![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
"Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the legal superstructure that global jihadists are laboring to restore everywhere in the Islamic world, and wish ultimately to impose on the entire human race." i'm pretty sure I've read this as a quote of someone else. I'm not sure, just noting BelalHaniffa 04:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
How does one pronounce dhimmitude? Can we have some sort of indication within the article? -- Hyphen5 03:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The intro per WP:Lead should touch the main points in this article. -- Aminz 22:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The definition in the intro is this: "[Dhimmitude] is a characterization of non-Muslims as submitting to Muslim authority or intimidation." The definition Lewis used it this: "subservience and persecution and ill treatment." As you can plainly see, Lewis was not saying that "non-Muslims submitting to Muslim authority or intimidation" does not exist. Saying otherwise is either a poor understanding of the English involved or a bad-faith effort to push personal POV. Arrow740 10:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The other definition is also added. WP:Lead says: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any." -- Aminz 07:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It is also Mark Cohen's view. I am sure I can find more. The way to go is not to remove Lewis et al but to add more views. Even if it was only Lewis's view, it had a place in intro. -- Aminz 07:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
We are concerned specifically with the concept of Dhimmitude here and quotes on this topic are relevant. Please find other sources and add them as well. Removing Lewis's view isn't the best way of achieving NPOV, if you believe there are really respected scholars who agree with Bat Ye'or. Honestly, I haven't seen any real source. -- Aminz 07:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It has a meaningful reference. Per WP:Lead, negative or positive views should both be included in the intro. It is important to mention that for some scholars like Lewis this concept is a myth. -- Aminz 18:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Aminz. I thought were agreeing BUT now the reverting again! To the same mispresent I thought youre agreeing isn't fair. Its already being in the article in a fair form. why do you keep adding the misrepresent to the introduction? Opiner 07:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Opiner, WP:Lead says: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any."-- Aminz 03:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Youre not doing that on Historical Persecution by Jews and youre making up that whole article yourself! Opiner 03:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
That article is just started and you are welcome to edit it. Please discuss that on the relevant talk page. There are notable controversies over Dhimmitude and the intro should touch them. The definitions given in the intro differ from that of Lewis, so they should be included. -- Aminz 03:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
As a reader actually unfamiliar with the term, I read the entire article looking for a definition of the term and found none in the article. I understand from the discussion pages that the definition of the term is in dispute, but the introduction seems to consist of the etymology of the word and an explanation that the word is difficult to define. That's weak. It wasn't until I read the discussion page, and found Arrow740's quotation of an older version of the intro that I found a usable definition, "[Dhimmitude] is a characterization of non-Muslims as submitting to Muslim authority or intimidation." I would suggest that the maintainers of this article put a little bit of the energy they've put previously into wrangling, into actually providing a clear, coherent definition for readers unfamiliar with the subject matter. 24.143.148.251 20:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Should the following edit be added to the intro [2].
The argument for its addition is that WP:Lead says: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any." Please also have a look at the discussion below.
Lewis is alone in using the word in the way he does. This article is about the neologism, not the concept of dhimmi. His passing incorrect reference to the word does not belong in the introduction. Arrow740 05:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
This article is about the neologism, not the concept of dhimmi. His passing incorrect reference to the word does not belong in the introduction. You need to understand that Islam is the only religion that mandates that minorities be treated poorly, and this is a sign that it should be ended. Arrow740 06:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The regulation was developed as the Islamic regulations of Dhimmis and it was progressive in its time. Many of these regulations are not Islamic per say. They were copied from other sources. Many of the Dhimmi regulations has now been abolished. -- Aminz 06:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Right. Polytheism is a more tolerant than Monotheism. Please read this passage from Mark Cohen explaining the reason Monotheist religions are not tolerant. [3] . After making that general comment he says that: "Thus it is not surprising that the Medieval Islam should have persecuted non-Muslims just as Medieval Christianity persecuted Jews (and also Muslims) and as Judaism should have persecuted pagan Idumeans, forcibly converting them to Judaism. When all is said and done, however, the historical evidence indicates that the Jews of Islam, especially during the formative and classical centuries, experienced much less persecution than did the Jews of Christendom..." -- Aminz 06:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW, We should not forget that monotheism has also played its significant role in human history. For example much of the ethical progress of humanity is due to the monotheistic religions. For example, back to 2000 years ago, "Charity in the Jewish and Christian sense was unknown to the pagan world. Pagans did not notice the very poor at all except when they became politically threatening. Assistance was almost always confined to citizens. Slaves and outsiders were ignored when in distress; except in special circumstances, their problems were not the concern of the ordinary man. In Rome the very poor either starved or left the city. Begging was a hazardous occupation; in the eyes of a moralist like Seneca, it was in order but neither necessary nor important to be kind to the poor and the miserable. Free men preferred to surround themselves with their fellow-citizens and to direct their gifts to those whose social and political standing mattered. Both in the city of Rome and in Egyptian township of Oxyrhynchyus free corn was given not to the povetry-stricken but to the privileged among the plebs."-- Aminz 06:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The ethical progress comes from Christianity. Muslims ethics are an improvement on pagan Arab ethics but are still far below modern standards. We can't forget Buddhism and Jainism - which predate Christianity - either. Arrow740 09:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Aminz, you've run around probably a dozen of articles with more or less the same quotes from Lewis and Cohen. It might be high time you stopped. Beit Or 21:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
"Notable authors to have have employed the term include Oriana Fallaci, Australian prime minister John Howard, Bat Ye'or and Ayaan Hirsi Ali."
Has John Howard actually used the term "anti-dhimmitude" in his writings or speeches? I can't find any reference to this anywhere. 217.34.39.123 12:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
"..the relevant literature is extensive and includes a fair number of sophisticated case studies... for this reason, the old debate as to whether non-Muslims were generally oppressed under Muslim rule, "second-class" citizens suffering from Islamic fanaticism and oriental despotism, or whether, on the contrary, tolerance was the distinguishing feature of Islam...need not detain us long: neither the "black myth" nor the "white" one does any justice to the complexity of the historical experience, which, unsurprisingly, was characterised by various shades of grey. (Footnote) For the "black myth" see particularly Bat Yeor(1985) and Martin Gilbert (1975). Both have had a marked influence on Western perceptions of the status of Jews in Islam and and are frequently quoted as evidence of deep-rooted Islamic fanatacism, anti-Judaism, and indeed anti-Semitism." Anti-Semitism in the Muslim World: A Critical Review' Krämer, Gudrun; Die Welt des Islams, Volume 46, Number 3, 2006 , pp. 243-276(34). I'm not sure if this can be used in the section on reactions, but it deals with the question of 'myths' directly. Hornplease 20:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Can someone give sources that suggest this is relevant to this topic? Bless sins ( talk) 18:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Here are three quotes I've removed for lacking any context or assertion of importance. Spencer's is the most objectionable, since he's an author, not a scholar. I've placed them on the talk page for anyone who wants to add them use them appropriately:
Bat Yeor's definition:
"As for the concept of dhimmitude, it represents a behavior dictated by fear ( terrorism), pacifism when aggressed, rather than resistance, servility because of cowardice and vulnerability. The origin of this concept is to be found in the condition of the Infidel people who submit to the Islamic rule without fighting in order to avoid the onslaught of jihad. By their peaceful surrender to the Islamic army, they obtained the security for their life, belongings and religion, but they had to accept a condition of inferiority, spoliation and humiliation. As they were forbidden to possess weapons and give testimony against a Muslim, they were put in a position of vulnerability and humility." John W. Whitehead: Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, 5 September 2005
Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, states that
"If we look at the considerable literature available about the position of Jews in the Islamic world, we find two well-established myths. One is the story of a golden age of equality, of mutual respect and cooperation, especially but not exclusively in Moorish Spain; the other is of “dhimmi”-tude, of subservience and persecution and ill treatment. Both are myths. Like many myths, both contain significant elements of truth, and the historic truth is in its usual place, somewhere in the middle between the extremes."Bernard Lewis, 'The New Anti-Semitism', The American Scholar Journal - Volume 75 No. 1 Winter 2006 pp. 25-36.
Robert Spencer author of the The Myth of Islamic Tolerance defines dhimmitude as:
Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, “protected” or “guilty” people, are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the legal superstructure that global jihadists are laboring through violence to restore everywhere in the Islamic world, and wish ultimately to impose on the entire human race.
-- Cúchullain t/ c 02:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason to delete these quotes. The term Dhimmitude itself is extremely controversial and it is necessary to see how commentators define it. There is no need to whitewash this away. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 21:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
1) Did Gemayel hold that speech in French? Otherwise, it would be not him, but his translator who coined the term. 2) Since his assassination appears to be unrelated to the speech (looks like intra-Christian clan-warfare), the fact that he was assassinated shortly after the speech, and the détour about his killer can be safely omitted, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.211.211.214 ( talk) 16:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It is one thing to say that some commentators consider dhimmi to be second class citizens. It is another thing entirely to say that the Arabic root word "dhimmi" denotes "second class". From my research into Arabic dictionaries, I have not found a single citation to support this claim. Perhaps dhimmi connotes "second class" to some people. Since there aren't any sources in the lead to begin with, I don't see how unsources, disputed content can simply be re-added. But let's work things out here on talk and not edit war. Let's start with: how can our readers verify this claim?- Andrew c [talk] 02:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about your dictionaries, but this is what I found:
1) DHIMMA, the term used to designate the sort of indefinitely renewed contract through which the Muslim community accords hospitality and protection to members of other revealed religions, on condition of their acknowledging the domination of Islam. [...]
The measures for Islamization of the state introduced by Abd al-Malik already included, as it turned out, an indirect threat to the dhimmi s; it is, however, to Umar b. Abd al-Aziz that tradition, doubtless partially based on truth, attributes the first discriminatory provisions concerning them. The only other Umayyad of note in this connexion is Yazid II, on a special matter which will be referred to later; thereafter one must come down to Harun al-Rashid, and more especially to al-Mutawakkil, to encounter a policy really hostile to the dhimmi s. But always, through the centuries, the evolution of ideas has shown two aspects at once different and interdependent. On the one hand are the doctrinaires, found mainly among the fukaha and the kadi s, who have interpreted the regulations concerning dhimma in a restrictive way, developing a programme which, if not one of persecution, is at least vexatious and repressive. From time to time a sovereign, either through Islamic zeal or through the need for popularity amongst them, ordains measures to the doctrinaires' satisfaction; sometimes, also, there are outbursts of popular anger against the dhimmi s, which in some cases arose from the places occupied by dhimmi s in the higher ranks of administration, especially that of finance. [...] It cannot be denied that from the last three or four centuries of the Middle Ages there was a general hardening against dhimmi s in Muslim countries, helped materially and morally by the change in numerical proportions. Care was in general taken that nothing in their everyday social comportment might tend to conceal the evidence of their inferiority vis-à-vis Muslims; an attempt was made to embarrass the dhimmi 's trade by regulations, always temporary, against the sale of wine; there was a growing repugnance on the part of certain Muslims to associate with non-Muslims, and their religious buildings were destroyed on various pre-texts; there was a partial exclusion of dhimmi s even from the administrative offices themselves. From this period date also treatises specially written against the dhimmi s (no longer merely religious polemics), to say nothing of chapters inserted in works of fikh. [...] In the West the Almoravids, and even more the Almohads, had adopted, earlier than the East, an intolerant policy, which is partly explained by the suspicions entertained of their Christian subjects of complicity with the Spaniards of the northern kingdoms who were already intent on the Reconquista, although the Jews suffered no less, whence for example the emigration of Maimonides to the East; dhimmi s ceased to be employed in the administration, the distinctive badges reappeared, etc. In the Maghrib there started to appear for the Jews, henceforth the only dhimmi s, special quarters (mallah, hara) which remind one of the European ghetto, and they were authorized to live in certain towns only.[...]
Encyclopedia of Islam, Article "DHIMMA"
2) Protected status which Jews had in Islamic society, being classified as People of the Book. This status entailed the payment of a special tax and the prohibition on missionarizing among Moslems. Jews had to wear distinctive dress and were granted limited rights as second-class citizens, which entailed some discrimination against employing them in government service. The killing of a Jew involved a smaller payment of blood money than the killing of a Moslem. Although their protected status enabled Jews to flourish in the Moslem world, their position was not always secure and they were sometimes forcibly converted to Islam, particularly under Shiite rule. According to a Moslem tradition, Mohammed himself will appear on Judgment Day to accuse those who harm Jews or Christians.
Dictionary of Jewish Lore & Legend, Article "dhimma"
3) Dhimmis under Islam are conquered People of the Book, i.e. with a scriptured religion (viz Jews, Christians and Parsees). They were allowed to keep their places of worship but might not build new ones. They paid a ground rent for any land which they occupied (kharaj) and the men able to bear arms paid jizya, a capitation tax, as well. They were also subject to conditions: the necessary were enforced by outlawry, the desirable less rigorously. The necessary were that they must not revile Islam, attempt to harm, convert or marry a Moslem, assist an enemy or harbour spies: the desirable, that they respect their conquerors by wearing distinctive clothing, by not building houses higher than Moslem houses or mounting horses; that they should not draw attention to their religion, or do in public what is forbidden by Islam but permitted by their religion, namely keeping pigs and drinking wine. A dhimmi could escape this social, religious and fiscal inferiority by converting to Islam and vast numbers did. They were still a social problem in all Moslem areas where power had passed to the British.
Companion to British History, Article "dhimmis"
Azate (
talk)
18:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to get rid of "Overall, this term refers to the alleged oppression suffered by dhimmis.", bcause the meanings of the term are explained only a couple of inches below; and I'd like to get rid of the "anti-dhimmitude" section, because it's kinda lame. Azate ( talk) 05:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
"If we look at the considerable literature available about the position of Jews in the Islamic world, we find two well-established myths. One is the story of a golden age of equality, of mutual respect and cooperation, especially but not exclusively in Moorish Spain; the other is of “dhimmi”-tude, of subservience and persecution and ill treatment. Both are myths. Like many myths, both contain significant elements of truth, and the historic truth is in its usual place, somewhere in the middle between the extremes."Bernard Lewis, 'The New Anti-Semitism', The American Scholar Journal - Volume 75 No. 1 Winter 2006 pp. 25-36.
The above quote is much more relevant to Dhimmitude than the one that was in the article. In general, wikipedia is not a collection of opinions. We report the facts and the readers draw their own conclusions. -- Be happy!! ( talk) 06:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Would someone please explain to me why it's a bad idea to define specifically what "dhimmitude" is? Specifically, I re-added the detail along with some edits to make the paragraph flow better. Frotz ( talk) 20:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
<--- (indent) Tosh! Yeor and Lewis are writing about historical dhimma systems. And you obviously don't know the first thing about today's Lebanon. ("dominated by radicals who terrorise the non-Muslims who didn't flee"). This is patent nonsense. Azate ( talk) 18:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I just read this article for the first time, because I read the term "dhimmitude" in an article and didn't know what it meant. However, after reading the Wikipedia article, I still don't know what it means. The article is so full of vagueness, weasel words, circumlocutions, and avoidance of being offensive, that it says little. I learned more about what the word means by reading this talk page, which contains a discussion of all the things people deliberately want excluded from the wiki page. So basically, I think this is a poorly worded article, and someone should include a section on why the word is controversial, how people really use it on the street, how its been misquoted, etc. Because right now, the article is really not useful. I'd do the changes myself but since I've only just learned what the word means, I'm not qualified. QuizzicalBee ( talk) 19:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Two of the three authors quoted (Yeor and Spencer) are anti-Islamic bigots, without the slightest trace of scholarly credentials. At the very least Yeor has been granted some de facto respect merely by speaking loudly enough for a long enough time. However, Spencer, along with his promoter Horowitz, are considered the two most vehemently bigoted American Islamophobes (according to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting); he has not even the merest coating of respectability, other than being shamelessly promoted by other Islamophobes, forming a circular cabal, whereby one is given the responsibility for producing pseudo-intellectual fodder for more public figures, and by them is given a false veneer of scholarship, thereby reinforcing the self-made image as "scholars" or "experts" and furthering the writing and publication of more non-factual, hate-filled rhetoric: this is analogous to me being an Administrator of Wikipedia, and altering facts to suit my side in an argument, and then using the "sources" of the people who have parroted what I myself have written to reference my very own words in order to legitimise them and keep them on Wikipedia. Furthermore, there is a definite lack of neutrality in which "Jihadwatch" - a hate site run by the self-same Robert Spencer, making the analogy of the Wiki Admin spot-on; it is from an interested and biased first-party with no independent verification, regardless of the point of view expressed therein. Bat Yeor's quotations are also questionable in an encyclopedic context, without a note as to her vested interests and vocal opinions on the subject; she is not a neutral third party. The references of the article must be upgraded from a smattering of notoriously Islamophobic ones, to ones from a third party with at least some semblance of neutrality (such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, as mentioned above, or at least quotations through nonbiased third parties, and not ipse dixitism such as Jihadwatch: I could just as easily say, "The Catholic Church is actually Shi'a" and be just as unbiased and "fair", and have as much credibility). The references given for this article are of exceptionally low quality; the references given for R Spencer are from Spencer himself, and therefore must be excised. Below I will list a set of references from no less than five different sources, on Robert Spencer alone (and plenty more can be found; this is essentially Google's first page, and many are secondary sources, except for FAIR, but it will be found, if you look, that they are well-referenced, unlike the current incarnation of this article. At the very least, the overtly-biased nature of some of the contributions must be pointed out within the article itself if those contributions are to remain: otherwise, some unwitting person, uneducated in the subject and using Wikipedia as a primary source (as many do, although it is bad form and discouraged) might see it as truth (and possibly perpetuate the perpetual cultural intolerance cum hatred that seems to so inflame this subject if careful checks and balances are not kept). Finally, the article reads as a slightly veiled "Enemy Within, Willing Dupes of Multiculturalism" conspiracy theory "Call to Arms" anti-Islamic polemic with vitriol substituted by faux scholarship, that I would expect to find in Pat Robertson's mouth (or, oppositely, in the mouths of those Muslims who say that 9/11/2001 is a "Conspiracy carried out by the Bush Administration at the behest of their Jewish Zionist puppet-masters"), not on Wikipedia. Bernard Lewis' quotation is nearer truth, and more importantly, comes from a recognised scholar/expert, and is independent, unbiased, and well-referenced, not a media-proclaimed "expert", proclaimed by the same people touting the opinion that is reinforced by the "expert". Shouldn't the prime claim to scholarship being the author of hate-filled supremacist rhetoric such as "The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran" and "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance" cast a somewhat more critical light on the man? The Wikipedia article on "Liberalism amongst American Jews" shouldn't be composed of quotations of Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, and Sean Hannity, and that's essentially what's being done here.
Links:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3648 http://smearcasting.com/smear_spencer.html http://spencerwatch.com/2010/08/11/robert-spencer-calls-nuke-the-muslims-crazy-lady-a-heroine/ http://smearcasting.com/case_islam.html http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/08/robert-spencer-loonwatch-one-half-of-the-leftist-mooslim-alliance/ http://www.islamophobiatoday.com/2011/03/14/christina-abraham-slams-anti-muslim-bigot-robert-spencer/ http://www.aljazeerah.info/News/2011/January/19%20n/Muslim-Basher%20and%20Islamophobe,%20Robert%20Spencer,%20Trains%20US%20Military%20Personnel%20in%20Kentucky.htm http://spencerwatch.com/about-robert-spencer/ http://spencerwatch.com/2010/08/11/is-robert-spencer-a-scholar-on-spencer%E2%80%99s-credentials-and-methodology/ http://spencerwatch.com/real-scholars-experts-on-islam/
Furthermore, http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/07/robert-spencer-rejected-by-academics-still-supports-geert-wilders/ - I think that (the article, not the link title) sums it all up. Guilt by association! 75.179.176.190 ( talk) 15:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
14:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Cuchullain's point, I fail to understand how the WP:BLP policy applies here, considering this is not a BLP at all, but simply the discussion of a term. Finally, I agree with Benwing's suggestion that Pipes might be a more reliable source for a definition than Spencer, though his role as an academic has evolved something more of an "anacademic" in recent years, to coin a neologism myself. Jemiljan ( talk) 03:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Dhimmi is a non muslim subjecting to the idears of a muslim. Dhimmitude is the behaviour of a non muslim subjecting to the idears of muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.155.60 ( talk) 07:51, November 28, 2006 (UTC)
This article is about the neologism dhimmitude, not about the historical concept of dhimmi. If you have something to add to the historical concept of dhimmi, please to go to dhimmi. Not here.
This source for example is not discussing dhimmitude. So the sentence "In modern usage, dhimmitude refers to discrimination against non-Muslims, particularly in regions where a majority of the residents are Muslim" is not supported by the source. VR talk 13:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that the second and third paragraphs in the lead say pretty much the same thing. I think they ought to be unified. In particular, the second (final) sentence in the third looks a little weird. The first sentence is "In modern usage, dhimmitude refers to discrimination against non-Muslims[1] particularly in regions where a majority of the residents are Muslim." and then the second "It also refers to discrimination of Jews and treating them like second class citizens." Is the second sentence really necessary? The cite that went along with it is just fine. -- Frotz( talk) 10:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Collectively, these ‘obligations’ formed the discriminatory system of dhimmitude imposed upon non-Muslims—Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists—subjugated by jihad.
-- Shrike ( talk) 11:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Manifestations of anti-Semitism erupted in the Arab world during the late twentieth century. However, discrimination against Jews has relegated them to second-class status under Arab hegemony (“dhimmitude”) since the successful uniting of the tribes in the Arabian peninsula by Muhammad (570–632) in the sixth century.
In Islam, freedom of faith conceded to others applies only to Jews and Christians, but it is a limited freedom and
attached to the lower legal status of dhimmitude, or believers viewed as inferior to Muslims. By modern legal standards this is a violation of the human rights-based freedom of faith, rather than a variety of tolerance as commonly seen
-- Shrike ( talk) 17:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Criticsm of the term belongs in the lede, as the lede is to reflect the overall views of the subject. The Lewis views should not be removed from the lede, nor should they be misrepresented. Lewis clearly calls it the neologism a "myth", so we're essentially representing his views on wikipedia. VR talk 15:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
This article has been the subject of a complaint at WP:AN3. Evidently some reverting is still going on. How would people feel about two weeks of full protection? If that seems too drastic, would the people who have reverted in the last 48 hours be willing to consider waiting for consensus on the talk page? I see that there was some discussion, but I don't see people waiting for support before they revert. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 01:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Is this source reliable? Maybe. The website is run by National Civic Council, a socially conservative political movement. It doesn't seem scholarly at all. But it is not questionable like Bostom.
Low-quality sources are acceptable, but I'm worried that once we allow them, the article could be flooded with references to dhimmitude from all over the internet. VR talk 21:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Some people want secondary sources that couple dhimmitude with discrimination. Here are some:
I will add these references to the article shortly.
-- Frotz( talk) 21:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
With regard to this [18]. First, I think it's pretty obvious to any outside observer that Frotz, Estlandia and a few others are tag teaming. But no, I am not - I just noticed these articles and saw the nonsense that's going on. So don't make unsupported accusations. Second, the burden of proof is actually on those who want to *add* contentious material - especially if its based on dubious sources - hence, if the discussion is on going, then default should be "remove". VolunteerMarek 16:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
frotz removed durie [25] which is huge step forwards. before that shrike wisely removed kopel as well, introducing bassam tibi. i dunno anything about tibi but i'll fetch a copy of the article and review it later. now, for the perlmutter source. as far as i can see the poor guy is misrepresented. he mentions the word "dhimmitude" *only once* amongst a bunch of neologisms that he apparently is *critical* of. he does not treat the term "dhimmitude" at all, nor does he give any source of its origin. the fact is: "dhimmitude" is mentioned randomly in an article that is skeptical about how different groups use their minority status to achieve political goals and similar subjects. he concludes by stating,
in short, while the country was more and more accepting of minorities and immigrants, the conceptual bases of prejudice and discrimination and the ways of ending bigotry and socio-economic group disparities were also changing – in the name of multiculturalism and diversity – and giving rise to new forms of intergroup misunderstandings, conflicts, and, yes, prejudices, chiefly over affirmative action, proportional representation, and group conscious justice.
to use this particular perlmutter source here is quite misleading on several grounds. the most important being that perlmutter is not interested in discussing "dhimmitude" at all.-- altetendekrabbe 13:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
New words were coined to describe the particular fears, ... dhimmitude (discrimination and repression of non-Muslims by Muslim societies), heightism (against short people), ...
please show how?-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 11:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Also I didn't removed anything Grifith its still present I only restored sourced information that you deleted-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 12:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, this is really becoming obnoxious and a problem. The same three users are still tag-team reverting:
You guys are even doing it in the exact same order every time. And on top of that this is just blind reverting, without discussion, and it includes reverting completely innocuous edits like correcting the tense of a verb ("claim" to "claimed"). It appears to be just reverting for reverting sake, or perhaps, as a bad faithed attempt to bait a user into breaking 3RR.
Since you were already warned by an administrator over this behavior ( User:Future Perfect at Sunrise) at WP:3RR, this has reached a point where sanctions should be considered.
As to the content of the dispute, there really is no need to have two different definitions of the term. VolunteerMarek 11:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the following statement, which stood in the article with a defective reference for a long time:
This quotation is wrong. Biechler wrote those words, but apparently he didn't write them in 1985. They are from his 1998 review of Ye'or's 1996 book The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam, not from his review of her earlier book The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam (which, moreover, he reviewed in 1988, not in 1985). [26] Given the fact that the person who added the quotation evidently didn't look up the original review – or why else the question mark behind the reference? – I suppose he took it from the publisher's blurb on the back of a later reprint of the first book [27], which might explain the confusion.
I could have just fixed the reference, but since the whole point of the sentence seemed to be the statement about the early use in 1985, I thought it better to remove it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm an editor whose involvement was solicited on the basis that I spend most of my time dealing with reliability and sourcing issues. One thing I can see from the above, is that some editor in the past did not actually read sources they cited, in particular they did not say where they got the material, ie: they didn't cite the book jacket or online amazon blurb. In relation to sources which mention the topic in passing and do not substantially discuss the topic, these sources should probably not be used. (Substantive can be small, a paragraph in an introduction to the theoretical terrain can be substantive, but using the word in passing isn't). While I'd be happy to look over sources, I'm not available until Monday my time for that due to a conference. Fifelfoo ( talk) 23:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
the latest edits of user frotz are indeed an improvement, so much so that i removed the npov-warning-tag. i have also removed the misrepresentation of tibi by quoting him (page 98), re-arranged the lead a little (two sentences changing place, and pointing out the original definition of the term). the sources and their correct representation are now in order. my question regarding the discrimination-bar remains: if we allow the bar due to bat ye'or's definition of the term, then what about other definitions and criticisms? we could easily add the islamophobia-bar, political myth-bar (if it exists), conspiracy-bar and so and so forth. it seems that the term has many more meanings not covered yet.-- altetendekrabbe 10:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
user shrike is now desperately trying to destroy the latest improvements by desperate edit warring. shrike's involvement on this article has been disruptive from the very beginning. misuse/misrepresentation of sources, sporadically tag-teaming with estlandia and so on. if this continues i'm afraid that an administrator action is needed.-- altetendekrabbe 10:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, hold up, there's two separate issues here. One is Brevik's use of the term and the other is the side bar.
With regard to the first one, the source appears to be RS. So the question, as with other sources, is whether it just mentions Brevik's use in passing or does it actually use it in context.
With regard to the side bar. I think Altetendekrabbe is correct that the inclusion of the discrimination sidebar is somewhat gratuitous and pov, and that if we include that sidebar we should also include the "islamophobia" side bar and the "myths" sidebar (is there one?). The inclusion of the discrimination side bar is obvious pov because, in sources, the term is described as faulty, insulting, neologism reflecting anti-Muslim sentiment more often than it is described as a proper word reflecting discrimination towards non-Muslims. If anything the "islamophobia" side bar makes more sense then the "discrimination" one. VolunteerMarek 11:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I have collected most of the sources that is used in the article [28] anyone can view them. There are several points I want to make.
Grifith have whole chapter about this [35] should be introduced in to the article. -- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 20:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
In the interest of cleaning up this article and removing the {{npov}} tag, let's discuss what is still non-neutral about this article. -- Frotz( talk) 22:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Your accusation of Shrike engaging in coatracking is frivolous. The coatrack template at {{Coat rack}} defines that as "This article primarily may relate to a different subject, or to only one aspect rather than the subject as a whole.". In other words, it's a special case of not sticking to the subject. The subject here is very narrow: a neologism that describes discrimination against non-Muslims in the present day. We're not talking about historical dhimmi laws. That's for the dhimmi article. These coats you accuse Shrike of hanging are actually evidence to support the notion that 1) dhimmitude is a real phenomenon and 2) that the phenomenon is discrimination. I tried to reach out to you civilly. Rather than continuing to respond in kind, you spat venom again. I've almost lost patience with you. Now think carefully. Do you want to sit down, talk sensibly, and offer proof of your assertions? I'm not sure you are. -- Frotz( talk) 10:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
"Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the legal superstructure that global jihadists are laboring to restore everywhere in the Islamic world, and wish ultimately to impose on the entire human race." i'm pretty sure I've read this as a quote of someone else. I'm not sure, just noting BelalHaniffa 04:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
How does one pronounce dhimmitude? Can we have some sort of indication within the article? -- Hyphen5 03:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The intro per WP:Lead should touch the main points in this article. -- Aminz 22:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The definition in the intro is this: "[Dhimmitude] is a characterization of non-Muslims as submitting to Muslim authority or intimidation." The definition Lewis used it this: "subservience and persecution and ill treatment." As you can plainly see, Lewis was not saying that "non-Muslims submitting to Muslim authority or intimidation" does not exist. Saying otherwise is either a poor understanding of the English involved or a bad-faith effort to push personal POV. Arrow740 10:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The other definition is also added. WP:Lead says: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any." -- Aminz 07:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It is also Mark Cohen's view. I am sure I can find more. The way to go is not to remove Lewis et al but to add more views. Even if it was only Lewis's view, it had a place in intro. -- Aminz 07:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
We are concerned specifically with the concept of Dhimmitude here and quotes on this topic are relevant. Please find other sources and add them as well. Removing Lewis's view isn't the best way of achieving NPOV, if you believe there are really respected scholars who agree with Bat Ye'or. Honestly, I haven't seen any real source. -- Aminz 07:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It has a meaningful reference. Per WP:Lead, negative or positive views should both be included in the intro. It is important to mention that for some scholars like Lewis this concept is a myth. -- Aminz 18:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Aminz. I thought were agreeing BUT now the reverting again! To the same mispresent I thought youre agreeing isn't fair. Its already being in the article in a fair form. why do you keep adding the misrepresent to the introduction? Opiner 07:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Opiner, WP:Lead says: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any."-- Aminz 03:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Youre not doing that on Historical Persecution by Jews and youre making up that whole article yourself! Opiner 03:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
That article is just started and you are welcome to edit it. Please discuss that on the relevant talk page. There are notable controversies over Dhimmitude and the intro should touch them. The definitions given in the intro differ from that of Lewis, so they should be included. -- Aminz 03:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
As a reader actually unfamiliar with the term, I read the entire article looking for a definition of the term and found none in the article. I understand from the discussion pages that the definition of the term is in dispute, but the introduction seems to consist of the etymology of the word and an explanation that the word is difficult to define. That's weak. It wasn't until I read the discussion page, and found Arrow740's quotation of an older version of the intro that I found a usable definition, "[Dhimmitude] is a characterization of non-Muslims as submitting to Muslim authority or intimidation." I would suggest that the maintainers of this article put a little bit of the energy they've put previously into wrangling, into actually providing a clear, coherent definition for readers unfamiliar with the subject matter. 24.143.148.251 20:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Should the following edit be added to the intro [2].
The argument for its addition is that WP:Lead says: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any." Please also have a look at the discussion below.
Lewis is alone in using the word in the way he does. This article is about the neologism, not the concept of dhimmi. His passing incorrect reference to the word does not belong in the introduction. Arrow740 05:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
This article is about the neologism, not the concept of dhimmi. His passing incorrect reference to the word does not belong in the introduction. You need to understand that Islam is the only religion that mandates that minorities be treated poorly, and this is a sign that it should be ended. Arrow740 06:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The regulation was developed as the Islamic regulations of Dhimmis and it was progressive in its time. Many of these regulations are not Islamic per say. They were copied from other sources. Many of the Dhimmi regulations has now been abolished. -- Aminz 06:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Right. Polytheism is a more tolerant than Monotheism. Please read this passage from Mark Cohen explaining the reason Monotheist religions are not tolerant. [3] . After making that general comment he says that: "Thus it is not surprising that the Medieval Islam should have persecuted non-Muslims just as Medieval Christianity persecuted Jews (and also Muslims) and as Judaism should have persecuted pagan Idumeans, forcibly converting them to Judaism. When all is said and done, however, the historical evidence indicates that the Jews of Islam, especially during the formative and classical centuries, experienced much less persecution than did the Jews of Christendom..." -- Aminz 06:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW, We should not forget that monotheism has also played its significant role in human history. For example much of the ethical progress of humanity is due to the monotheistic religions. For example, back to 2000 years ago, "Charity in the Jewish and Christian sense was unknown to the pagan world. Pagans did not notice the very poor at all except when they became politically threatening. Assistance was almost always confined to citizens. Slaves and outsiders were ignored when in distress; except in special circumstances, their problems were not the concern of the ordinary man. In Rome the very poor either starved or left the city. Begging was a hazardous occupation; in the eyes of a moralist like Seneca, it was in order but neither necessary nor important to be kind to the poor and the miserable. Free men preferred to surround themselves with their fellow-citizens and to direct their gifts to those whose social and political standing mattered. Both in the city of Rome and in Egyptian township of Oxyrhynchyus free corn was given not to the povetry-stricken but to the privileged among the plebs."-- Aminz 06:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The ethical progress comes from Christianity. Muslims ethics are an improvement on pagan Arab ethics but are still far below modern standards. We can't forget Buddhism and Jainism - which predate Christianity - either. Arrow740 09:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Aminz, you've run around probably a dozen of articles with more or less the same quotes from Lewis and Cohen. It might be high time you stopped. Beit Or 21:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
"Notable authors to have have employed the term include Oriana Fallaci, Australian prime minister John Howard, Bat Ye'or and Ayaan Hirsi Ali."
Has John Howard actually used the term "anti-dhimmitude" in his writings or speeches? I can't find any reference to this anywhere. 217.34.39.123 12:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
"..the relevant literature is extensive and includes a fair number of sophisticated case studies... for this reason, the old debate as to whether non-Muslims were generally oppressed under Muslim rule, "second-class" citizens suffering from Islamic fanaticism and oriental despotism, or whether, on the contrary, tolerance was the distinguishing feature of Islam...need not detain us long: neither the "black myth" nor the "white" one does any justice to the complexity of the historical experience, which, unsurprisingly, was characterised by various shades of grey. (Footnote) For the "black myth" see particularly Bat Yeor(1985) and Martin Gilbert (1975). Both have had a marked influence on Western perceptions of the status of Jews in Islam and and are frequently quoted as evidence of deep-rooted Islamic fanatacism, anti-Judaism, and indeed anti-Semitism." Anti-Semitism in the Muslim World: A Critical Review' Krämer, Gudrun; Die Welt des Islams, Volume 46, Number 3, 2006 , pp. 243-276(34). I'm not sure if this can be used in the section on reactions, but it deals with the question of 'myths' directly. Hornplease 20:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Can someone give sources that suggest this is relevant to this topic? Bless sins ( talk) 18:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Here are three quotes I've removed for lacking any context or assertion of importance. Spencer's is the most objectionable, since he's an author, not a scholar. I've placed them on the talk page for anyone who wants to add them use them appropriately:
Bat Yeor's definition:
"As for the concept of dhimmitude, it represents a behavior dictated by fear ( terrorism), pacifism when aggressed, rather than resistance, servility because of cowardice and vulnerability. The origin of this concept is to be found in the condition of the Infidel people who submit to the Islamic rule without fighting in order to avoid the onslaught of jihad. By their peaceful surrender to the Islamic army, they obtained the security for their life, belongings and religion, but they had to accept a condition of inferiority, spoliation and humiliation. As they were forbidden to possess weapons and give testimony against a Muslim, they were put in a position of vulnerability and humility." John W. Whitehead: Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, 5 September 2005
Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, states that
"If we look at the considerable literature available about the position of Jews in the Islamic world, we find two well-established myths. One is the story of a golden age of equality, of mutual respect and cooperation, especially but not exclusively in Moorish Spain; the other is of “dhimmi”-tude, of subservience and persecution and ill treatment. Both are myths. Like many myths, both contain significant elements of truth, and the historic truth is in its usual place, somewhere in the middle between the extremes."Bernard Lewis, 'The New Anti-Semitism', The American Scholar Journal - Volume 75 No. 1 Winter 2006 pp. 25-36.
Robert Spencer author of the The Myth of Islamic Tolerance defines dhimmitude as:
Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, “protected” or “guilty” people, are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the legal superstructure that global jihadists are laboring through violence to restore everywhere in the Islamic world, and wish ultimately to impose on the entire human race.
-- Cúchullain t/ c 02:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason to delete these quotes. The term Dhimmitude itself is extremely controversial and it is necessary to see how commentators define it. There is no need to whitewash this away. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 21:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
1) Did Gemayel hold that speech in French? Otherwise, it would be not him, but his translator who coined the term. 2) Since his assassination appears to be unrelated to the speech (looks like intra-Christian clan-warfare), the fact that he was assassinated shortly after the speech, and the détour about his killer can be safely omitted, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.211.211.214 ( talk) 16:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It is one thing to say that some commentators consider dhimmi to be second class citizens. It is another thing entirely to say that the Arabic root word "dhimmi" denotes "second class". From my research into Arabic dictionaries, I have not found a single citation to support this claim. Perhaps dhimmi connotes "second class" to some people. Since there aren't any sources in the lead to begin with, I don't see how unsources, disputed content can simply be re-added. But let's work things out here on talk and not edit war. Let's start with: how can our readers verify this claim?- Andrew c [talk] 02:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about your dictionaries, but this is what I found:
1) DHIMMA, the term used to designate the sort of indefinitely renewed contract through which the Muslim community accords hospitality and protection to members of other revealed religions, on condition of their acknowledging the domination of Islam. [...]
The measures for Islamization of the state introduced by Abd al-Malik already included, as it turned out, an indirect threat to the dhimmi s; it is, however, to Umar b. Abd al-Aziz that tradition, doubtless partially based on truth, attributes the first discriminatory provisions concerning them. The only other Umayyad of note in this connexion is Yazid II, on a special matter which will be referred to later; thereafter one must come down to Harun al-Rashid, and more especially to al-Mutawakkil, to encounter a policy really hostile to the dhimmi s. But always, through the centuries, the evolution of ideas has shown two aspects at once different and interdependent. On the one hand are the doctrinaires, found mainly among the fukaha and the kadi s, who have interpreted the regulations concerning dhimma in a restrictive way, developing a programme which, if not one of persecution, is at least vexatious and repressive. From time to time a sovereign, either through Islamic zeal or through the need for popularity amongst them, ordains measures to the doctrinaires' satisfaction; sometimes, also, there are outbursts of popular anger against the dhimmi s, which in some cases arose from the places occupied by dhimmi s in the higher ranks of administration, especially that of finance. [...] It cannot be denied that from the last three or four centuries of the Middle Ages there was a general hardening against dhimmi s in Muslim countries, helped materially and morally by the change in numerical proportions. Care was in general taken that nothing in their everyday social comportment might tend to conceal the evidence of their inferiority vis-à-vis Muslims; an attempt was made to embarrass the dhimmi 's trade by regulations, always temporary, against the sale of wine; there was a growing repugnance on the part of certain Muslims to associate with non-Muslims, and their religious buildings were destroyed on various pre-texts; there was a partial exclusion of dhimmi s even from the administrative offices themselves. From this period date also treatises specially written against the dhimmi s (no longer merely religious polemics), to say nothing of chapters inserted in works of fikh. [...] In the West the Almoravids, and even more the Almohads, had adopted, earlier than the East, an intolerant policy, which is partly explained by the suspicions entertained of their Christian subjects of complicity with the Spaniards of the northern kingdoms who were already intent on the Reconquista, although the Jews suffered no less, whence for example the emigration of Maimonides to the East; dhimmi s ceased to be employed in the administration, the distinctive badges reappeared, etc. In the Maghrib there started to appear for the Jews, henceforth the only dhimmi s, special quarters (mallah, hara) which remind one of the European ghetto, and they were authorized to live in certain towns only.[...]
Encyclopedia of Islam, Article "DHIMMA"
2) Protected status which Jews had in Islamic society, being classified as People of the Book. This status entailed the payment of a special tax and the prohibition on missionarizing among Moslems. Jews had to wear distinctive dress and were granted limited rights as second-class citizens, which entailed some discrimination against employing them in government service. The killing of a Jew involved a smaller payment of blood money than the killing of a Moslem. Although their protected status enabled Jews to flourish in the Moslem world, their position was not always secure and they were sometimes forcibly converted to Islam, particularly under Shiite rule. According to a Moslem tradition, Mohammed himself will appear on Judgment Day to accuse those who harm Jews or Christians.
Dictionary of Jewish Lore & Legend, Article "dhimma"
3) Dhimmis under Islam are conquered People of the Book, i.e. with a scriptured religion (viz Jews, Christians and Parsees). They were allowed to keep their places of worship but might not build new ones. They paid a ground rent for any land which they occupied (kharaj) and the men able to bear arms paid jizya, a capitation tax, as well. They were also subject to conditions: the necessary were enforced by outlawry, the desirable less rigorously. The necessary were that they must not revile Islam, attempt to harm, convert or marry a Moslem, assist an enemy or harbour spies: the desirable, that they respect their conquerors by wearing distinctive clothing, by not building houses higher than Moslem houses or mounting horses; that they should not draw attention to their religion, or do in public what is forbidden by Islam but permitted by their religion, namely keeping pigs and drinking wine. A dhimmi could escape this social, religious and fiscal inferiority by converting to Islam and vast numbers did. They were still a social problem in all Moslem areas where power had passed to the British.
Companion to British History, Article "dhimmis"
Azate (
talk)
18:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to get rid of "Overall, this term refers to the alleged oppression suffered by dhimmis.", bcause the meanings of the term are explained only a couple of inches below; and I'd like to get rid of the "anti-dhimmitude" section, because it's kinda lame. Azate ( talk) 05:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
"If we look at the considerable literature available about the position of Jews in the Islamic world, we find two well-established myths. One is the story of a golden age of equality, of mutual respect and cooperation, especially but not exclusively in Moorish Spain; the other is of “dhimmi”-tude, of subservience and persecution and ill treatment. Both are myths. Like many myths, both contain significant elements of truth, and the historic truth is in its usual place, somewhere in the middle between the extremes."Bernard Lewis, 'The New Anti-Semitism', The American Scholar Journal - Volume 75 No. 1 Winter 2006 pp. 25-36.
The above quote is much more relevant to Dhimmitude than the one that was in the article. In general, wikipedia is not a collection of opinions. We report the facts and the readers draw their own conclusions. -- Be happy!! ( talk) 06:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Would someone please explain to me why it's a bad idea to define specifically what "dhimmitude" is? Specifically, I re-added the detail along with some edits to make the paragraph flow better. Frotz ( talk) 20:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
<--- (indent) Tosh! Yeor and Lewis are writing about historical dhimma systems. And you obviously don't know the first thing about today's Lebanon. ("dominated by radicals who terrorise the non-Muslims who didn't flee"). This is patent nonsense. Azate ( talk) 18:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I just read this article for the first time, because I read the term "dhimmitude" in an article and didn't know what it meant. However, after reading the Wikipedia article, I still don't know what it means. The article is so full of vagueness, weasel words, circumlocutions, and avoidance of being offensive, that it says little. I learned more about what the word means by reading this talk page, which contains a discussion of all the things people deliberately want excluded from the wiki page. So basically, I think this is a poorly worded article, and someone should include a section on why the word is controversial, how people really use it on the street, how its been misquoted, etc. Because right now, the article is really not useful. I'd do the changes myself but since I've only just learned what the word means, I'm not qualified. QuizzicalBee ( talk) 19:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Two of the three authors quoted (Yeor and Spencer) are anti-Islamic bigots, without the slightest trace of scholarly credentials. At the very least Yeor has been granted some de facto respect merely by speaking loudly enough for a long enough time. However, Spencer, along with his promoter Horowitz, are considered the two most vehemently bigoted American Islamophobes (according to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting); he has not even the merest coating of respectability, other than being shamelessly promoted by other Islamophobes, forming a circular cabal, whereby one is given the responsibility for producing pseudo-intellectual fodder for more public figures, and by them is given a false veneer of scholarship, thereby reinforcing the self-made image as "scholars" or "experts" and furthering the writing and publication of more non-factual, hate-filled rhetoric: this is analogous to me being an Administrator of Wikipedia, and altering facts to suit my side in an argument, and then using the "sources" of the people who have parroted what I myself have written to reference my very own words in order to legitimise them and keep them on Wikipedia. Furthermore, there is a definite lack of neutrality in which "Jihadwatch" - a hate site run by the self-same Robert Spencer, making the analogy of the Wiki Admin spot-on; it is from an interested and biased first-party with no independent verification, regardless of the point of view expressed therein. Bat Yeor's quotations are also questionable in an encyclopedic context, without a note as to her vested interests and vocal opinions on the subject; she is not a neutral third party. The references of the article must be upgraded from a smattering of notoriously Islamophobic ones, to ones from a third party with at least some semblance of neutrality (such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, as mentioned above, or at least quotations through nonbiased third parties, and not ipse dixitism such as Jihadwatch: I could just as easily say, "The Catholic Church is actually Shi'a" and be just as unbiased and "fair", and have as much credibility). The references given for this article are of exceptionally low quality; the references given for R Spencer are from Spencer himself, and therefore must be excised. Below I will list a set of references from no less than five different sources, on Robert Spencer alone (and plenty more can be found; this is essentially Google's first page, and many are secondary sources, except for FAIR, but it will be found, if you look, that they are well-referenced, unlike the current incarnation of this article. At the very least, the overtly-biased nature of some of the contributions must be pointed out within the article itself if those contributions are to remain: otherwise, some unwitting person, uneducated in the subject and using Wikipedia as a primary source (as many do, although it is bad form and discouraged) might see it as truth (and possibly perpetuate the perpetual cultural intolerance cum hatred that seems to so inflame this subject if careful checks and balances are not kept). Finally, the article reads as a slightly veiled "Enemy Within, Willing Dupes of Multiculturalism" conspiracy theory "Call to Arms" anti-Islamic polemic with vitriol substituted by faux scholarship, that I would expect to find in Pat Robertson's mouth (or, oppositely, in the mouths of those Muslims who say that 9/11/2001 is a "Conspiracy carried out by the Bush Administration at the behest of their Jewish Zionist puppet-masters"), not on Wikipedia. Bernard Lewis' quotation is nearer truth, and more importantly, comes from a recognised scholar/expert, and is independent, unbiased, and well-referenced, not a media-proclaimed "expert", proclaimed by the same people touting the opinion that is reinforced by the "expert". Shouldn't the prime claim to scholarship being the author of hate-filled supremacist rhetoric such as "The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran" and "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance" cast a somewhat more critical light on the man? The Wikipedia article on "Liberalism amongst American Jews" shouldn't be composed of quotations of Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, and Sean Hannity, and that's essentially what's being done here.
Links:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3648 http://smearcasting.com/smear_spencer.html http://spencerwatch.com/2010/08/11/robert-spencer-calls-nuke-the-muslims-crazy-lady-a-heroine/ http://smearcasting.com/case_islam.html http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/08/robert-spencer-loonwatch-one-half-of-the-leftist-mooslim-alliance/ http://www.islamophobiatoday.com/2011/03/14/christina-abraham-slams-anti-muslim-bigot-robert-spencer/ http://www.aljazeerah.info/News/2011/January/19%20n/Muslim-Basher%20and%20Islamophobe,%20Robert%20Spencer,%20Trains%20US%20Military%20Personnel%20in%20Kentucky.htm http://spencerwatch.com/about-robert-spencer/ http://spencerwatch.com/2010/08/11/is-robert-spencer-a-scholar-on-spencer%E2%80%99s-credentials-and-methodology/ http://spencerwatch.com/real-scholars-experts-on-islam/
Furthermore, http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/07/robert-spencer-rejected-by-academics-still-supports-geert-wilders/ - I think that (the article, not the link title) sums it all up. Guilt by association! 75.179.176.190 ( talk) 15:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
14:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Cuchullain's point, I fail to understand how the WP:BLP policy applies here, considering this is not a BLP at all, but simply the discussion of a term. Finally, I agree with Benwing's suggestion that Pipes might be a more reliable source for a definition than Spencer, though his role as an academic has evolved something more of an "anacademic" in recent years, to coin a neologism myself. Jemiljan ( talk) 03:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Dhimmi is a non muslim subjecting to the idears of a muslim. Dhimmitude is the behaviour of a non muslim subjecting to the idears of muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.155.60 ( talk) 07:51, November 28, 2006 (UTC)
This article is about the neologism dhimmitude, not about the historical concept of dhimmi. If you have something to add to the historical concept of dhimmi, please to go to dhimmi. Not here.
This source for example is not discussing dhimmitude. So the sentence "In modern usage, dhimmitude refers to discrimination against non-Muslims, particularly in regions where a majority of the residents are Muslim" is not supported by the source. VR talk 13:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that the second and third paragraphs in the lead say pretty much the same thing. I think they ought to be unified. In particular, the second (final) sentence in the third looks a little weird. The first sentence is "In modern usage, dhimmitude refers to discrimination against non-Muslims[1] particularly in regions where a majority of the residents are Muslim." and then the second "It also refers to discrimination of Jews and treating them like second class citizens." Is the second sentence really necessary? The cite that went along with it is just fine. -- Frotz( talk) 10:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Collectively, these ‘obligations’ formed the discriminatory system of dhimmitude imposed upon non-Muslims—Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists—subjugated by jihad.
-- Shrike ( talk) 11:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Manifestations of anti-Semitism erupted in the Arab world during the late twentieth century. However, discrimination against Jews has relegated them to second-class status under Arab hegemony (“dhimmitude”) since the successful uniting of the tribes in the Arabian peninsula by Muhammad (570–632) in the sixth century.
In Islam, freedom of faith conceded to others applies only to Jews and Christians, but it is a limited freedom and
attached to the lower legal status of dhimmitude, or believers viewed as inferior to Muslims. By modern legal standards this is a violation of the human rights-based freedom of faith, rather than a variety of tolerance as commonly seen
-- Shrike ( talk) 17:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Criticsm of the term belongs in the lede, as the lede is to reflect the overall views of the subject. The Lewis views should not be removed from the lede, nor should they be misrepresented. Lewis clearly calls it the neologism a "myth", so we're essentially representing his views on wikipedia. VR talk 15:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
This article has been the subject of a complaint at WP:AN3. Evidently some reverting is still going on. How would people feel about two weeks of full protection? If that seems too drastic, would the people who have reverted in the last 48 hours be willing to consider waiting for consensus on the talk page? I see that there was some discussion, but I don't see people waiting for support before they revert. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 01:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Is this source reliable? Maybe. The website is run by National Civic Council, a socially conservative political movement. It doesn't seem scholarly at all. But it is not questionable like Bostom.
Low-quality sources are acceptable, but I'm worried that once we allow them, the article could be flooded with references to dhimmitude from all over the internet. VR talk 21:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Some people want secondary sources that couple dhimmitude with discrimination. Here are some:
I will add these references to the article shortly.
-- Frotz( talk) 21:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
With regard to this [18]. First, I think it's pretty obvious to any outside observer that Frotz, Estlandia and a few others are tag teaming. But no, I am not - I just noticed these articles and saw the nonsense that's going on. So don't make unsupported accusations. Second, the burden of proof is actually on those who want to *add* contentious material - especially if its based on dubious sources - hence, if the discussion is on going, then default should be "remove". VolunteerMarek 16:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
frotz removed durie [25] which is huge step forwards. before that shrike wisely removed kopel as well, introducing bassam tibi. i dunno anything about tibi but i'll fetch a copy of the article and review it later. now, for the perlmutter source. as far as i can see the poor guy is misrepresented. he mentions the word "dhimmitude" *only once* amongst a bunch of neologisms that he apparently is *critical* of. he does not treat the term "dhimmitude" at all, nor does he give any source of its origin. the fact is: "dhimmitude" is mentioned randomly in an article that is skeptical about how different groups use their minority status to achieve political goals and similar subjects. he concludes by stating,
in short, while the country was more and more accepting of minorities and immigrants, the conceptual bases of prejudice and discrimination and the ways of ending bigotry and socio-economic group disparities were also changing – in the name of multiculturalism and diversity – and giving rise to new forms of intergroup misunderstandings, conflicts, and, yes, prejudices, chiefly over affirmative action, proportional representation, and group conscious justice.
to use this particular perlmutter source here is quite misleading on several grounds. the most important being that perlmutter is not interested in discussing "dhimmitude" at all.-- altetendekrabbe 13:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
New words were coined to describe the particular fears, ... dhimmitude (discrimination and repression of non-Muslims by Muslim societies), heightism (against short people), ...
please show how?-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 11:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Also I didn't removed anything Grifith its still present I only restored sourced information that you deleted-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 12:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, this is really becoming obnoxious and a problem. The same three users are still tag-team reverting:
You guys are even doing it in the exact same order every time. And on top of that this is just blind reverting, without discussion, and it includes reverting completely innocuous edits like correcting the tense of a verb ("claim" to "claimed"). It appears to be just reverting for reverting sake, or perhaps, as a bad faithed attempt to bait a user into breaking 3RR.
Since you were already warned by an administrator over this behavior ( User:Future Perfect at Sunrise) at WP:3RR, this has reached a point where sanctions should be considered.
As to the content of the dispute, there really is no need to have two different definitions of the term. VolunteerMarek 11:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the following statement, which stood in the article with a defective reference for a long time:
This quotation is wrong. Biechler wrote those words, but apparently he didn't write them in 1985. They are from his 1998 review of Ye'or's 1996 book The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam, not from his review of her earlier book The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam (which, moreover, he reviewed in 1988, not in 1985). [26] Given the fact that the person who added the quotation evidently didn't look up the original review – or why else the question mark behind the reference? – I suppose he took it from the publisher's blurb on the back of a later reprint of the first book [27], which might explain the confusion.
I could have just fixed the reference, but since the whole point of the sentence seemed to be the statement about the early use in 1985, I thought it better to remove it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm an editor whose involvement was solicited on the basis that I spend most of my time dealing with reliability and sourcing issues. One thing I can see from the above, is that some editor in the past did not actually read sources they cited, in particular they did not say where they got the material, ie: they didn't cite the book jacket or online amazon blurb. In relation to sources which mention the topic in passing and do not substantially discuss the topic, these sources should probably not be used. (Substantive can be small, a paragraph in an introduction to the theoretical terrain can be substantive, but using the word in passing isn't). While I'd be happy to look over sources, I'm not available until Monday my time for that due to a conference. Fifelfoo ( talk) 23:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
the latest edits of user frotz are indeed an improvement, so much so that i removed the npov-warning-tag. i have also removed the misrepresentation of tibi by quoting him (page 98), re-arranged the lead a little (two sentences changing place, and pointing out the original definition of the term). the sources and their correct representation are now in order. my question regarding the discrimination-bar remains: if we allow the bar due to bat ye'or's definition of the term, then what about other definitions and criticisms? we could easily add the islamophobia-bar, political myth-bar (if it exists), conspiracy-bar and so and so forth. it seems that the term has many more meanings not covered yet.-- altetendekrabbe 10:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
user shrike is now desperately trying to destroy the latest improvements by desperate edit warring. shrike's involvement on this article has been disruptive from the very beginning. misuse/misrepresentation of sources, sporadically tag-teaming with estlandia and so on. if this continues i'm afraid that an administrator action is needed.-- altetendekrabbe 10:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, hold up, there's two separate issues here. One is Brevik's use of the term and the other is the side bar.
With regard to the first one, the source appears to be RS. So the question, as with other sources, is whether it just mentions Brevik's use in passing or does it actually use it in context.
With regard to the side bar. I think Altetendekrabbe is correct that the inclusion of the discrimination sidebar is somewhat gratuitous and pov, and that if we include that sidebar we should also include the "islamophobia" side bar and the "myths" sidebar (is there one?). The inclusion of the discrimination side bar is obvious pov because, in sources, the term is described as faulty, insulting, neologism reflecting anti-Muslim sentiment more often than it is described as a proper word reflecting discrimination towards non-Muslims. If anything the "islamophobia" side bar makes more sense then the "discrimination" one. VolunteerMarek 11:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I have collected most of the sources that is used in the article [28] anyone can view them. There are several points I want to make.
Grifith have whole chapter about this [35] should be introduced in to the article. -- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 20:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
In the interest of cleaning up this article and removing the {{npov}} tag, let's discuss what is still non-neutral about this article. -- Frotz( talk) 22:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Your accusation of Shrike engaging in coatracking is frivolous. The coatrack template at {{Coat rack}} defines that as "This article primarily may relate to a different subject, or to only one aspect rather than the subject as a whole.". In other words, it's a special case of not sticking to the subject. The subject here is very narrow: a neologism that describes discrimination against non-Muslims in the present day. We're not talking about historical dhimmi laws. That's for the dhimmi article. These coats you accuse Shrike of hanging are actually evidence to support the notion that 1) dhimmitude is a real phenomenon and 2) that the phenomenon is discrimination. I tried to reach out to you civilly. Rather than continuing to respond in kind, you spat venom again. I've almost lost patience with you. Now think carefully. Do you want to sit down, talk sensibly, and offer proof of your assertions? I'm not sure you are. -- Frotz( talk) 10:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)