![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I have removed the dubious tag added in the lead after "to 50% of annual produce", after cite re-check. Remaining concerns if any should be explained on this talk page. RLoutfy ( talk) 16:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Iryna Harpy: The p. 18, 2nd para of Norman Stillman book, has "...the Khaybaris agreed to pay the Umma ( Ummah) one-half of their annual date harvest". The context is "protection money" and "jizya" as mentioned in the sentences and pages that follow. Please recheck. RLoutfy ( talk) 14:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The 50% of produce was Kharaj tax, not Jizya. Please review the definition of Kharaj; a tax on agricultural land of conquered territories which become a tax applied to all landowners, including Muslims. It's important to note that Kharaj tax has no basis in the Qur'an or hadith - while Jizya does. Reeves.ca ( talk) 01:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Part of the musāqah (irrigation) bargain between Muhammad and the Jew of Khaybar involved a land tax, or kharāj. Professor Nayazee explain the meaning of "kharāj":
Kharāj is of two types. The first is one of which the Imam imposes a fixes levy in accordance with what the land is able to bear. The second type is the taking of part of the produce as karāj. Both types are valid. It appears that the people of Khaybar were being subjected to the second type.— Raj Bhala, Rice Distinguished Professor, University of Kansas, School of Law, Understanding Islamic law (2011), p.646
Some studies question the nearly synonymous use of the terms kharaj and jizya in the historical sources. The general view suggests that while the terms kharaj and jizya seem to have been used interchangeably in early historical sources, what they referred to in any given case depended on the linguistic context. If one finds references to "a kharaj on their heads," the reference was to a poll tax, despite the use of the term kharaj, which later became the term of art for land tax. Likewise, if one fins the phrase "jizya on their land," this referred to a land tax, despite the use of jizya which later come to refer to the poll tax. Early history therefore shows that although each term did not have a determinate technical meaning at first, the concepts of poll tax and land tax existed early in Islamic history. Denner, Conversion and the Poll Tax, 3-10; Ajiaz Hassan Qureshi, "The Terms Kharaj and Jizya and Their Implication," Journal of the Punjab University Historical Society 12 (1961): 27-38; Hossein Modarressi Rabatab'i, Kharaj in Islamic Law (London: Anchor Press Ltd, 1983).
— Anver M. Emon, Religious Pluralism and Islamic Law: Dhimmis and Others in the Empire of Law, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199661633, pp. 98, note 3.
Reeves.ca, See the Emon quote above on interchangeable nature of kharaj and jizya. This was common after Islamic armies invaded the lands of non-Muslim people, there are numerous cites that state the taxes on non-Muslims were just called jizya-o-kharaj or kharaj-o-jizya or equivalent. We must acknowledge this in this article, yet also mention instances when these were not the same. @ CounterTime: I would welcome a summary of the above Anver Emon statement, clarifying the interchangeability as well as difference between jizya and kharaj in this article's Associated taxes with jizya section. We will need to reword it to avoid WP:COPYVIO issues. I invite you to summarize this in the article. RLoutfy ( talk) 00:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
CounterTime, NPOV does not imply removing content to push a POV or silence a POV, it only means stating all significant sides. The 50% jizya rate should remain per WP:BRD and because it is supported by multipe sources. For the full quote from Mazhar-ul-Haq, see above. RLoutfy ( talk) 00:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."
@ RLoutfy:, @ Reeves.ca:, Okay, so we remove the 50% rate claim now in the light of the above cluster of evidence, right? -- CounterTime ( talk) 21:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Reeves.ca: I like your proposals #2, #3 and #4. For lead, I suggest that we clarify, not suppress information. How about,
I suggest this because there are numerous examples over Islamic history in Spain, Yemen, India, and Sahel where Jizya-o-Kharaj was considered the same as an implemented practice (though not in theory). This article should present not just theory of Jizya, but its implementation from both non-Muslim perspective and Muslim perspective. I am open to and welcome alternate wording that you feel would be more accurate, and would make this article more encyclopedically useful. Please go ahead and edit the article for #2, #3 and #4. Your edits to the main article, in this matter, will also help us formulate a consensus for the lead. RLoutfy ( talk) 23:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
"Taxation systems that had been implemented in Islamic countries were land tax (al-kharaj), protection tax (sulh al-jizyah), poll tax (jizyah al-ru’us) and commerce tax (al-‘usyr). Al-Kharaj represents a specific percentage of income obtained from land or property and it includes land obtained from war or by peaceful means. Al-Kharaj was implemented early in the Islamic rule in Khaibar when the Jews requested for the land that Muslims had conquered to remain as theirs because they were very good farmers. The prophet p.b.u.h. consented to the request on condition that they surrender half the revenue obtained from the land as tax al-kharaj; in accordance with the al-muzara’ah principle." - p.631 Johari and Ibrahim (2010), The Dynamism In The Implementation Of al-Kharaj During The Islamic Rule, Shariah Journal, 18(3)
@
RLoutfy: To avoid making assumptions, I have read the entirety of p.641 and still could not find the evidence - so I proceeded to read the entire chapter for context. What I quoted above, was the author's explanation of the terms at the beginning of the chapter that you cited - thus further clarifying the ambiguity of the terms.
I don't disagree that the clarification about the context of the terms needs to be discussed in the article for
WP:NPOV; in fact, it was my recommendation to have a dedicated section specifically for that purpose. Every citation you provide supports the discussion about context of the terms. You have already agree these are different concepts with different applications. We have multiple citations clarifying that the land tax on the Jews of Khaybar was understood as Kharaj (not Jizya) - which is still the originally contested source of the 50% tax as it currently stands in the lede. There were many other citations that also clarified the terms are to be understood from context.
It seems like the discussion is going in circles. Again, I'll reference
WP:NPOV under
Explanation of the neutral point of view:
"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."
What we have here is a seriously contested assertion (claiming the 50% rate as Jizya). The 50% rate is presented as a direct statement even with all the supporting evidence pointing to the contrary. I propose we remove this seriously contested claim from the lede as it is misleading.
@
Iryna Harpy: It seems that we might be at an impasse here; How do you recommend we proceed? Thanks,
Reeves.ca (
talk) 03:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@
CounterTime: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. That addition has been reverted.
@ RLoutfy: Thank you for reviewing the disambiguation section, I like the edits you've made on this section so far. However, the latest addition is just repetition of a view already illustrated (and stated in the first sentence of this section and throughout the article). The two citations for the same point of view gives undue weight to that POV. Each point of view was illustrated in the section and that is sufficient. Reeves.ca ( talk) 03:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
References
Some studies question the nearly synonymous use of the terms kharaj and jizya in the historical sources. The general view suggests that while the terms kharaj and jizya seem to have been used interchangeably in early historical sources, what they referred to in any given case depended on the linguistic context. If one finds references to "a kharaj on their heads," the reference was to a poll tax, despite the use of the term kharaj, which later became the term of art for land tax. Likewise, if one fins the phrase "jizya on their land," this referred to a land tax, despite the use of jizya which later come to refer to the poll tax. Early history therefore shows that although each term did not have a determinate technical meaning at first, the concepts of poll tax and land tax existed early in Islamic history. Denner, Conversion and the Poll Tax, 3-10; Ajiaz Hassan Qureshi, "The Terms Kharaj and Jizya and Their Implication," Journal of the Punjab University Historical Society 12 (1961): 27-38; Hossein Modarressi Rabatab'i, Kharaj in Islamic Law (London: Anchor Press Ltd, 1983).
— Anver M. Emon, Religious Pluralism and Islamic Law: Dhimmis and Others in the Empire of Law, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199661633, pp. 98, note 3.
@ CounterTime: I have reversed your recent edits. Who is the author of The Royal Aal Al-Bayt Institute For Islamic Thought and is this peer reviewed? Please do not remove previous content till we have consensus, per WP:BRD. Please give reasons and peer reviewed cites that what you added is mainstream view. For non-English sources, you must provide quotes and complete translation per WP:NOENG. RLoutfy ( talk) 23:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
In contrast, the 13th century hadith scholar and Shafi'ite jurist Al-Nawawi, comments on those who would impose a humiliation along with the paying of the jizya, stating, "As for this aforementioned practice (hay’ah), I know of no sound support for it in this respect, and it is only mentioned by the scholars of Khurasan. The majority of scholars say that the jizya is to be taken with gentleness, as one would receive a debt. The reliably correct opinion is that this practice is invalid and those who devised it should be refuted. It is not related that the Prophet or any of the rightly-guided caliphs did any such thing when collecting the jizya." [1] [2] Ibn Qudamah also rejected this practice and noted that the Prophet and the rightly-guided caliphs encouraged the jizya to be collected with gentleness and kindness. [1] [3]
— (note that the translation of the non-English sources is given in that book)
References
@
CounterTime: I partially agree with RLoutfy, the content is self published, so you'll need to find a better source if you wish to include the above content. That said, I disagree with the complete revert by RLoutfy to all the changes you've made.
@ RLoutfy: While BRD is an optional method for reaching consensus, it is not a policy or an excuse for indiscriminate sweeping reverts. BRD advises that "Care and diplomacy should be exercised. Some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient." The removal of the Cambridge University Press sourced content does indicate that more care should be used. Kindly only remove the specific content you have issue with. Regards, Reeves.ca ( talk) 15:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
CounterTime, the lead needs to be a summary of the main article. Just like you are insisting on "certain" in the lead to clarify that Jizya was not collected from non-Muslim children below age 9 etc, we cannot include a blanket statement "If anyone could not afford this tax, they would not have to pay anything", because that is not what many scholars and main article is stating. The cites you provide state it to be Ibn Qayyim view, so I have moved that sentence from lead to main article. We cannot generalize Abu Yusuf's view to apply to all fiqhs. I checked Hallaq book and did not find support for what you claim. The Hallaq book on p. 332 simply states that poor were exempt, but this is already mentioned in second line of the first paragraph of the lead. No repetition necessary. RLoutfy ( talk) 00:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
It is also worth noting in this context that in most cases the jizyah taken was actually less than the zakat, or alms, paid by Muslims, which the dhimmis were not required to pay since the zakat is a religious requirement for Muslims only.
— p.83
References
References
waelhallaq
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Dear @RLoutfy. Why did you inexplicably revert my edits?
@Iryna Harpy. I first want to thank your efforts at ameliorating this article. You stated that my latest edit in this article "... did not appear to be constructive". Could you please show how isn't constructive? Thanks. -- CounterTime ( talk) 12:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@CounterTime, The original cannot be translated as "consensus amongst scholars...", and in other parts, you have cherry picked words to make the translation to fit your POV. For example, why not translate "جماجم" in there? Do you know what the translation for "جماجم" is? In other sections, you have added primary sources and your translations are wrong. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, you need to provide a source that does the translation and interpretation. 100 year old cite is unacceptable. See WP:HISTRS. Please feel free to take this to WP:DRN. RLoutfy ( talk) 23:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
@ CounterTime:: The word العلماء is ale'ulama, which can be translated as know all, expert, scholar, authority depending on the context, but in this text the reference is to "Islamic". As I mentioned above already, I am concerned about you cherrypicking and find your translations inappropriate. This talk page is not a forum. There are numerous recent English publications on Jizya, by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars, and this article should rely on them, and their scholarly translations. RLoutfy ( talk) 03:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Iryna Harpy: We do need to trim out text tracts such as "In Number 754899 so and so said this" to improve this article. I will try to dedicate some time to this article in the coming days.
@ CounterTime: Personal attacks are not okay either by you as you did here, or by those you seem to find comfort in. On the quote, will you accept including a "complete" translation by an uninvolved wiki editor, in this article, and holding off including that content till such a third party translation appears, as suggested by Iryna Harpy? RLoutfy ( talk) 18:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
CounterTime, Your "I am waiting for explanation concerning that" or diagnosing your original research based on non-English publications is not same as improving this article by summarizing secondary and tertiary English publications. Wikipedia admin NeilN and another editor Iryna Harpy have both suggested the use of a neutral third party translator for a complete translation, a suggestion I accept, do you? You must stop this focus on me with your personal attacks across Islam-related articles on this talk page, and instead focus on cooperating to improve this article. RLoutfy ( talk) 23:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Mhhossein:, @ Greyshark09:, others, it would help if you can provide a complete translation of the following: "قال علماؤنا: الذي دل عليه القرآن أن الجزية تؤخذ من المقاتلين... وهذا إجماع من العلماء على أن الجزية إنما توضع على جماجم الرجال الأحرار البالغين، وهم الذين يقاتلون دون النساء والذرية والعبيد والمجانين المغلوبين على عقولهم والشيخ الفاني". If you have access to the source, it would help if you can confirm that the context is "Islamic scholars". RLoutfy ( talk) 23:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
@ RLoutfy: Alright, I've placed the original text along with my translation and notes:
قال علماؤنا: الذي دل عليه القرآن أن الجزية تؤخذ من المقاتلين... وهذا إجماع من العلماء على أن الجزية إنما توضع على جماجم الرجال الأحرار البالغين، وهم الذين يقاتلون دون النساء والذرية والعبيد والمجانين المغلوبين على عقولهم والشيخ الفاني
"Our scholars have said: that which the Koran has indicated is that the tribute is taken from fighters ... and there is a consensus amongst scholars that the tribute be only placed on the heads of free men who have reached puberty, who are fighting with the exclusion of women and children and slaves and the crazy insane and the dying old man."
A tried to be as literally when possible, but here are a few clarification notes:
I hope this helps somehow. Regards, Reeves.ca ( talk) 03:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@ RLoutfy: The translation provided by CounterTime is very good. However, if we were to nitpick, we could make a minor adjustment to the second quote:
The difference is not specifically significant, but you asked for fine tuning so I obliged. Otherwise, it looks good. Cheerios, Reeves.ca ( talk) 01:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I have removed Arnold is many sections, but not all, per NeilN comment, "Older sources can be used unless superseded by modern scholarship". The repetition of Arnold's statement of "exemption of Christians who served in Muslim army" is not necessary. Stating it once is enough. I will look into more recent scholarship for those sections that still have Arnold and consider if it should be replaced or just the second cite added and Arnold retained. RLoutfy ( talk) 03:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, CounterTime, I'm in agreement with you as to his contemporary significance per a number of scholars such as Dr Haifaa Jawad (here) and Reza Shah-Kazemi (here). Although his work isn't without its critics (i.e., here), and much is said about 'Orientalism' as being an anachronistic, Victorian understanding of Islam, having perused a few academic works (it's the quality of the scholars citing him, not the quantity), it appears that the mainstream view is that "The Preaching of Islam" is still considered to be a seminal work.
— Iryna Harpy
@ Iryna Harpy: Do you really see Arnold as a relevant to Rationale section of this article? And isn't mentioning Arnold summary about "tribe of al-Jurajima, a Christian tribe" exemption, currently in the etymology/meaning section, enough? Why repeat? RLoutfy ( talk) 23:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The passages drawing on the paper about total tax revenues of the first three caliphates contained serious WP:SYNTHESIS. I started reading the paper to correct it when I was alerted by the bad English to the fact that the journal doesn't even have a website. It's a (defunct?) vanity press trying to pass for a similarly titled francophone journal, as the warning on the website of the latter explains [1]. Eperoton ( talk) 22:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I've removed two non-reliable sources given for this assertion. As far as I can tell, this number is based solely on the agreement made by Muhammad with some Jewish tribes of the Medina area. I've removed this phrase as a WP:SYNTHESIS of the remaining RS. I found another RS discussing this episode, The Jews of Arab lands by Norman A. Stillman, who writes:
In return for their personal safety and the right to retain their homes and property, the Khaybaris agreed to pay the Umma one-half of their annual date harvest. The terms were burdensome, but not unusually harsh. [...] The settlement made with the Jews of Khaybar was repeated with those of Fadak and the oases of the Wadi 'l-Qura. [...] Oasis dwellers customarily paid [...] "protection money" in the form of a share of their produce to the neighboring Bedouin. As Salo Baron has noted, "this practice [...] was freely indulged in also by the great Byzantine and Persian empires to secure peace from many unruly neighboring tribes." (p. 16).
Neither source refers to this payment as jizya, kharaj, or any other sort of Islamic taxation. Eperoton ( talk) 00:22, 5 January 2016 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I have removed the dubious tag added in the lead after "to 50% of annual produce", after cite re-check. Remaining concerns if any should be explained on this talk page. RLoutfy ( talk) 16:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Iryna Harpy: The p. 18, 2nd para of Norman Stillman book, has "...the Khaybaris agreed to pay the Umma ( Ummah) one-half of their annual date harvest". The context is "protection money" and "jizya" as mentioned in the sentences and pages that follow. Please recheck. RLoutfy ( talk) 14:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The 50% of produce was Kharaj tax, not Jizya. Please review the definition of Kharaj; a tax on agricultural land of conquered territories which become a tax applied to all landowners, including Muslims. It's important to note that Kharaj tax has no basis in the Qur'an or hadith - while Jizya does. Reeves.ca ( talk) 01:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Part of the musāqah (irrigation) bargain between Muhammad and the Jew of Khaybar involved a land tax, or kharāj. Professor Nayazee explain the meaning of "kharāj":
Kharāj is of two types. The first is one of which the Imam imposes a fixes levy in accordance with what the land is able to bear. The second type is the taking of part of the produce as karāj. Both types are valid. It appears that the people of Khaybar were being subjected to the second type.— Raj Bhala, Rice Distinguished Professor, University of Kansas, School of Law, Understanding Islamic law (2011), p.646
Some studies question the nearly synonymous use of the terms kharaj and jizya in the historical sources. The general view suggests that while the terms kharaj and jizya seem to have been used interchangeably in early historical sources, what they referred to in any given case depended on the linguistic context. If one finds references to "a kharaj on their heads," the reference was to a poll tax, despite the use of the term kharaj, which later became the term of art for land tax. Likewise, if one fins the phrase "jizya on their land," this referred to a land tax, despite the use of jizya which later come to refer to the poll tax. Early history therefore shows that although each term did not have a determinate technical meaning at first, the concepts of poll tax and land tax existed early in Islamic history. Denner, Conversion and the Poll Tax, 3-10; Ajiaz Hassan Qureshi, "The Terms Kharaj and Jizya and Their Implication," Journal of the Punjab University Historical Society 12 (1961): 27-38; Hossein Modarressi Rabatab'i, Kharaj in Islamic Law (London: Anchor Press Ltd, 1983).
— Anver M. Emon, Religious Pluralism and Islamic Law: Dhimmis and Others in the Empire of Law, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199661633, pp. 98, note 3.
Reeves.ca, See the Emon quote above on interchangeable nature of kharaj and jizya. This was common after Islamic armies invaded the lands of non-Muslim people, there are numerous cites that state the taxes on non-Muslims were just called jizya-o-kharaj or kharaj-o-jizya or equivalent. We must acknowledge this in this article, yet also mention instances when these were not the same. @ CounterTime: I would welcome a summary of the above Anver Emon statement, clarifying the interchangeability as well as difference between jizya and kharaj in this article's Associated taxes with jizya section. We will need to reword it to avoid WP:COPYVIO issues. I invite you to summarize this in the article. RLoutfy ( talk) 00:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
CounterTime, NPOV does not imply removing content to push a POV or silence a POV, it only means stating all significant sides. The 50% jizya rate should remain per WP:BRD and because it is supported by multipe sources. For the full quote from Mazhar-ul-Haq, see above. RLoutfy ( talk) 00:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."
@ RLoutfy:, @ Reeves.ca:, Okay, so we remove the 50% rate claim now in the light of the above cluster of evidence, right? -- CounterTime ( talk) 21:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Reeves.ca: I like your proposals #2, #3 and #4. For lead, I suggest that we clarify, not suppress information. How about,
I suggest this because there are numerous examples over Islamic history in Spain, Yemen, India, and Sahel where Jizya-o-Kharaj was considered the same as an implemented practice (though not in theory). This article should present not just theory of Jizya, but its implementation from both non-Muslim perspective and Muslim perspective. I am open to and welcome alternate wording that you feel would be more accurate, and would make this article more encyclopedically useful. Please go ahead and edit the article for #2, #3 and #4. Your edits to the main article, in this matter, will also help us formulate a consensus for the lead. RLoutfy ( talk) 23:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
"Taxation systems that had been implemented in Islamic countries were land tax (al-kharaj), protection tax (sulh al-jizyah), poll tax (jizyah al-ru’us) and commerce tax (al-‘usyr). Al-Kharaj represents a specific percentage of income obtained from land or property and it includes land obtained from war or by peaceful means. Al-Kharaj was implemented early in the Islamic rule in Khaibar when the Jews requested for the land that Muslims had conquered to remain as theirs because they were very good farmers. The prophet p.b.u.h. consented to the request on condition that they surrender half the revenue obtained from the land as tax al-kharaj; in accordance with the al-muzara’ah principle." - p.631 Johari and Ibrahim (2010), The Dynamism In The Implementation Of al-Kharaj During The Islamic Rule, Shariah Journal, 18(3)
@
RLoutfy: To avoid making assumptions, I have read the entirety of p.641 and still could not find the evidence - so I proceeded to read the entire chapter for context. What I quoted above, was the author's explanation of the terms at the beginning of the chapter that you cited - thus further clarifying the ambiguity of the terms.
I don't disagree that the clarification about the context of the terms needs to be discussed in the article for
WP:NPOV; in fact, it was my recommendation to have a dedicated section specifically for that purpose. Every citation you provide supports the discussion about context of the terms. You have already agree these are different concepts with different applications. We have multiple citations clarifying that the land tax on the Jews of Khaybar was understood as Kharaj (not Jizya) - which is still the originally contested source of the 50% tax as it currently stands in the lede. There were many other citations that also clarified the terms are to be understood from context.
It seems like the discussion is going in circles. Again, I'll reference
WP:NPOV under
Explanation of the neutral point of view:
"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."
What we have here is a seriously contested assertion (claiming the 50% rate as Jizya). The 50% rate is presented as a direct statement even with all the supporting evidence pointing to the contrary. I propose we remove this seriously contested claim from the lede as it is misleading.
@
Iryna Harpy: It seems that we might be at an impasse here; How do you recommend we proceed? Thanks,
Reeves.ca (
talk) 03:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@
CounterTime: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. That addition has been reverted.
@ RLoutfy: Thank you for reviewing the disambiguation section, I like the edits you've made on this section so far. However, the latest addition is just repetition of a view already illustrated (and stated in the first sentence of this section and throughout the article). The two citations for the same point of view gives undue weight to that POV. Each point of view was illustrated in the section and that is sufficient. Reeves.ca ( talk) 03:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
References
Some studies question the nearly synonymous use of the terms kharaj and jizya in the historical sources. The general view suggests that while the terms kharaj and jizya seem to have been used interchangeably in early historical sources, what they referred to in any given case depended on the linguistic context. If one finds references to "a kharaj on their heads," the reference was to a poll tax, despite the use of the term kharaj, which later became the term of art for land tax. Likewise, if one fins the phrase "jizya on their land," this referred to a land tax, despite the use of jizya which later come to refer to the poll tax. Early history therefore shows that although each term did not have a determinate technical meaning at first, the concepts of poll tax and land tax existed early in Islamic history. Denner, Conversion and the Poll Tax, 3-10; Ajiaz Hassan Qureshi, "The Terms Kharaj and Jizya and Their Implication," Journal of the Punjab University Historical Society 12 (1961): 27-38; Hossein Modarressi Rabatab'i, Kharaj in Islamic Law (London: Anchor Press Ltd, 1983).
— Anver M. Emon, Religious Pluralism and Islamic Law: Dhimmis and Others in the Empire of Law, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199661633, pp. 98, note 3.
@ CounterTime: I have reversed your recent edits. Who is the author of The Royal Aal Al-Bayt Institute For Islamic Thought and is this peer reviewed? Please do not remove previous content till we have consensus, per WP:BRD. Please give reasons and peer reviewed cites that what you added is mainstream view. For non-English sources, you must provide quotes and complete translation per WP:NOENG. RLoutfy ( talk) 23:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
In contrast, the 13th century hadith scholar and Shafi'ite jurist Al-Nawawi, comments on those who would impose a humiliation along with the paying of the jizya, stating, "As for this aforementioned practice (hay’ah), I know of no sound support for it in this respect, and it is only mentioned by the scholars of Khurasan. The majority of scholars say that the jizya is to be taken with gentleness, as one would receive a debt. The reliably correct opinion is that this practice is invalid and those who devised it should be refuted. It is not related that the Prophet or any of the rightly-guided caliphs did any such thing when collecting the jizya." [1] [2] Ibn Qudamah also rejected this practice and noted that the Prophet and the rightly-guided caliphs encouraged the jizya to be collected with gentleness and kindness. [1] [3]
— (note that the translation of the non-English sources is given in that book)
References
@
CounterTime: I partially agree with RLoutfy, the content is self published, so you'll need to find a better source if you wish to include the above content. That said, I disagree with the complete revert by RLoutfy to all the changes you've made.
@ RLoutfy: While BRD is an optional method for reaching consensus, it is not a policy or an excuse for indiscriminate sweeping reverts. BRD advises that "Care and diplomacy should be exercised. Some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient." The removal of the Cambridge University Press sourced content does indicate that more care should be used. Kindly only remove the specific content you have issue with. Regards, Reeves.ca ( talk) 15:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
CounterTime, the lead needs to be a summary of the main article. Just like you are insisting on "certain" in the lead to clarify that Jizya was not collected from non-Muslim children below age 9 etc, we cannot include a blanket statement "If anyone could not afford this tax, they would not have to pay anything", because that is not what many scholars and main article is stating. The cites you provide state it to be Ibn Qayyim view, so I have moved that sentence from lead to main article. We cannot generalize Abu Yusuf's view to apply to all fiqhs. I checked Hallaq book and did not find support for what you claim. The Hallaq book on p. 332 simply states that poor were exempt, but this is already mentioned in second line of the first paragraph of the lead. No repetition necessary. RLoutfy ( talk) 00:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
It is also worth noting in this context that in most cases the jizyah taken was actually less than the zakat, or alms, paid by Muslims, which the dhimmis were not required to pay since the zakat is a religious requirement for Muslims only.
— p.83
References
References
waelhallaq
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Dear @RLoutfy. Why did you inexplicably revert my edits?
@Iryna Harpy. I first want to thank your efforts at ameliorating this article. You stated that my latest edit in this article "... did not appear to be constructive". Could you please show how isn't constructive? Thanks. -- CounterTime ( talk) 12:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@CounterTime, The original cannot be translated as "consensus amongst scholars...", and in other parts, you have cherry picked words to make the translation to fit your POV. For example, why not translate "جماجم" in there? Do you know what the translation for "جماجم" is? In other sections, you have added primary sources and your translations are wrong. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, you need to provide a source that does the translation and interpretation. 100 year old cite is unacceptable. See WP:HISTRS. Please feel free to take this to WP:DRN. RLoutfy ( talk) 23:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
@ CounterTime:: The word العلماء is ale'ulama, which can be translated as know all, expert, scholar, authority depending on the context, but in this text the reference is to "Islamic". As I mentioned above already, I am concerned about you cherrypicking and find your translations inappropriate. This talk page is not a forum. There are numerous recent English publications on Jizya, by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars, and this article should rely on them, and their scholarly translations. RLoutfy ( talk) 03:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Iryna Harpy: We do need to trim out text tracts such as "In Number 754899 so and so said this" to improve this article. I will try to dedicate some time to this article in the coming days.
@ CounterTime: Personal attacks are not okay either by you as you did here, or by those you seem to find comfort in. On the quote, will you accept including a "complete" translation by an uninvolved wiki editor, in this article, and holding off including that content till such a third party translation appears, as suggested by Iryna Harpy? RLoutfy ( talk) 18:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
CounterTime, Your "I am waiting for explanation concerning that" or diagnosing your original research based on non-English publications is not same as improving this article by summarizing secondary and tertiary English publications. Wikipedia admin NeilN and another editor Iryna Harpy have both suggested the use of a neutral third party translator for a complete translation, a suggestion I accept, do you? You must stop this focus on me with your personal attacks across Islam-related articles on this talk page, and instead focus on cooperating to improve this article. RLoutfy ( talk) 23:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Mhhossein:, @ Greyshark09:, others, it would help if you can provide a complete translation of the following: "قال علماؤنا: الذي دل عليه القرآن أن الجزية تؤخذ من المقاتلين... وهذا إجماع من العلماء على أن الجزية إنما توضع على جماجم الرجال الأحرار البالغين، وهم الذين يقاتلون دون النساء والذرية والعبيد والمجانين المغلوبين على عقولهم والشيخ الفاني". If you have access to the source, it would help if you can confirm that the context is "Islamic scholars". RLoutfy ( talk) 23:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
@ RLoutfy: Alright, I've placed the original text along with my translation and notes:
قال علماؤنا: الذي دل عليه القرآن أن الجزية تؤخذ من المقاتلين... وهذا إجماع من العلماء على أن الجزية إنما توضع على جماجم الرجال الأحرار البالغين، وهم الذين يقاتلون دون النساء والذرية والعبيد والمجانين المغلوبين على عقولهم والشيخ الفاني
"Our scholars have said: that which the Koran has indicated is that the tribute is taken from fighters ... and there is a consensus amongst scholars that the tribute be only placed on the heads of free men who have reached puberty, who are fighting with the exclusion of women and children and slaves and the crazy insane and the dying old man."
A tried to be as literally when possible, but here are a few clarification notes:
I hope this helps somehow. Regards, Reeves.ca ( talk) 03:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@ RLoutfy: The translation provided by CounterTime is very good. However, if we were to nitpick, we could make a minor adjustment to the second quote:
The difference is not specifically significant, but you asked for fine tuning so I obliged. Otherwise, it looks good. Cheerios, Reeves.ca ( talk) 01:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I have removed Arnold is many sections, but not all, per NeilN comment, "Older sources can be used unless superseded by modern scholarship". The repetition of Arnold's statement of "exemption of Christians who served in Muslim army" is not necessary. Stating it once is enough. I will look into more recent scholarship for those sections that still have Arnold and consider if it should be replaced or just the second cite added and Arnold retained. RLoutfy ( talk) 03:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, CounterTime, I'm in agreement with you as to his contemporary significance per a number of scholars such as Dr Haifaa Jawad (here) and Reza Shah-Kazemi (here). Although his work isn't without its critics (i.e., here), and much is said about 'Orientalism' as being an anachronistic, Victorian understanding of Islam, having perused a few academic works (it's the quality of the scholars citing him, not the quantity), it appears that the mainstream view is that "The Preaching of Islam" is still considered to be a seminal work.
— Iryna Harpy
@ Iryna Harpy: Do you really see Arnold as a relevant to Rationale section of this article? And isn't mentioning Arnold summary about "tribe of al-Jurajima, a Christian tribe" exemption, currently in the etymology/meaning section, enough? Why repeat? RLoutfy ( talk) 23:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The passages drawing on the paper about total tax revenues of the first three caliphates contained serious WP:SYNTHESIS. I started reading the paper to correct it when I was alerted by the bad English to the fact that the journal doesn't even have a website. It's a (defunct?) vanity press trying to pass for a similarly titled francophone journal, as the warning on the website of the latter explains [1]. Eperoton ( talk) 22:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I've removed two non-reliable sources given for this assertion. As far as I can tell, this number is based solely on the agreement made by Muhammad with some Jewish tribes of the Medina area. I've removed this phrase as a WP:SYNTHESIS of the remaining RS. I found another RS discussing this episode, The Jews of Arab lands by Norman A. Stillman, who writes:
In return for their personal safety and the right to retain their homes and property, the Khaybaris agreed to pay the Umma one-half of their annual date harvest. The terms were burdensome, but not unusually harsh. [...] The settlement made with the Jews of Khaybar was repeated with those of Fadak and the oases of the Wadi 'l-Qura. [...] Oasis dwellers customarily paid [...] "protection money" in the form of a share of their produce to the neighboring Bedouin. As Salo Baron has noted, "this practice [...] was freely indulged in also by the great Byzantine and Persian empires to secure peace from many unruly neighboring tribes." (p. 16).
Neither source refers to this payment as jizya, kharaj, or any other sort of Islamic taxation. Eperoton ( talk) 00:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)