![]() | This page 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. |
The sura from which the word jizyah is derived is Sura 9.29 of the
Qur'an, though its specific meaning is not defined there:
viz.
The imposition of jizyah is mandated by Sura 9.29 of the
Qur'an, though its specific meaning is not defined there:
Yuber, I think our principal concern with that passage is where the 'imposition' (a term I don't find controversial) of the tax is mandated from, not where the 'word' is 'derived' from. As such, I find Jayjg's language clearer. You obviously disagree, so I'm interested to learn why. Thanks. El_C 06:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I find it strange that zakat is mentioned as "required" of Muslims while jizyah is "imposed" on non-muslims. BOTH taxes were mandatory, so one term should be used. Jayjg and Klonimus have been pushing this POV. Yuber (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, we have been over this before. Imposition is accurate, and the text doesn't say it was monetary. Why do you keep removing the consensus wording, and arguing with things the text doesn't even say? Jayjg (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Discuss here please. Jayjg (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Here please, Yuber. Right here. Here's where we can discuss your proposed change. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
"The word itself comes from the root jaza which means compensation, though it is unclear if the Qur'an refers to a monetary one. The word jizya is taken from Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an"
Yuber (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Even though it's referenced now, it seems one-sided in its (modern superimposed?) hostility to the tax, but returning to the counter-criticism which I earlier deleted with the rest of the section and is now absent: was it that different (in application) from poll taxes collected by other civilizations, and how? And can the critical description now be seen as a purely negative portrail, in relation to these other paralels by (silent) implication? I think there is a need for more indepth qualification, but I doubt I myself am qualified to enter it. Food for thought though nonetheless. El_C 06:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
The criticism is brief and and sourced; I'll added the counter-argument by Sir Thomas Arnold. If Yuber wants to bring sourced counter arguments he certainly can. However, what he cannot do is take quotes from ancient and authoritative books of Muslim law and shove them in the "criticism" section. Jayjg (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, you're moving material around without checking whether it makes sense. You keep leaving this sentence, for instance: "In return, those who paid the jizyah were not required to serve in the military and were considered under the protection of the Muslim state, with certain rights and responsibilities. , or mandatory charity required of Muslims." SlimVirgin (talk) 07:07, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, why do you insist that direct quote from seminal Muslim legal texts are "criticisms", but obvious apologetics for the jizyah by 20th century British historians are not defences of criticisms? Also, I believe you have violated the 3RR at this point. Jayjg (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I fail to see how this is pertinent. Was any place on the planet still collecting this tax at the time of or after the declaration was signed? El_C 08:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, are the hadith mentioned in the text of special "unverifiable veracity"? Why do you feel you keep having to mention it in this specific case? Do you have any evidence that they are so? Jayjg (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Very simply, if all hadiths are of unverifiable authenticity then a statement should be made right after that comment since not all people know what hadiths are. Yuber (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Before it was removed as "Original research" I pointed out how a fixed per capita assesment such as the Jizyah is a regressive tax, while the zakat is proportional and included an exemption to correct for any regressive nature. Klonimus 07:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
|left|thumb|100px|"Pay the Jizyah !!!"
If you're going to quote a source, provide bibliographic specifics of it, or a link to that source, not some POV rant that talks about it.
The link cited reads in part:
... which leads me to suspect that it may not be entirely objective. See Jihad. BrandonYusufToropov 13:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, I still don't see your response to any of these points. It's hard to understand how the legal rulings of Muslim legal authorities on how Jizyah is applied can be counted as "criticism". Jayjg (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
It was Ibn Warraqs translation, I don't trust him as an unbiased source to translate the commentary of medieval scholars. Yuber (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
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:
-- Jayjg (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Since there are actually Muslim sources given in the article for the meaning and the root of the word jizyah, and they differ, it would be best if any unsourced claims to its meaning, and original research arguments about it, be left out of the article. In particular, claims about it possibly being non-monetary seem to have no basis in any sources or reality, since all the sources indicate it was understood and applied as a monetary tax. Jayjg (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
The best source for the root meaning would be an authoritative Arabic dictionary. Anyone have one of those around? — Charles P. (Mirv) 18:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, please respond here in talk: rather than continually inserting original research. Jayjg (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone watching this talk page read enough Arabic to tell us if جِزْيَةَ transliterates to jizyah? Like I said, I don't know Arabic, but by careful reading of the Arabic alphabet article I can see that it has what seem to be the right letters (jīm-zāy-yāʾ-hāʾ) in the right order with the right vowels, and I found it in the right place. Searching it in a modern English-French-Arabic dictionary turns up this page, which gives various meanings, all having to do with taxes. That page also provides links to an entry in an Arabic lexicon, but that I can't read. — Charles P. (Mirv) 01:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
After editing this article for a while I've noticed that whenever I control+f for jizyah in any of the translations it doesn't come up, and instead the translations all use "jizya". This article should be moved there to avoid discrepancies. Yuber (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Very cursory search: I'm seeing Jizya being used more widely in the scholarship: Journal of World History, Third World Quarterly, Review of International Studies, Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, The Journal of the Historical Society, Middle Eastern Studies, Comparative Studies in Society and History, journals.cambridge.org, research.yale.edu, tc.columbia.edu, sscnet.ucla.edu, et cetera, etc.
Jizyah produces less than a fifth the results. I'll list the first few: The Muslim World, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Journal of Early Christian Studies, Terrorism and Political Violence, Islamic Research and Training Institute, Journal of Political Ideologies , journals.cambridge.org, carlisle-www.army.mil, american.edu, muse.jhu.edu, etc. El_C 00:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I searched all over and I found no other source for that strange letter, given the fact that he was illiterate and all letters sent during his time weren't even written by him. For example, the letter to King Yadzegard was written by Khalid ibn Walid. Also, the site that was put as a source is a totally anti-Islamic site. Until that letter can be sourced from somewhere else, that site does not have enough credibility for that quote to stay. Yuber (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, the Hedaya says jizyah means "retribution", and defines it as "a species of punishment, inflicted upon infidels on account of their infidelity, whence it is termed Jizyat". Can you please explain why you keep removing this definition from the Definitions section, which lists various definitions of jizyah, and putting it in the Applications/Islamic Legal Commentaries section, which lists different Islamic Legal Commentaries describing how it should be applied? It's clearly a definition, not a commentary on how it should be applied. Jayjg (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me, Yuber, but you have failed to address my question. Hmm, I seem to be invisible here; let's see if my reverts are noticed at least... El_C 06:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense. The quote you have brought is from a novel by Amos Oz, and is a well-known hoax. The quote by Gil, who is a respected academic and expert in the field, is unquestioned by anyone but you. Continually inserting a known hoax into another article because you don't like an unquestioned quote from a respected academic in this article is WP:POINT at best. You are heading for an RfC if you don't stop this disruptive behaviour. Jayjg (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Certain "red flags" should prompt editors to closely and skeptically examine the sources for a given claim.
Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
Surprising or important facts which are not widely known.
Surprising or important recent events which have not been reported by reputable news media.
Claims which are not supported or which are contradicted by the prevailing view in the scientific community.
Claims which strongly support one or another party in an ongoing dispute (see e.g. Wikipedia:List of controversial issues)
I think this section of the article on sources in wikipedia best applies to this letter. Yuber (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, if you're going to insert the POV tag, note its disclaimer which states: [p]lease see the relevant discussion on the talk page. That means specifically for that given insertion of the tag. Please make sure to do so for all articles. El_C 23:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
This intro is more NPOV and more accurate: The word itself comes from the root jaza which means compensation, though it is unclear if the Qur'an refers to a monetary one [7]. The word jizya is taken from Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an:
Jayjg's intro is highly POV because it is suggesting that the taking of a tax from someone is mandated by the Qur'an, which is totally false.
Not found in any other history, secular or Muslim.
Hedayah is legal commentary, not a definition. Yuber (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber (Talk | block) (Please stop reverting a POV heading, I explained it on the talk page)
— that is not a fair edit summary, I did not revert the tag once the comments were provided.
El_C 23:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Definitions of Jizyah belong in the definition section, commentary on its application belongs in the commentary section. Please do not mistake one for the other, thanks. Jayjg (talk)
Following up:
Can you explain why the statement first is a definition, but the second and third are not? Jayjg (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, can you please source this claim? Have you read all other histories, Muslim and secular, to know what each one says? Jayjg (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, why do you insist on identifying Moshe Gil as a Jewish historian? [8] [9] I find this troubling for a couple of reasons:
Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, you've reverted to your preferred order and preferred wording (The word itself comes from the root jaza which means compensation, though it is unclear if the Qur'an refers to a monetary one [10]. The word jizya is taken from Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an:) four times now. The fact that the versions are slightly different is irrelevant; this kind of gaming of the revert rule is frowned upon, and people are blocked for complex reverts all the time. I'm giving you a chance to revert back before I report you. Please take it. Jayjg (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Klonimus 01:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I made an ammendment but Yuber deliberately removed it. Please check the history!
The Jizyah is clearly an imperial tax that was imposed to humilate the non-Muslims whose lands were conquered. Therefore, I feel this should be added: "that originated from the era of Islamic Imperialism"
and I feel "protection of the Muslim community" should be ammended to "right to live among the Muslim community" since if a non-Muslim fails to pay the Jizyah he will be normally executed.
-- Garywbush 17:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg and Klonimus have been involved in an explosion of bad faith editing on this article including removing the description of who Moshe Gil is. Listen, Moshe Gil doesn't have an article, we must describe who he is and "a professor at Tel Aviv University" is perfectly fine and NPOV. Also, the wording that Jayjg insists on using is still POV. Yuber (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Right, these aren't Geniza documents, but I am merely mentioning Gil's main expertise. However, this book is a 967-page compilation (published by Cambridge University Press) of history based on manuscripts from Jewish, Arab, and Christian communities of the time. Gil has personally examined original manuscripts in their original languages and describes examining some of them by means of ultra-violet rays with the aid of special photographic facilities. There are 19 pages referenced in the index under "jizya", so I will report some of his discussion on this topic, again, as I have more time. The context of the letter to Eilat is in the book with four other surviving letters to four other communities. This letter starts out, "To Yuhanna b. Ruba and the worthies of Ayla, Peace be with you! Praised be Allah, there is no God save Him. I have no intention of fighting you before writing to you. Thou has to accept Islam, or pay the tax, ...." The footnote gives the amount of the tax levied on the people of Ayla according to Waqidi as "300 dinars annually, for there were 300 men there." The other three letters besides the one to Eilat were to the people of Jarba, Adhruh, and Maqna. More later, probably in a few days... -- MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I removed the Sahih Muslim section jayjg added because I noticed that all of the information was very redundant, and was already stated later in the article. I also sourced some quotes and added an explanation for the claim that male non-Muslims who served in the military were exempt from jizya, as that claim was challenged in the article on dhimmi. Yuber (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Jizya was levied in the time of Muhammad on vassal tribes under Muslim protection, including Jews in Khaybar, Christians in Najran, and Zoroastrians in Bahrain. W. Montgomery Watt traces its origin to a pre-Islamic practice among the Arabian nomads wherein a powerful tribe would agree to protect its weaker neighbors in exchange for a tribute, which would be refunded if the protection proved ineffectual.5 The sahih is redundant in that all that information was already present and it was an obvious POV ploy by you to restate it. Yuber (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Is there any way we can move the history section up towards the top, preferably after the lead? Either that or expand the lead by incorporating main points from the history section; this would help the general audience. As it stands right now, the article is not easy to read. As an outsider, I would like to be drawn into the article, learning more about the concept as I go along. -- Viriditas | Talk 02:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, it is customary to discuss before making such drastic changes to an article. You've made very substantial unsourced changes, and deleted alot of unique information. Without discussion, such actions might be viewed by some as inserting POV or even vandalism. I encourage you to discuss specific changes, especially ones so substantial.
Guy Montag 05:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I've protected this page because of the longstanding revert war between Yuber and other editors, which seems always to hinge on the same few sentences. Please provide reputable sources to show that your edits are correct; if the dispute can't be sorted out that way, then formal or informal mediation might help. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:08, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Can we make a list of all the disputed things in this article? Klonimus 07:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Jesus wept, Yuber, you need to stop trying to insert your favored NPOV which by concensus was rejected. And obeying the 3RR would also be nice. Klonimus 03:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see Yuber's already back - as usual, he just waited for the ban to be up, then started pushing POV. Enviroknot 03:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've protected this because Yuber has reverted to the same passage 25 times in just over a month, and there's no sign he's going to stop. The passage he wants is: ""The word jizya is taken from Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an, though it is unclear if it is referring to an actual monetary sum. Many commentators disagree on what the definition of jizya is, though some believe it to be mandated ..."
Other editors want: "The imposition of jizya upon non- Muslims is mandated by Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an."
I'm therefore assuming the only difference between you is the mandatory nature of the tax. Perhaps someone could check for references to add to the text, either showing it to be regarded by most scholars as mandatory, or showing there to be doubt among scholars. Let me know when you'd like to start editing it again. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:52, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
I propose to rearrange the article as follows:
![]() | This page 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. |
![]() | This page 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. |
The sura from which the word jizyah is derived is Sura 9.29 of the
Qur'an, though its specific meaning is not defined there:
viz.
The imposition of jizyah is mandated by Sura 9.29 of the
Qur'an, though its specific meaning is not defined there:
Yuber, I think our principal concern with that passage is where the 'imposition' (a term I don't find controversial) of the tax is mandated from, not where the 'word' is 'derived' from. As such, I find Jayjg's language clearer. You obviously disagree, so I'm interested to learn why. Thanks. El_C 06:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I find it strange that zakat is mentioned as "required" of Muslims while jizyah is "imposed" on non-muslims. BOTH taxes were mandatory, so one term should be used. Jayjg and Klonimus have been pushing this POV. Yuber (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, we have been over this before. Imposition is accurate, and the text doesn't say it was monetary. Why do you keep removing the consensus wording, and arguing with things the text doesn't even say? Jayjg (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Discuss here please. Jayjg (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Here please, Yuber. Right here. Here's where we can discuss your proposed change. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
"The word itself comes from the root jaza which means compensation, though it is unclear if the Qur'an refers to a monetary one. The word jizya is taken from Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an"
Yuber (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Even though it's referenced now, it seems one-sided in its (modern superimposed?) hostility to the tax, but returning to the counter-criticism which I earlier deleted with the rest of the section and is now absent: was it that different (in application) from poll taxes collected by other civilizations, and how? And can the critical description now be seen as a purely negative portrail, in relation to these other paralels by (silent) implication? I think there is a need for more indepth qualification, but I doubt I myself am qualified to enter it. Food for thought though nonetheless. El_C 06:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
The criticism is brief and and sourced; I'll added the counter-argument by Sir Thomas Arnold. If Yuber wants to bring sourced counter arguments he certainly can. However, what he cannot do is take quotes from ancient and authoritative books of Muslim law and shove them in the "criticism" section. Jayjg (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, you're moving material around without checking whether it makes sense. You keep leaving this sentence, for instance: "In return, those who paid the jizyah were not required to serve in the military and were considered under the protection of the Muslim state, with certain rights and responsibilities. , or mandatory charity required of Muslims." SlimVirgin (talk) 07:07, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, why do you insist that direct quote from seminal Muslim legal texts are "criticisms", but obvious apologetics for the jizyah by 20th century British historians are not defences of criticisms? Also, I believe you have violated the 3RR at this point. Jayjg (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I fail to see how this is pertinent. Was any place on the planet still collecting this tax at the time of or after the declaration was signed? El_C 08:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, are the hadith mentioned in the text of special "unverifiable veracity"? Why do you feel you keep having to mention it in this specific case? Do you have any evidence that they are so? Jayjg (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Very simply, if all hadiths are of unverifiable authenticity then a statement should be made right after that comment since not all people know what hadiths are. Yuber (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Before it was removed as "Original research" I pointed out how a fixed per capita assesment such as the Jizyah is a regressive tax, while the zakat is proportional and included an exemption to correct for any regressive nature. Klonimus 07:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
|left|thumb|100px|"Pay the Jizyah !!!"
If you're going to quote a source, provide bibliographic specifics of it, or a link to that source, not some POV rant that talks about it.
The link cited reads in part:
... which leads me to suspect that it may not be entirely objective. See Jihad. BrandonYusufToropov 13:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, I still don't see your response to any of these points. It's hard to understand how the legal rulings of Muslim legal authorities on how Jizyah is applied can be counted as "criticism". Jayjg (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
It was Ibn Warraqs translation, I don't trust him as an unbiased source to translate the commentary of medieval scholars. Yuber (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
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:
-- Jayjg (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Since there are actually Muslim sources given in the article for the meaning and the root of the word jizyah, and they differ, it would be best if any unsourced claims to its meaning, and original research arguments about it, be left out of the article. In particular, claims about it possibly being non-monetary seem to have no basis in any sources or reality, since all the sources indicate it was understood and applied as a monetary tax. Jayjg (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
The best source for the root meaning would be an authoritative Arabic dictionary. Anyone have one of those around? — Charles P. (Mirv) 18:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, please respond here in talk: rather than continually inserting original research. Jayjg (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone watching this talk page read enough Arabic to tell us if جِزْيَةَ transliterates to jizyah? Like I said, I don't know Arabic, but by careful reading of the Arabic alphabet article I can see that it has what seem to be the right letters (jīm-zāy-yāʾ-hāʾ) in the right order with the right vowels, and I found it in the right place. Searching it in a modern English-French-Arabic dictionary turns up this page, which gives various meanings, all having to do with taxes. That page also provides links to an entry in an Arabic lexicon, but that I can't read. — Charles P. (Mirv) 01:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
After editing this article for a while I've noticed that whenever I control+f for jizyah in any of the translations it doesn't come up, and instead the translations all use "jizya". This article should be moved there to avoid discrepancies. Yuber (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Very cursory search: I'm seeing Jizya being used more widely in the scholarship: Journal of World History, Third World Quarterly, Review of International Studies, Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, The Journal of the Historical Society, Middle Eastern Studies, Comparative Studies in Society and History, journals.cambridge.org, research.yale.edu, tc.columbia.edu, sscnet.ucla.edu, et cetera, etc.
Jizyah produces less than a fifth the results. I'll list the first few: The Muslim World, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Journal of Early Christian Studies, Terrorism and Political Violence, Islamic Research and Training Institute, Journal of Political Ideologies , journals.cambridge.org, carlisle-www.army.mil, american.edu, muse.jhu.edu, etc. El_C 00:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I searched all over and I found no other source for that strange letter, given the fact that he was illiterate and all letters sent during his time weren't even written by him. For example, the letter to King Yadzegard was written by Khalid ibn Walid. Also, the site that was put as a source is a totally anti-Islamic site. Until that letter can be sourced from somewhere else, that site does not have enough credibility for that quote to stay. Yuber (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, the Hedaya says jizyah means "retribution", and defines it as "a species of punishment, inflicted upon infidels on account of their infidelity, whence it is termed Jizyat". Can you please explain why you keep removing this definition from the Definitions section, which lists various definitions of jizyah, and putting it in the Applications/Islamic Legal Commentaries section, which lists different Islamic Legal Commentaries describing how it should be applied? It's clearly a definition, not a commentary on how it should be applied. Jayjg (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me, Yuber, but you have failed to address my question. Hmm, I seem to be invisible here; let's see if my reverts are noticed at least... El_C 06:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense. The quote you have brought is from a novel by Amos Oz, and is a well-known hoax. The quote by Gil, who is a respected academic and expert in the field, is unquestioned by anyone but you. Continually inserting a known hoax into another article because you don't like an unquestioned quote from a respected academic in this article is WP:POINT at best. You are heading for an RfC if you don't stop this disruptive behaviour. Jayjg (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Certain "red flags" should prompt editors to closely and skeptically examine the sources for a given claim.
Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
Surprising or important facts which are not widely known.
Surprising or important recent events which have not been reported by reputable news media.
Claims which are not supported or which are contradicted by the prevailing view in the scientific community.
Claims which strongly support one or another party in an ongoing dispute (see e.g. Wikipedia:List of controversial issues)
I think this section of the article on sources in wikipedia best applies to this letter. Yuber (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, if you're going to insert the POV tag, note its disclaimer which states: [p]lease see the relevant discussion on the talk page. That means specifically for that given insertion of the tag. Please make sure to do so for all articles. El_C 23:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
This intro is more NPOV and more accurate: The word itself comes from the root jaza which means compensation, though it is unclear if the Qur'an refers to a monetary one [7]. The word jizya is taken from Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an:
Jayjg's intro is highly POV because it is suggesting that the taking of a tax from someone is mandated by the Qur'an, which is totally false.
Not found in any other history, secular or Muslim.
Hedayah is legal commentary, not a definition. Yuber (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber (Talk | block) (Please stop reverting a POV heading, I explained it on the talk page)
— that is not a fair edit summary, I did not revert the tag once the comments were provided.
El_C 23:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Definitions of Jizyah belong in the definition section, commentary on its application belongs in the commentary section. Please do not mistake one for the other, thanks. Jayjg (talk)
Following up:
Can you explain why the statement first is a definition, but the second and third are not? Jayjg (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, can you please source this claim? Have you read all other histories, Muslim and secular, to know what each one says? Jayjg (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, why do you insist on identifying Moshe Gil as a Jewish historian? [8] [9] I find this troubling for a couple of reasons:
Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, you've reverted to your preferred order and preferred wording (The word itself comes from the root jaza which means compensation, though it is unclear if the Qur'an refers to a monetary one [10]. The word jizya is taken from Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an:) four times now. The fact that the versions are slightly different is irrelevant; this kind of gaming of the revert rule is frowned upon, and people are blocked for complex reverts all the time. I'm giving you a chance to revert back before I report you. Please take it. Jayjg (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Klonimus 01:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I made an ammendment but Yuber deliberately removed it. Please check the history!
The Jizyah is clearly an imperial tax that was imposed to humilate the non-Muslims whose lands were conquered. Therefore, I feel this should be added: "that originated from the era of Islamic Imperialism"
and I feel "protection of the Muslim community" should be ammended to "right to live among the Muslim community" since if a non-Muslim fails to pay the Jizyah he will be normally executed.
-- Garywbush 17:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg and Klonimus have been involved in an explosion of bad faith editing on this article including removing the description of who Moshe Gil is. Listen, Moshe Gil doesn't have an article, we must describe who he is and "a professor at Tel Aviv University" is perfectly fine and NPOV. Also, the wording that Jayjg insists on using is still POV. Yuber (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Right, these aren't Geniza documents, but I am merely mentioning Gil's main expertise. However, this book is a 967-page compilation (published by Cambridge University Press) of history based on manuscripts from Jewish, Arab, and Christian communities of the time. Gil has personally examined original manuscripts in their original languages and describes examining some of them by means of ultra-violet rays with the aid of special photographic facilities. There are 19 pages referenced in the index under "jizya", so I will report some of his discussion on this topic, again, as I have more time. The context of the letter to Eilat is in the book with four other surviving letters to four other communities. This letter starts out, "To Yuhanna b. Ruba and the worthies of Ayla, Peace be with you! Praised be Allah, there is no God save Him. I have no intention of fighting you before writing to you. Thou has to accept Islam, or pay the tax, ...." The footnote gives the amount of the tax levied on the people of Ayla according to Waqidi as "300 dinars annually, for there were 300 men there." The other three letters besides the one to Eilat were to the people of Jarba, Adhruh, and Maqna. More later, probably in a few days... -- MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I removed the Sahih Muslim section jayjg added because I noticed that all of the information was very redundant, and was already stated later in the article. I also sourced some quotes and added an explanation for the claim that male non-Muslims who served in the military were exempt from jizya, as that claim was challenged in the article on dhimmi. Yuber (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Jizya was levied in the time of Muhammad on vassal tribes under Muslim protection, including Jews in Khaybar, Christians in Najran, and Zoroastrians in Bahrain. W. Montgomery Watt traces its origin to a pre-Islamic practice among the Arabian nomads wherein a powerful tribe would agree to protect its weaker neighbors in exchange for a tribute, which would be refunded if the protection proved ineffectual.5 The sahih is redundant in that all that information was already present and it was an obvious POV ploy by you to restate it. Yuber (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Is there any way we can move the history section up towards the top, preferably after the lead? Either that or expand the lead by incorporating main points from the history section; this would help the general audience. As it stands right now, the article is not easy to read. As an outsider, I would like to be drawn into the article, learning more about the concept as I go along. -- Viriditas | Talk 02:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, it is customary to discuss before making such drastic changes to an article. You've made very substantial unsourced changes, and deleted alot of unique information. Without discussion, such actions might be viewed by some as inserting POV or even vandalism. I encourage you to discuss specific changes, especially ones so substantial.
Guy Montag 05:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I've protected this page because of the longstanding revert war between Yuber and other editors, which seems always to hinge on the same few sentences. Please provide reputable sources to show that your edits are correct; if the dispute can't be sorted out that way, then formal or informal mediation might help. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:08, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Can we make a list of all the disputed things in this article? Klonimus 07:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Jesus wept, Yuber, you need to stop trying to insert your favored NPOV which by concensus was rejected. And obeying the 3RR would also be nice. Klonimus 03:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see Yuber's already back - as usual, he just waited for the ban to be up, then started pushing POV. Enviroknot 03:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've protected this because Yuber has reverted to the same passage 25 times in just over a month, and there's no sign he's going to stop. The passage he wants is: ""The word jizya is taken from Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an, though it is unclear if it is referring to an actual monetary sum. Many commentators disagree on what the definition of jizya is, though some believe it to be mandated ..."
Other editors want: "The imposition of jizya upon non- Muslims is mandated by Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an."
I'm therefore assuming the only difference between you is the mandatory nature of the tax. Perhaps someone could check for references to add to the text, either showing it to be regarded by most scholars as mandatory, or showing there to be doubt among scholars. Let me know when you'd like to start editing it again. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:52, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
I propose to rearrange the article as follows:
![]() | This page 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. |