| Revision as of 22:21, 13 May 2005 editJayjg (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 edits →The Hedaya's definition of jizyah← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:37, 26 September 2024 edit undoSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,556,589 editsm Signing comment by 2600:8800:1FE0:4000:7024:A559:5C20:9A59 - "→This article needs a paragraph to portray secular view of jizya: " | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Not a forum}} | |||
| ==Imposition vs. derived== | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell |class=C|1= | |||
| <code>The sura from which the word ''jizyah'' is derived is Sura 9.29 of the ], though its specific meaning is not defined there:</code> | |||
| {{WikiProject Religion |importance=Low |Interfaith=yes |InterfaithImp= }} | |||
| {{WikiProject Islam|importance=Mid}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Taxation }} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{archive box |search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=3 |units=months |auto=yes |index=/Archive index}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| |counter = 10 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 3 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(90d) | |||
| |archive = Talk:Jizya/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | |||
| }} | |||
| == Sources == | |||
| ''viz.'' | |||
| An article on a sensitive topic like this one should restrict itself to the best academic sources and avoid apologists for either side. Currently the article fails in this respect and this has to be fixed. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
| <code>The imposition of ''jizyah'' is mandated by Sura 9.29 of the ], though its specific meaning is not defined there:</code> | |||
| :Both of these authors are highly unreliable sources for topics related to Islam. Yeor is creator of the ] conspiracy theory, and her former husband Littman was an activist not an academic. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)</small> | |||
| 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 form, 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. ] 06:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] has an ]== | |||
| 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.]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 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. | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''' has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the ''']'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 16:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::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.]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 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. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 07:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == This article needs a paragraph to portray secular view of jizya == | |||
| 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? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 19:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The entire article is a depiction of Islamic thought on jizya. It's too cumbersome to undo years of history whitewashing. Hence I propose addition of a new paragraph titled "Secular view of Jizya". Any objections to creating this new sub section may be recorded here. <i>]</i> 03:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Discuss here please. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 20:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| It isn't really. It makes no discussion about Jizya versus the system of taxation that existed prior to Islam, which was very oppressive and a major reason so many provinces defected from the Roman Empire with minimal resistence. It also doesn't discuss <i>why</i> Muslims were exempt from the tax - they were required to perform many activities we now associate with state functions, like caring for the poor, education, and so on. Reading the article, one would assume the Roman Empire and Persian Empire were places of pristine economic liberation, which was far from the case. Then there is the issue of usury, which was the real tool of oppression of citizens of pre-Islamic Rome and Persia. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Here please, Yuber. Right here. Here's where we can discuss your proposed change. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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.]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 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? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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? | |||
| <blockquote>"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"</blockquote>]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 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. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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.]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 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. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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. ] 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.]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 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. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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. ] 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 ] as "criticisms". ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 07:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Heh, ''I'' only deleted unsourced material. :p ] 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." ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 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. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 07:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::You started the moving, Jayjg, without discussing it or even summarizing it.]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 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. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 07:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So we both have been moving things, your point is?]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 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. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 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. ] 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. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:36, May 8, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yes, it would, instead of his repeated complex reverts. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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.]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 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. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 07:34, 8 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Surely there is, in the pertinent historiography, scholars who criticize these critics and their criticism. ] 07:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not sure what you mean; you meant there are scholars who criticize the legal works of ] and ]? Also, it's hard not to see how a sentence which specifically defines the terms can't be a definition. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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. ] 08:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The criticisms I brought from them are one whole sentence. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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. ] 08:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Well, originally it was several paragraphs of pure original research. Now it is three paragraphs, all well cited. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 08:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Yes, <u>well done!</u> Indeed, it was "several paragraphs of pure original research," which is why I deleted the whole thing on sight. :) ] 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" 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" ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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. ] 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? ] 08:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Even worse, it's ]. 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. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 08:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Good call. ] 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. ] 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. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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[REDACTED] as a reference to itself. Saying that Jizyah violates the provisions of the ] 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. ] 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 ] 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''. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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 ]. It is also prohibited by ] and ]s to the ]. '''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.] 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? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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.]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 07:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, first of all, that they are all of "unverifiable authenticity" is your opinion; the Misplaced Pages article on ] 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 Misplaced Pages they would require the words "of unverifiable authenticity" appended to them, which is simply silly. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 07:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: Well Jayjg, ] claims and provides good evidence to support the conclusion that pretty much all ] are of ''unverifiable authenticity''. How ever I think we should accept that hadith thought to be authentic by mainstream ] are indeed authentic.] | |||
| == 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. --] 12:34, May 8, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ** Well, if you read ] 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 ], while the ] is proportional and included an exemption to correct for any regressive nature. ] 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. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 15:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Business about shaking by the throat == | |||
| ] | |||
| 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 ]. ] 13:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Al-], a prominent comentator on the Koran explicated Sura 9.29 as meaning " the Jizyah shall be taken from them with belittlement and humiliation. The ] 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-] | |||
| :: As you have asked, so it has been done. See the comment in the text. ] 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. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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". ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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.]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 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? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 14:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: ] 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. ] 02:08, 12 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: | |||
| # Your source does not say "friendly charity". | |||
| # There is no indication that Umar's alternative tax was ever used except in reference to one specific Christian tribe, which is already mentioned. | |||
| # 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. | |||
| -- ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 14:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * ] questions wheather the christians were really happy to pay twice as much tax under the name of "friendly charity". ] 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. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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 ]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 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. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 18:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The best source for the ] meaning would be an authoritative Arabic dictionary. Anyone have one of those around? —]] 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. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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. —]] 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? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 20:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Not speaking Arabic, I have no opinion on the matter. Yuber, do you speak Arabic? —]] 01:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Yuber, please respond here in talk: rather than continually inserting original research. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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.]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 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? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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.]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 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? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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.]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 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. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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.]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 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. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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 ] article I can see that it has what seem to be the right letters ({{unicode|jīm}}-{{unicode|zāy}}-{{unicode|yāʾ}}-{{unicode|hāʾ}}) in the right order with the right vowels, and I found it in . Searching it in a modern English-French-Arabic dictionary turns up , which gives various meanings, all having to do with taxes. That page also provides links to an , but that I can't read. —]] 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.]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 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. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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 Misplaced Pages policy, we can change the name if necessary. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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.]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 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. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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. | |||
| ] 00:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :You've used '''Jizyah''' for both, so I'm not sure which is which. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 01:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Heh! Sorry, emberassing typo. ] 01:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::So you think a move to ''jizya'' makes sense then? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 01:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, my findings perhaps suggest a shift towards a more 'Anglicanized' form, as is seen for example, in ] (~9000 scholarly hits) versus <small>(redirection to)</small> ] (~2500 hits). ] 02:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, if no-one raises any objections over the next day, then a move would make sense. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 02:27, 12 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.]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 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. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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.]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 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. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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.]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 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. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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.]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 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? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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?]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 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. Do you have any reason whatsoever to believe he is unreliable, other than personal prejudice? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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." ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 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". ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 22:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:37, 26 September 2024
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jizya. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jizya at the Reference desk. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Sources
An article on a sensitive topic like this one should restrict itself to the best academic sources and avoid apologists for either side. Currently the article fails in this respect and this has to be fixed. Zero 14:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Both of these authors are highly unreliable sources for topics related to Islam. Yeor is creator of the Eurabia conspiracy theory, and her former husband Littman was an activist not an academic. nableezy - 17:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Timeline of antisemitism has an RfC
Timeline of antisemitism has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. patsw (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
This article needs a paragraph to portray secular view of jizya
The entire article is a depiction of Islamic thought on jizya. It's too cumbersome to undo years of history whitewashing. Hence I propose addition of a new paragraph titled "Secular view of Jizya". Any objections to creating this new sub section may be recorded here. PastaMonk 03:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
It isn't really. It makes no discussion about Jizya versus the system of taxation that existed prior to Islam, which was very oppressive and a major reason so many provinces defected from the Roman Empire with minimal resistence. It also doesn't discuss why Muslims were exempt from the tax - they were required to perform many activities we now associate with state functions, like caring for the poor, education, and so on. Reading the article, one would assume the Roman Empire and Persian Empire were places of pristine economic liberation, which was far from the case. Then there is the issue of usury, which was the real tool of oppression of citizens of pre-Islamic Rome and Persia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1FE0:4000:7024:A559:5C20:9A59 (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Categories: