraq writes better in english about Islamic topics than lots of other people writing about Islamic topics in english. As for the bit under question, Jayjg provided a different translation that said subtantially the same thing, except that Ibn Warraq's translation was more readable. Do you have evidence that Ibn Warraqdiscards pieces of text he disaproves of ? Klonimus 03:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The Caliph Umar changed the word jizyah to sadaqah to improve its connotation from "tribute" to "friendly charity".

Yuber, you keep inserting the text "The Caliph Umar changed the word jizyah to sadaqah to improve its connotation from "tribute" to "friendly charity"." There are a number of issues with this:

1. Your source does not say "friendly charity".
2. There is no indication that Umar's alternative tax was ever used except in reference to one specific Christian tribe, which is already mentioned.
3. Clearly it was called still called jizyah for many, many, centuries after Umar made this accomodation with this one specific tribe; this isolated renaming/replacement of jizyah with something else was a one-off incident, and so does not belong in the definition of jizyah, but rather where it actually is, in the description of what Umar did with that one tribe.

-- Jayjg ^(talk) 14:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Bat Ye'or questions wheather the christians were really happy to pay twice as much tax under the name of "friendly charity". Klonimus 17:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Arabic root of the word jizyah

Since there are actually Muslim sources given in the article for the meaning and the root of the word jizyah, and they differ, it would be best if any unsourced claims to its meaning, and original research arguments about it, be left out of the article. In particular, claims about it possibly being non-monetary seem to have no basis in any sources or reality, since all the sources indicate it was understood and applied as a monetary tax. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

"'Jizya' is derived from the root "Jaza" or "compensate". Arabs usually say the phrase "Jaza, yajzi" which means "compensate" or 'reward" if a person rewards another for the service rendered by the latter." Taken from [3]Yuber^(talk) 18:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Excellent; we have another sourced definition; I'll add it. Please stop inserting your own preferences, and your original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The best source for the root meaning would be an authoritative Arabic dictionary. Anyone have one of those around? —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Would a modern Arabic dictionary be sufficient, or would we need to find one for Qur'anic Arabic? The language has evolved in the past 1400 years. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Ideally both, though Classical and Modern Standard Arabic are mutually intelligible; the meaning might have shifted over the years. There's also speculation that it's an Aramaic loanword. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

So what's your position on Yubder's inserting one specific definition he prefers at the beginning of the article, and then listing all the other possibilities in a paragraph further down? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Not speaking Arabic, I have no opinion on the matter. Yuber, do you speak Arabic? —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, please respond here in talk: rather than continually inserting original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Your own source confirmed my views, and I doubt that you are an expert on Arabic roots so it should stay.Yuber^(talk) 18:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

And indeed it is in there, as one possibility. Now please stop inserting "original research"; who, besides you, has ever brought up the idea that the compensation might not be monetary? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that jizyah is not monetary, I said the word in the Qur'an is not monetary. The literal translation of tax is dareebay, and the word had existed long before Islam in Arabic and still exists today as the word for tax. Jizyah was an Islamic term derived from the Qur'an.Yuber^(talk) 19:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

What's the difference? Why do you keep mentioning it, when no-one else does, and when sharia and practice have clearly defined it as monetary? Also, why do you keep inserting the etymology before we even see the source, and your own preferred etymology at that? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The difference is very simple, if you want to quote out of the Qur'an you can't say it is monetary because the word jizyah does not refer to a monetary sum. The application under the Islamic state was monetary and that is explicated clearly in the article.Yuber^(talk) 19:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

But the article doesn't say it was monetary; you're arguing against a point that hasn't been made in the first place. Your original argument doesn't belong. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The article says that the imposition of jizya was mandated by the sura, when in fact it was the word jizya that was derived from the sura, not the actual practical definition of a monetary tax.Yuber^(talk) 19:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The Sura itself says that imposition of jizyah is mandated; it just doesn't explain what jizyah is. The derivation of a monetary tax from that is explained in the article. Who says that the jizyah is not mandated by the Sura listed? I'm finding this constant arguing with what the Sura itself says, and counter arguments for what the article does not say, to be very tiresome. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone watching this talk page read enough Arabic to tell us if جِزْيَةَ transliterates to jizyah? Like I said, I don't know Arabic, but by careful reading of the Arabic alphabet article I can see that it has what seem to be the right letters (jīm-zāy-yāʾ-hāʾ) in the right order with the right vowels, and I found it in the right place. Searching it in a modern English-French-Arabic dictionary turns up this page, which gives various meanings, all having to do with taxes. That page also provides links to an entry in an Arabic lexicon, but that I can't read. —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Requested move to jizya

After editing this article for a while I've noticed that whenever I control+f for jizyah in any of the translations it doesn't come up, and instead the translations all use "jizya". This article should be moved there to avoid discrepancies.Yuber^(talk) 19:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Once you remove the Google ghosts, "jizyah" gets 452 hits vs. "jizya" which gets 436. It seems "jizyah" is slightly more popular, but I'll check Yahoo too. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The comparable numbers for Yahoo are 997 and 997. Hmm, something funny there. Anyway, lets wait till you're all done with the original research, apologetics, and reverting without Talk: justification or even meaningful Talk: comment. Once the article has calmed down and you've decided to follow Wikipedia policy, we can change the name if necessary. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I will wait for you to finish your reverts as well. Your changing of all "jizya" back to "jizyah" isn't appreciated either.Yuber^(talk) 20:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

There's no evidence that "jizya" is significantly more popular, so why should we change it? Once you stop constantly reverting and let the article settle down, we can look at that calmly. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Very cursory search: I'm seeing Jizya being used more widely in the scholarship: Journal of World History, Third World Quarterly, Review of International Studies, Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, The Journal of the Historical Society, Middle Eastern Studies, Comparative Studies in Society and History, journals.cambridge.org, research.yale.edu, tc.columbia.edu, sscnet.ucla.edu, et cetera, etc.

Jizyah produces less than a fifth the results. I'll list the first few: The Muslim World, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Journal of Early Christian Studies, Terrorism and Political Violence, Islamic Research and Training Institute, Journal of Political Ideologies , journals.cambridge.org, carlisle-www.army.mil, american.edu, muse.jhu.edu, etc. El_C 00:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You've used Jizyah for both, so I'm not sure which is which. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Heh! Sorry, emberassing typo. El_C 01:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

So you think a move to jizya makes sense then? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, my findings perhaps suggest a shift towards a more 'Anglicanized' form, as is seen for example, in Mizrahi (~9000 scholarly hits) versus (redirection to) Mizrachi (~2500 hits). El_C 02:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, if no-one raises any objections over the next day, then a move would make sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Since no objections were raised, I've moved the article to the new name. El_C 11:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Removed quote about letter attributed to Muhammad

I searched all over and I found no other source for that strange letter, given the fact that he was illiterate and all letters sent during his time weren't even written by him. For example, the letter to King Yadzegard was written by Khalid ibn Walid. Also, the site that was put as a source is a totally anti-Islamic site. Until that letter can be sourced from somewhere else, that site does not have enough credibility for that quote to stay.Yuber^(talk) 02:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, I don't think you're a particularly reasonable arbiter of which sites are "reliable" or not. The site doesn't claim that Muhammad wrote it himself, but rather that he had it sent. It gives a proper footnote for the source of the quote. Why don't you get hold of the source in question, and look it up, if you don't think it is actually in there. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The Hedaya's definition of jizyah

Yuber, the Hedaya says jizyah means "retribution", and defines it as "a species of punishment, inflicted upon infidels on account of their infidelity, whence it is termed Jizyat". Can you please explain why you keep removing this definition from the Definitions section, which lists various definitions of jizyah, and putting it in the Applications/Islamic Legal Commentaries section, which lists different Islamic Legal Commentaries describing how it should be applied? It's clearly a definition, not a commentary on how it should be applied. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not a definition because it is part of legal commentary. A speciers of punishment inflicted upon the infidels is a description of how it should be applied.Yuber^(talk) 21:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? In his legal commentary he defines jizyah, just as everyone else does. Also, you've (again) deleted all sorts of well sourced material, and put your own favorite definition up top, failing to recognize the various alternatives. Please stop this behaviour. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The Muhammad letter is not well-sourced, and you know it. Your failure to find a reliable source leaves me with no choice but to remove it.Yuber^(talk) 21:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

It's quite clearly and well sourced; go look it up in the book referenced if you don't believe its accurate. And, of course, you keep inserting your preferred definition above the source, and you keep moving definitions you don't like out of the definition section, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

For such a well sourced letter, it's a surprise that only an anti-Islamic site has it. You know as well as I do that the source of that letter is Moshe Gil. Not to be judgemental here, but I doubt that Moshe Gil would be an unbiased or accurate source. Until you can find an ACCURATE source about that letter I will have to keep removing it, or at the very least insert a lengthy disclaimer about it.Yuber^(talk) 21:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Your personal doubts and POV are pretty irrelevant to whether or not it is properly sourced, don't you think? Do you have any evidence that the source or the quote is inaccurate, besides your own prejudices? Are you planning to make up your own personal disclaimer as well? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any source (that doesn't cite Moshe Gil), Muslim or secular, besides Moshe Gil's that contains this letter?Yuber^(talk) 22:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Gil seems a pretty solid academic source: PhD in Oriental Studies, author of many books on the subject area, prize winner, etc.[4] Do you have any reason whatsoever to believe he is unreliable, other than personal prejudice? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

"Middle East scholars have lauded "A History of Palestine, 634-1099" as the most comprehensive historiography of Palestine from the initial Arab Muslim conquests, until the arrival of the Crusaders in 1099. Remarkably, despite the constraints of academic annotation, and the uncertainties of translation (i.e., from Hebrew to English), Professor Gil's narrative is eminently readable for the non-professional student of history. Through the clear, dispassionate presentation of a rich profusion of data, he captures the stark, unromantic reality of Muslim ruled Palestine during this 465-year period." Jayjg ^(talk) 22:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

"Moshe Gil's history of Palestine from the Muslim conquest to the Crusades is the first comprehensive survey of its kind. Based on an impressive array of sources, the author examines the lives of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim communities of Palestine against a background of the political and military events of the period. This study will be an essential resource for students and specialists in mediaeval Islamic and Jewish history and religious studies". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Pro-Israelis praising Moshe Gil does not refer to the specific argument that I made. Where did Moshe Gil get this letter? If it actually existed it would be found in many more places. I can come up with a number of Arab authors that have quotes attributed to Israelis such as Ariel Sharon and the like; but I have a feeling you'd instantly revert me if I put one of those quotes in Ariel Sharon's page without even adding a disclaimer to where it came from. Once again, until you can find a source, Muslim or secular (that doesn't cite Moshe Gil), I will have to keep removing this letter.Yuber^(talk) 22:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting, then, that his argument is (widely) disputed in the scholarship, Yuber? El_C 22:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't care less if Moshe Gil was a Palestinian. All I'm asking for is a Muslim or secular source that doesn't cite Moshe Gil that has this letter. Once again, at the very LEAST there should be a disclaimer. By the way, I added Sharon's quote to the Sharon page, let's see how long it takes you to revert me ;)...Yuber^(talk) 22:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Excuse me, Yuber, but you have failed to address my question. Hmm, I seem to be invisible here; let's see if my reverts are noticed at least... El_C 06:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

---

You want to see how long it takes for me to revert a known internet hoax? The quote is actually taken from a fictional work In the Land of Israel by Amos Oz, and has been attributed on propaganda sites to Sharon. See [5] [6]etc. This is an egregious display of bad faith and WP:POINT on your part, Yuber. There is no-one who claims that Gil's scholarship is faulty, or this quote false, except you. Please stop this disruptive behaviour. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

You're engaging in a huge double-standard. I ask you to find another source that has this quote but you say Moshe Gil is a very reliable source. However, when I source a quote about Sharon you say it's been proven a hoax. So Deborah Sassner has the ability to prove things as hoaxes now just because she writes for a neo-conservative newspaper with ads for Reagan t-shirts on the site?Yuber^(talk) 00:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. The quote you have brought is from a novel by Amos Oz, and is a well-known hoax. The quote by Gil, who is a respected academic and expert in the field, is unquestioned by anyone but you. Continually inserting a known hoax into another article because you don't like an unquestioned quote from a respected academic in this article is WP:POINT at best. You are heading for an RfC if you don't stop this disruptive behaviour. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

You have ignored my question again and again. Is there any source besides Gil for this quote? I am going to insert the disclaimer now.Yuber^(talk) 00:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Why does there need to be more than one source? I recommend against inserting any original research into this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I have added the disclaimer, tell me if you have any problems with it.Yuber^(talk) 00:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Certain "red flags" should prompt editors to closely and skeptically examine the sources for a given claim.

• Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
• Surprising or important facts which are not widely known.
• Surprising or important recent events which have not been reported by reputable news media.
• Claims which are not supported or which are contradicted by the prevailing view in the scientific community.
• Claims which strongly support one or another party in an ongoing dispute (see e.g. Wikipedia:List of controversial issues)

I think this section of the article on sources in wikipedia best applies to this letter.Yuber^(talk) 00:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

POV tag

Yuber, if you're going to insert the POV tag, note its disclaimer which states: [p]lease see the relevant discussion on the talk page. That means specifically for that given insertion of the tag. Please make sure to do so for all articles. El_C 23:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The discussion above shows why I think this article is very POV. The first sentence doesn't talk about the meaning of the word and reads as if the Qur'an mandates asking for monetary tribute from someone. Also, the quote attributed to Muhammad was created by a Jewish historian and exists in no other history, Muslim or secular. This article is POV for sure.Yuber^(talk) 23:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm having difficulties following you. Note that I was the one who created this talk page, and please recall where that article was before that (edit war wise). Also, note that I reverted to YOUR version, not anyone elses. A little leeway, please. El_C 23:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

And, you have yet to answer my qeustion above; leading me to believe (still), that I am invisible to you unless I revert your changes. Moreover, your comments above are broad statements which neglect to address, conretely, any specific changes. I'm not certain how they apply to the insertion of the tag at this point in time, which I tend to view as a shortcut to discussing the issues here, and as such, strongly discourage. Of course, you are free to insert the tag just as I am fre to revert it. El_C 23:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

You didn't revert to my version. The version that exists right now isn't mine. Here's what I find POV:

• Introduction:

This intro is more NPOV and more accurate: The word itself comes from the root jaza which means compensation, though it is unclear if the Qur'an refers to a monetary one [7]. The word jizya is taken from Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an:

Jayjg's intro is highly POV because it is suggesting that the taking of a tax from someone is mandated by the Qur'an, which is totally false.

• Muhammad quote:

Not found in any other history, secular or Muslim.

• Hedayah:

Hedayah is legal commentary, not a definition. Yuber^(talk) 23:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

It dosen't matter, your name was on that revision indicating changes on your part, Yes, the above is fine as an explanation, but next time, it should be made a priori to the insertion. Anyway, it's a legal commentary with definitions, no? I'm sure this could all be qualified, but one step at a time. You don't wish for people to resist your changes simply because they are hard pressed to follow what you're doing... El_C 23:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm inclined to revert you on principle simply for you failing to address (or even acknowledge) my question in the section above. El_C 23:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber (Talk | block) (Please stop reverting a POV heading, I explained it on the talk page) — that is not a fair edit summary, I did not revert the tag once the comments were provided. El_C 23:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

What question would that be? I looked over that section and it was about Moshe Gil's letter. My contention was that it exists in no other history of Islam either Muslim or secular. You asked if Moshe Gil's argument was widely disputed in the scholarship. From the summary of his book, I take it his argument is that Muslims forcefully took over Palestine and subjected everyone to their rule and forced them to convert. In that case, his argument is widely disputed.Yuber^(talk) 23:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, yes that was it. But I was not asking about how that argument is viewed, unless it's inextricably tied to the one regarding the letter. Simply put, I am unfamilliar with his work and wanted to learn more. And, from your answer, I'm still not sure how it stands and viewed in the scholarship (though it may, indeed, provide some clues, it isn't enough at this point). I have no opinion on any of this, by the way. Are there any references you can provide where he is being criticized for this? El_C 00:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Definitions belong in the definition section

Definitions of Jizyah belong in the definition section, commentary on its application belongs in the commentary section. Please do not mistake one for the other, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk)

Following up:

1. One person says that the underlying root of the word jizyah is jaza, meaning "compensation", and defines it as "A sum of money to be put on anyone who enters the themah (protection and the treaty of the muslims) from the people of the book."
2. Another person says it derives from ’idjzã, meaning "substitute" or "sufficiency" because "it suffices as a substitute for the dhimmi's embracement of Islam."
3. A third says jizyah means "retribution", and defines it as "a species of punishment, inflicted upon infidels on account of their infidelity, whence it is termed Jizyat."

Can you explain why the statement first is a definition, but the second and third are not? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Asking again, Yuber; why do you insert your preferred definitions in the "Source" section, and remove definitions your don't like from the "Definitions" section entirely? This blatant POV pushing really must come to an end at some point, ideally voluntarily. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

No other histories (Muslim or secular)

Yuber, can you please source this claim? Have you read all other histories, Muslim and secular, to know what each one says? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Gil the Jew

Yuber, why do you insist on identifying Moshe Gil as a Jewish historian?[8] [9] I find this troubling for a couple of reasons:

1. How do you know he is a Jew? You claim he is one, and "a proud one at that", but what evidence do you have for this? Are you speculating based on his name? How do you know he is not a Muslim? Christian? Son of a Jew and a Christian woman who considers himself non-Jewish? Why do you feel your speculations can be entered as fact on Wikipedia?
2. Even more troubling, why is it relevant? You also claim "the rest of the commentators in here's religions are relevant" but have entered neither religion nor ethnicity for any of the other sources provided on this page. We quote from Norman Stillman, Fred Donner, S.D. Goitein, Thomas Arnold, Bat Yeor, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Shakir, Khalifa, Pikthal, Yusuf Ali, etc., and in no case did you find it necessary to speculate about their religion and/or ethnicity, yet for some reason here you insist on it. This looks to me like a rather crude attempt to poison the well, but I'd be interested in your explanation.

Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Would you rather the description be a professor at Tel Aviv university in Israel? The credibility of the source is in question, so he should be identified in some way.Yuber^(talk) 23:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The credibility of the source is not in question for any particular rational reason. As for his University, you don't include that for any of the other people mentioned here. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

We did before you stripped out the source citiation for one of the links. I'm going to add it back, because IMHO it's relevant. Klonimus 01:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly not included in the body of the article itself, and never has been. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

In fact, that particular commentator was never even mentioned by name, just referred to as a "modern commentator". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

4th revert

Yuber, you've reverted to your preferred order and preferred wording (The word itself comes from the root jaza which means compensation, though it is unclear if the Qur'an refers to a monetary one [10]. The word jizya is taken from Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an:) four times now. The fact that the versions are slightly different is irrelevant; this kind of gaming of the revert rule is frowned upon, and people are blocked for complex reverts all the time. I'm giving you a chance to revert back before I report you. Please take it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Um, please look at the edit history. I made an edit today, then you reverted. Then I reverted, then you reverted. Then I reverted again, then you reverted. You're on three reverts, I'm on two. Thanks.Yuber^(talk) 23:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Your first edit returned the order and wording from May 15. That counts as the first revert. I really hate to have you blocked again, Yuber, please take this opportunity to revert yourself. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

My first edit was not a revert.Yuber^(talk) 23:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Think it over very, very carefully. I'm telling you how policy is interpreted. I'll give you a few minutes. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I've been mulling bringing Yuber up for an RfC to have him limited to one revert per day on any Islamic, Middle Eastern, Israeli, or Jewish topic. Yuber seems incapable of contributing to an Islam related article without getting into a revert war with sombody. The Complex reverts, and unmarked reverts are very annoying and could be contructed as acting in bad faith Klonimus 01:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, your first edit was a revert, because you went back to a pervious edit of yours (which you have entered many times in the past) whereby you switch the imposition of with etymology in =sources=. I urge you to read the three revert policy more closely, and to revert yourself accordingly. A complex reverts is still a revert. El_C 01:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of my Edits.

• A Jizyah upon. (THis preserves Yuber's idea of the word having no intrinsic meaning, and that it was later assigned its current meaning later)
• Move the translation stuff into the source section.
• Moshe Gil of Tel Aviv University, nice NPOV way to describe him.
• Added some Info to the links section. I think it's very important to describe outbound links.

Klonimus 01:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Amendments

I made an ammendment but Yuber deliberately removed it. Please check the history!

The Jizyah is clearly an imperial tax that was imposed to humilate the non-Muslims whose lands were conquered. Therefore, I feel this should be added: "that originated from the era of Islamic Imperialism"

and I feel "protection of the Muslim community" should be ammended to "right to live among the Muslim community" since if a non-Muslim fails to pay the Jizyah he will be normally executed.

--Garywbush 17:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

This is sort of correct. The jizyah, along with certain other rules imposed on dhimmi, originated from the early era of the Arab conquests, when the Muslims were a minority military elite in the Near East. Montgomery Watt traces it to a pre-Islamic practice among the Arabian nomads wherein a strong tribe would protect its weaker neighbors in exchange for a certain tribute. And indeed, those who paid the jizyah were afforded the same protection as Muslims when the Islamic state was invaded. Also I am not sure it was the usual practice to execute those who didn't pay the tax; the Kitab al-Kharaj cited in this article recommends imprisoning those who didn't pay. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Moshe Gil

Jayjg and Klonimus have been involved in an explosion of bad faith editing on this article including removing the description of who Moshe Gil is. Listen, Moshe Gil doesn't have an article, we must describe who he is and "a professor at Tel Aviv University" is perfectly fine and NPOV. Also, the wording that Jayjg insists on using is still POV.Yuber^(talk) 23:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

You haven't identified any of the other many sources in the article, as I've stated above. Please respond to the many, many questions left for you above in talk, rather than your typical bad-faith revert warring. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate to mention that Gil is an expert on the Cairo Geniza documents, that's more relevant than his employer. I happen to have this particular book, btw, a very scholarly piece, and as I have more time, I'll try to add something to the article. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

This supposed "letter by Muhammad" predates those documents by two centuries and the letter is dated two years after Muhammad's death, therefore the "Cairo Geniza" documents are not relevant. There is a definite discrepancy here.Yuber^(talk) 00:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think MPerel said the documents were from the Geniza, but perhaps MPerel can clarify. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Right, these aren't Geniza documents, but I am merely mentioning Gil's main expertise. However, this book is a 967-page compilation (published by Cambridge University Press) of history based on manuscripts from Jewish, Arab, and Christian communities of the time. Gil has personally examined original manuscripts in their original languages and describes examining some of them by means of ultra-violet rays with the aid of special photographic facilities. There are 19 pages referenced in the index under "jizya", so I will report some of his discussion on this topic, again, as I have more time. The context of the letter to Eilat is in the book with four other surviving letters to four other communities. This letter starts out, "To Yuhanna b. Ruba and the worthies of Ayla, Peace be with you! Praised be Allah, there is no God save Him. I have no intention of fighting you before writing to you. Thou has to accept Islam, or pay the tax, ...." The footnote gives the amount of the tax levied on the people of Ayla according to Waqidi as "300 dinars annually, for there were 300 men there." The other three letters besides the one to Eilat were to the people of Jarba, Adhruh, and Maqna. More later, probably in a few days... --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Btw, I'll add one more thing before I take off, the footnote to this particular letter makes reference to several other sources concerning this letter. It's quite a lengthy footnote, but I'll just list the other sources he cites who also reference details about the letter: Ibn Sa'd, Waqidi, Tabari, Baladhuri, Ibn Hisham, Mas'udi, Abu 'Ubayd, Dhahabi, Diyarbakri, Ibn 'Asakir, Ibn al-Athir. I'm assuming these other sources are mostly in Arabic.

Explanation for changes

I removed the Sahih Muslim section jayjg added because I noticed that all of the information was very redundant, and was already stated later in the article. I also sourced some quotes and added an explanation for the claim that male non-Muslims who served in the military were exempt from jizya, as that claim was challenged in the article on dhimmi.Yuber^(talk) 23:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Shahih Muslim section is another set of perfectly valid hadith, and they are different hadith from the other ones mentioned. As for your other edits, you conspicuously failed to mention your revert of a POV definition of jizya into the Sources section. You have spent several weeks tendentiously editing this article with little or no justification for your edits, and misleading edit summaries. Your goodwill period has expired. From now on, unless you actually discuss your changes first, and get consensus, they will simply be reverted. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

You can revert as many times as you want, I will continue to edit. You seem to be the only one who reverts me minutes after I make an edit, and all that you just said about me could very easily be said against you.Yuber^(talk) 23:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, you really need to try and work with other people. Your constant reverting is thought by many people to rude and insulting. I understand that you feel that some people are trying to fill wikipedia with anti-islamic bais. But constantly reverting back to your own version, shows a deep lack trust and respect for your fellow editors.Klonimus 06:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Do what you like Yuber, but if you can't learn to work with other editors, and can't learn to edit in order to improve the article, rather than pushing POVs, your edits will not remain. In particular, if you continue to revert to insert your preferred definition of jizya, and original research regarding its meaning, into the Sources section, you will be reverted, and I will not be bothering to try to "save" any other edits you might have made, nor even bothering to comment in the edit summary; you have my comment here, simply apply it whenever this happens. If you have any substantive positive contibutions to make, and wish them not to be reverted out of hand, make them in separate edits prior to your inevitable revert to your POV introduction. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

As for the sahih, look at this sentence in the article:

Jizya was levied in the time of Muhammad on vassal tribes under Muslim protection, including Jews in Khaybar, Christians in Najran, and Zoroastrians in Bahrain. W. Montgomery Watt traces its origin to a pre-Islamic practice among the Arabian nomads wherein a powerful tribe would agree to protect its weaker neighbors in exchange for a tribute, which would be refunded if the protection proved ineffectual.5 The sahih is redundant in that all that information was already present and it was an obvious POV ploy by you to restate it.Yuber^(talk) 23:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

LOL! To begin with, the section on the hadith is comprehensively listing the various hadith in which the concept of jizyah is discussed. Moreover, when you look at that particular collection of hadith, it becomes quite clear that there is one verse in particular (actually two) which are contained in no other collections of hadith, nor discussed anywhere in the article. Of course, you deleted those unique hadiths as well; I wonder why? Could it be that you thought they reflected negatively on jizya, and deleted them all for that reason? Why of course, since your edits have, since the start of this page, been purely for the purpose of inserting apologetics and POV, and removing or discrediting anything you thought might reflect negatively on jizya. In any event, the hadith section is a comprehensive listing, and all hadith currently there will remain. I plan to add other hadith as time permits and as I am able to find them, and they will remain as well, whether they reflect positively or negatively on jizya. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Concur with Jayjg. Yuber does show a disturbing habit of making edits that, since the start of this page, been purely for the purpose of inserting apologetics and POV, and removing or discrediting anything Yuber thought might reflect negatively on jizya.Klonimus 01:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The hadiths were all very redundant and were already talked about in the article, I cited them as sources in the history of jizya. Your paragraph contains no specific points except an analysis of my edits. As for you, Jayjg, you have engaged in complex reverting as well and have reinstated your POV definition over and over again. You can add hadith, but if they are redundant and already cited then I will remove them.Yuber^(talk) 05:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the hadiths were not summarized anywhere; I challenge you to point out where. In any event, the hadith section will be comprehensive. The Source section contains no definition of mine at all, much less a "POV" one; please stop trying to insert a POV definition into it. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The hadiths were just references for the history section. I already pointed out where above.Yuber^(talk) 05:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the hadiths were the hadiths, not references for the history section; please stop removing them, and in particular please stop removing the ones you don't like - it betrays a dismaying POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

History section

Is there any way we can move the history section up towards the top, preferably after the lead? Either that or expand the lead by incorporating main points from the history section; this would help the general audience. As it stands right now, the article is not easy to read. As an outsider, I would like to be drawn into the article, learning more about the concept as I go along. --Viriditas | Talk 02:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I also think it would be of benefit to start the article with an origins of section. See also Charles' comment three sections up. El_C 04:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Good ideas; go for it. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was (sorta!) hoping you would volunteer to author it, Jay, as you obviously know a great deal more about this topic than myself. El_C 01:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

You're the historian, not me. :-) Perhaps MPerel can work on it, she has the big book on it. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm primarily an historian of 20th Century central Africa though, so my knowledge of Jizya is truly dismal. Yes, perhaps we should ask her nicely to write it (I'm only saying that since I don't think intimidation would work – otherwise naturally, that would be my first recourse). El_C 16:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

What about splitting most of the Hadith out of the article Jizyah (Sources). I appreacite your work Jayjg, in ducmenting mention of Jizya in the Hadith, however it seems to me that Hadith are in general too obscure for a general purpose article.Klonimus 01:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

It's still a small article, no need to start breaking out sub-articles yet. But I take your point, I'll move them down lower, into the Islamic legal stuff, so they aren't as prominent. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The hadiths were all very redundant so I just cited them in the history section. I also reinstated the NPOV definition and reinserted removed quotes.Yuber^(talk) 05:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, it is customary to discuss before making such drastic changes to an article. You've made very substantial unsourced changes, and deleted alot of unique information. Without discussion, such actions might be viewed by some as inserting POV or even vandalism. I encourage you to discuss specific changes, especially ones so substantial.

Guy Montag 05:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this page because of the longstanding revert war between Yuber and other editors, which seems always to hinge on the same few sentences. Please provide reputable sources to show that your edits are correct; if the dispute can't be sorted out that way, then formal or informal mediation might help. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:08, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

What exactly is disputed?

Can we make a list of all the disputed things in this article? Klonimus 07:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

1. Imposition of Jizya text.

Yay !! a brand new Yuber revert war.

Jesus wept, Yuber, you need to stop trying to insert your favored NPOV which by concensus was rejected. And obeying the 3RR would also be nice. Klonimus 03:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yuber back AGAIN?

I see Yuber's already back - as usual, he just waited for the ban to be up, then started pushing POV.Enviroknot 03:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this because Yuber has reverted to the same passage 25 times in just over a month, and there's no sign he's going to stop. The passage he wants is: ""The word jizya is taken from Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an, though it is unclear if it is referring to an actual monetary sum. Many commentators disagree on what the definition of jizya is, though some believe it to be mandated ..."

Other editors want: "The imposition of jizya upon non-Muslims is mandated by Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an."

I'm therefore assuming the only difference between you is the mandatory nature of the tax. Perhaps someone could check for references to add to the text, either showing it to be regarded by most scholars as mandatory, or showing there to be doubt among scholars. Let me know when you'd like to start editing it again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:52, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the issue here is that Yuber's whole insertion is POV and irrelevant. For example, "though it is unclear if it is referring to an actual monetary sum"; who said it was in the first place? When someone answers a question that no-one is asking, that's a clear indication of POV-pushing. Similarly, "Many commentators disagree on what the definition of jizya is"; what is the point of this? We give a whole section on the various definitions, why stick this in the section describing the source? Again, obvious POV pushing. Finally, "though some believe it to be mandated"; every single Muslim source I have found (not "some") attribute it to this verse in the Qur'an, including every source given at the end of the article. If Yuber has many sources which attribute it to some other source (which his "some" would imply), let him bring them forward. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rearrangement of the article

I propose to rearrange the article as follows:

1. Quotes from hadiths should be moved from Application to Sources (renamed from Source), after Sura 9:29;
2. The sentence "Shakir and Khalifa's English translations of the Qur'an render jizya as "tax", while Pickthal translates it as "tribute". Yusuf Ali prefers to transliterate the term as jizyah." should be moved from Sources to Definition;
3. Islamic Legal commentary should be a separate section;
4. Resources should be changed to References.--Pecher 14:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)