![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
As is clear from a basic look at the article, many Ar RSs were used, often with a quote in Ar provided. To comply with WP:NOENG policies one ought to provide complete translations. That's why I thought about posting the relevant quotes and translations here, so as to complete them and ameliorate them. 12:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC) CounterTime ( talk)
⑦
وفي مقدار الجزية ثلاث روايات: 1 - أنها مقدرة بمقدار لا يزيد عليه ولا ينقص منه، وهذا قول أبي حنيفة والشافعي؛ [...] 2 - أنها غير مقدرة بل يرجع فيها إلى اجتهاد الإمام في الزيادة والنقصان، قال الأشرم: قيل لأبي عبد الله: فيزداد اليوم فيه وينقص؟ يعني من الجزية، قال: نعم، يزاد فيه وينقص على قدر طاقتهم، على ما يرى الإمام، [...] وعمر جعل الجزية على ثلاث طبقات: - على الغني ثمانية وأربعين درهمًا. - وعلى المتوسط أربعة وعشرين درهما. - وعلى الفقير اثني عشر درهما. [...] وهذا يدل على أنها إلى رأي الإمام. [...] قال البخاري في صحيحه (4/ 117)، قال ابن عيينة: عن ابن أبي نجيح، قلت لمجاهد: ما شأن أهل الشام عليهم أربعة دنانير، وأهل اليمن عليهم دينار؟ قال: جعل ذلك من أجل اليسار، ولأنها عوض فلم تتقدر كالأجرة. 3 - أن أقلها مقدر بدينار، وأكثرها غير مقدر، وهو اختيار أبي بكر، فتجوز الزيادة ولا يجوز النقصان؛
— Ibn Qudamah, Al-Mughni, 13/209-10
Concerning the rate of jizya, [we can discern between] three opinions: 1. That it is a fixed amount that can't be augmented, nor abated, and this is the opinion [as narrated from] Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i; [...] 2. That it isn't fixed, but it is up to the Imam (Muslim ruler) to make ijtihad (independent reasoning) in [determining whether to make] additions or substractions, al-Ashram said: It was said to Abi 'Abd Allah: So we add or reduce it? Meaning from jizya. He said: "Yes, it is added or substracted according to their (dhimmis) capability, [and] according to what the Imam sees [most fitting] [...] And 'Umar made the jizya into three different layers: 48 dirhams from the rich, 24 dirhams from the middle class and 12 dirhams from the [working] poor. [...] And this indicates that it goes to the opinion of the Imam. [...] al-Bukhari said in his Sahih, ... I said to Mujahid: What is the matter with the people of al-Sham who are required to pay 4 dinars, whereas the people of Yemen [only] pay one dinar? He said: .... [...] 3. That its minimum is rated at one dinar, but its maximum isn't fixed, and this is the choice of Abu Bakr, so it is permitted to add, ...
⑧
تزيدات مبتدعة في طريقة استحصال الرسم أو الضريبة التي تسمى الجزية. و في معاملة الكتابيين عموماً، لم نقرأها في القرآن، و لم نجد دليلاً عليها في سنَّة عن رسول الله ﷺ، و إنما ذكرها بعض متأخري الفقهاء. [...] و قد أنكر محققو الفقهاء على إختلاف مذاهبهم، هده التزايدات المبتدعة، و المقحمة في أحكام الشرع و مبادئه، و حذروا من اعتمادها و الأخذ بها
— Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti, Al-Jihad fī’l-Islām (Damascus: Dar al- Fikr, 2005), pp. 132–3.
Heretical additions in the collection methods of the tax or jizya, and in the common behavior with the People of the Book in general, that we didn't read in the Qur'an, and that we didn't find evidence for in the Sunnah of the Prophet of God - Peace be upon him, but that was mentioned by some later fuqaha (jurists). [...] In fact, investigators of jurisprudence, despite their differences in madhab, have denied and refuted these heretical innovations, that ... and they warned against following and .... it.
Relevant discussions goes below:
In ⑧, how would one go about translating "محققو الفقهاء"? I usually think of a محقق as the editor of a book, for instance, شرح السنة للبغوي بتحقيق شعيب الأرناؤوط, here (بتحقيق) means that it was edited by Shu'ayb al-'Arna'ut. However this isn't the meaning intended by al-Buti, the closest English expression for (محققو) I can think of is investigators, or examiners, but I don't think it fits closely in this context. What do you suggest here? 16:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC) CounterTime ( talk)
As anyone can see this section needs a complete rewrite, since it mentions many different opinions to the detriment of cohesion. To start off this rewriting task I would like to mention here one of the best summaries on the amount of jizya according to the different legal schools, it even mentions the opinion of the Shi'ite Imamite, which is made by Wahbah al-Zuhayli in his book ʾĀthar al-ḥarb fī l-fiqh al-Islāmī : dirāsah muqārinah: (translations aren't perfect, anyone can improve them)
و مما يدل على عدالة الإسلام أنه ترك أمر تقدير الجزية إلى إجتهاد ولي الأمر بحسب ما يرى من حالات اليسار و الفقر في مختلف البيئات و الأزمان، و هذا ما نرجحه لاختلاف المقادير التي رويت في السنه و فعل الصحابة، و هو رأي سفيان الثوري و أبي عبيد و الشيعة الإمامية، و نقل الماوردي: أنه رأي مالك، و هو رواية أيضاً عن أحمد. و نظراً لاختلاف المروي عن الرسول ﷺ ذهب أئمة المذاهب إلى تقدير الجزية و أقلها دينار أو اثنى عشر درهماً.
And amongst [the things] that point to the justice of Islam is that it left the task of evaluating the amount of jizya to the independent reasoning (ijtihad) of the ruler according to what he sees [as suitable] to the conditions of capability and poverty in different places and times, and this explains the difference in the rates [of jizya] that were narrated in the sunnah and the actions of the companions, and this is the opinion of Sufyan al-Thawri and Abi 'Ubayd and the Twelver-Shi'ites, and al-Mawardi narrated: that it was Malik's opinion, and it is also the opinion of Ahmad. And keeping in mind the differences in what was related from the Prophet - Peace be upon him - the Imams of the madhabs went to consider the minimum amount of jizya to be one dinar or twelve dirhams.
— al-Zuḥaylī, Wahbah (1998). ʾĀthar al-ḥarb fī l-fiqh al-Islāmī : dirāsah muqārinah. Damascus: Dār al-Fikr. pp. 702–3. ISBN 1-57547-453-0.
I will also recite the quote from Ibn Qudama (the problem would thus be to find a suitable way to merge between these two sources)
وفي مقدار الجزية ثلاث روايات: 1 - أنها مقدرة بمقدار لا يزيد عليه ولا ينقص منه، وهذا قول أبي حنيفة والشافعي؛ [...] 2 - أنها غير مقدرة بل يرجع فيها إلى اجتهاد الإمام في الزيادة والنقصان، قال الأشرم: قيل لأبي عبد الله: فيزداد اليوم فيه وينقص؟ يعني من الجزية، قال: نعم، يزاد فيه وينقص على قدر طاقتهم، على ما يرى الإمام، [...] وعمر جعل الجزية على ثلاث طبقات: - على الغني ثمانية وأربعين درهمًا. - وعلى المتوسط أربعة وعشرين درهما. - وعلى الفقير اثني عشر درهما. [...] وهذا يدل على أنها إلى رأي الإمام. [...] قال البخاري في صحيحه (4/ 117)، قال ابن عيينة: عن ابن أبي نجيح، قلت لمجاهد: ما شأن أهل الشام عليهم أربعة دنانير، وأهل اليمن عليهم دينار؟ قال: جعل ذلك من أجل اليسار، ولأنها عوض فلم تتقدر كالأجرة. 3 - أن أقلها مقدر بدينار، وأكثرها غير مقدر، وهو اختيار
أبي بكر، فتجوز الزيادة ولا يجوز النقصان؛
Concerning the rate of jizya, [we can discern between] three opinions: 1. That it is a fixed amount that can't be augmented, nor abated, and this is the opinion [as narrated from] Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i [...] 2. That it isn't fixed, but it is up to the Imam (Muslim ruler) to make ijtihad (independent reasoning) in [determining whether to make] additions or substractions, al-Shram said: It was said to Abi 'Abd Allah: ... He said: "Yes, it is added or substracted according to their (dhimmis) capability, [and] according to what the Imam sees [most fitting]" [...] And 'Umar made the jizya into three different layers: 48 dirhams from the rich, 24 dirhams from the middle class and 12 dirhams from the [working] poor. [...] And this indicates that it goes to the opinion of the Imam. [...] 3. That its minimum is rated at one dinar, but its maximum isn't fixed, and this is the choice of Abu Bakr, so it is permitted to add, ...— Ibn Qudamah, Al-Mughni, 13/209-10
16:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC) CounterTime ( talk)
In the article I read a quote from Al-Nawawi's "Rawdat al-Talibin": 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."
But is he the same author that in the "Minhai al-Talibin" writes this? "An infidel who has to pay his poll-tax should be treated by the tax- collector with disdain; the collector remaining seated and the infidel standing before him, the head bent and the body bowed. The infidel should personally place the money in the balance, while the collector holds him by the beard and strikes him upon both cheeks. These practices, however, according to most jurists, are merely commendable, but not obligatory, as some think."
[1]
I do not know how to reconcile the two quotes. Any idea? --
Domics (
talk)
08:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
قُلْتُ: هَذِهِ الْهَيْئَةُ الْمَذْكُورَةُ أَوَّلًا: لَا نَعْلَمُ لَهَا عَلَى هَذَا الْوَجْهِ أَصْلًا مُعْتَمَدًا، وَإِنَّمَا ذَكَرَهَا طَائِفَةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا الخراسَانِيِّينَ، وَقَالَ جُمْهُورٌ الْأَصْحَابِ: تُؤْخَذُ الْجِزْيَةُ بِرِفْقٍ ، كَأَخْذِ الدُّيُونِ . فَالصَّوَابُ الْجَزْمُ بِأَنَّ هَذِهِ الْهَيْئَةَ بَاطِلَةٌ مَرْدُودَةٌ عَلَى مَنِ اخْتَرَعَهَا، وَلَمْ يُنْقَلْ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ وَلَا أَحَدًا مِنَ الْخُلَفَاءِ الرَّاشِدِينَ فَعَلَ شَيْئًا مِنْهَا ، مَعَ أَخْذِهِمِ الْجِزْيَةَ
قلت: هده الهيئة باطلة و دعوة استحبابها أشد خطأ
I said: For a collector to act in the manner here described is absolutely forbidden, and it is a grave error to declare it to be commendable.
Minhai al-Talibin is an abridgment and comment of Abu l-Qasim al-Rafi'i's al-Muharrar. So is it the opinion that "an infidel who has to pay his poll-tax should be treated by the tax- collector with disdain..." from the latter? Is it al-Rafi'i's opinion that al-Nawawi comments at the end of the paragraph?-- Domics ( talk) 08:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
He reports Iqrimah as saying that the protected person should give it while standing and the collector receive it sitting; another group of commentators said that the dhimmi or protected person should bring the jizyah on foot, not riding; and then he should be dragged with harshness to the place of payment, and his hand should then be pulled and treated roughly.
This article currently employs a rather obscure translation of Surah 9:29 which differs substantially from all major English translations of the Qur'an, including the three at usc.edu (Yusuf Ali, Picthal and Shakir) as well as those of Arberry, Sahih, Sarwar and Khan. For reasons unknown, the transgression of refusing to "acknowledge the religion of Truth" (Yusuf Ali, though similarly rendered in all aforementioned translations)is replaced with a simple failure to "behave according to the rule of justice". Additionally, it declares that non-believers must be fought "until they pay the tax and submit to it (the tax)", whereas the other translations mention a general, symbolic state of submission ("subjection", according to Shakir). These discrepancies change the fundamental meaning of the verse and prejudice the discussion below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri321 ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Yuri321, 154.127.59.154: It's great to see a policy-based discussion, but please make sure you've read WP:3RR. We aren't dealing with one of the exceptions here, and no great harm will come about if one or another version stays up for a few more hours or even days. One of you has already qualified for an automatic block, and the involvement of multiple IP users in an edit war would normally qualify the page for semi-protection. I agree with some arguments made by both of you and disagree with others.
Yuri321 is correct that WP:NPOV requires us to reflect all significant views found in RSs in proportion to their prominence in RSs. The N in NPOV means that we can't base these choices on our own views about correctness of these views, including our views about the argumentation they use or don't use to support them. What this involves is evaluation of academic credentials and influence of publishers and authors. If there's a prominent RS which argues against a previously accepted interpretation, we should reflect that, but not take its side, unless and until this view has been accepted in the field and superseded the previous view. I see no evidence of that happening in this case, as evidenced by the more recent translation in the Study Quran.
154.127.59.154 is correct that assessing which view is minority or majority requires a RSs which explicitly makes that assessment, and doing so without one violates WP:SYNTHESIS. What is done in these cases is display the citations supporting one and the other. Yuri321 has already done that, though "many" is also a problematic quantifier, and is unnecessary if the reader can count the sources cited for each view for themselves. I do, however, think that we should place the other translation first in that paragraph too, in view of its greater prominence.
I'll make an edit and if there's still disagreement, let's continue the discussion here. I'll comment about al-Buti later, as I have to attend to some non-WP business.
P.S. Has the newly added passage been paraphrased or copied verbatim? If it's the latter, please paraphrase it ASAP in the main article text to avoid
WP:COPYVIO, which is a serious matter. Upon closer inspection it seem to be a paraphrase.
Eperoton ( talk) 13:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Your entire account is a single purpose one, you literally made it just to further one specific agenda.
@ TalkJizya: Well, this is turning to be quite an intricate translation. According to what I know, both in modern Arabic and in usual Quranic interpretation, qatl is the standard word for killing and doesn't mean fighting, so I'm assuming you mean that this other usage is well known to those who are well versed in the writings of classical authors. I don't claim to be one of those people. If there's context in al-Buti to indicate that he's using this other meaning rather the standard usage of the word, could you paste it or link to it here? Aside from the purposes of translation, I'm curious myself. Also, if qatl is left translated as "fighting" without further classification, it will just prompt other editors to change it at a later date. I think we also need to figure out how to handle English glosses for readability, per Yuri's feedback and standard practice in translation for a general audience. Eperoton ( talk) 19:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
References
@ MezzoMezzo and Reeves.ca: With TalkJizya's permission, I'd like to ask for your opinions regarding translation of a passage by Muhammad Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti. The original is as follows:
«الآية أمرت بالقتال لا بالقتل، وقد علمت الفرق الكبير بين الكلمتين ... فأنت تقول: قتلت فلاناً، إن بدأته بالقتل، وتقول: قاتلته، إذا قاومت سعيه إلى قتلك بقتل مثله، أو سابقته إلى ذلك كي لا ينال منك غرة.»
Our current translation reads: "The verse commands qitāl (قتال) and not qatl (قتل), and it is known that there is a big distinction between these two words ... For you say ‘qataltu (قتلت) so-and-so’ if you initiated the fighting, while you say ‘qātaltu (قاتلت) him’ if you resisted his effort to fight you by a reciprocal fight, or if you forestalled him in that so that he would not get at you unawares."
There's currently some disagreement on the following points:
Thanks for your help. Eperoton ( talk) 03:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
This is in the introduction
But there is source that contradicts it = H.R.H. Prince, Ghazi Muhammad; Ibrahim, Kalin; Mohammad Hashim, Kamali (2013). War and Peace in Islam: The Uses and Abuses of Jihad (PDF). The Islamic Texts Society Cambridge. ISBN 978-1-903682-83-8. page 241 says "To the best of our knowledge, the jizyah tax was not a significant source of income for the state" -- TalkJizya ( talk) 16:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
This reference runs contrary to many others such as the reference by Muhammad Imara, al-Buti and by al-Nawawi among others.
Even the author of the article says that
There
is
no
reason
to
take
the
state
of
submissiveness
for
non-Muslim
subjects
in
a
strict
literal
sense.
It
must
be
taken
rather
in
the
political
sense.
Shafi'i
takes
the
word
in
question
in
the
of
sense
sub
mission
to
the
authority
of
Islam.4
According
to
Raghib,
the
word
oj>U
denotes
obedience
to
the
authority
of
Islam
A close study of the early history of Jizya particularly since its imposition by the Prophet till later in the period of Khulafa' Rashidun will reveal that it was a tax through the payment of which the non-Muslim subjects were expected to pay allegiance to the political authority of Islam. There is nothing to prove that it was imposed just to humiliate them or to make them socially degraded.
I'm for deleting this one, Yuri disagrees, what do you think? -- TalkJizya ( talk) 15:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
But here again what concerns us is not the original meaning of the verse but the way in which it was interpreted in historic Islam. On this there is little doubt. The normal interpretation was that the jizya was not only a tax but also a symbolic expression of subordination. The Qur’ān and tradition often use the word dhull or dhilla (humiliation or abasement) to indicate the status God has assigned to those who reject Muhammad, and in which they should be kept so long as they persist in that rejection. [...] The imposition of the jizya, and more especially the manner of its payment, are usually interpreted in this light. [...] In contrast to the commentators and other theologians, the jurists are less ferocious and more concerned with the fiscal than the symbolic aspect of the jizya. [...] Several points must be noted in considering these and other similar passages. First, the jurists, with their more humane and also more practical attitude, belong to the early period of Islam, when it was confident and expanding; the commentators cited were writing in a period of contraction and constraint, when Islam was under threat both at home and abroad. Second, there can be no doubt that it is the attitudes of the jurists, rather than of the commentators and other theologians, that more accurately reflect the practice of Muslim rulers and administrators. Most of these, in the treatment of dhimmīs as in many other matters, failed to meet the exacting demand of their religious advisers and critics. The rules that some of the ulema laid down on the collection of the jizya and related matters belong more to the history of mentalities than of institutions. They have their own kind of importance, which becomes greater in times of crisis or defeat. Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam, pp. 43-45
Authors debate whether the jizya was meant to subjugate and humiliate non-Muslims, or whether it was only intended as a service fee for military protection. Muhammad Hamidullah argues that the jizya was solely for protection. Without citing economic studies, he states, “So, the non-Muslims paid a little supplementary tax, the jizyah … which was neither heavy nor unjust.” Mahmoud Ayoub and Haddad argue instead that it served both functions: it was both a mode of subservience and a method of inclusion. Hamidullah’s account reflects the imperatives of the myth of harmony, while Haddad and Ayoub offer a historical account of the jizya’s complex social function in early Islamic history. [...] the studies on the jizya, in the aggregate, suggest that the jizya was a complex symbol which can be viewed as a tool of marginalization or a mechanism of inclusion, but more fruitfully is understood as both. Emon, Anver M. (2012-07-26). Religious Pluralism and Islamic Law: Dhimmis and Others in the Empire of Law (Oxford Islamic Legal Studies) (p. 99). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition. Eperoton ( talk) 16:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@Eperoton For the Encyclopedia of Fiqh it does not give an overview of the exegetical tradition on aṣ-Ṣaghār, rather it talks about the rationale of jizya, something very different. Those two terms don't appear in the main titles also, so the authors of that entry in the encyclopedia did not state that.
For the Emon Anver source: We are talking about the exegetical tradition relation to aṣ-Ṣaghār, not the historical side.
For the Bernard Lewis: He does not give a full account. Abdel-Haleem does a far better job at giving the multiple accounts on exegesis of aṣ-Ṣaghār. And we already have the al-Nawawi, Imara and al-Buti sources among others. -- TalkJizya ( talk) 16:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Your original criticism: You name two modern scholars, Imara and al-Buti, and state that their work contradicts Ahmed, but you fail to adduce any evidence to support this claim. Please provide quotations or, at the very least, references.
Al-Nawawi, on the other hand, is of little use to us. Having died in 1277, he is ill-placed to offer any assessment of Islamic theology or Qur’anic exegesis in, say, 1700, or any other date after his death.
Your quotation from Ahmed is also of little consequence. His own opinion of the verse has no bearing on the position taken by the majority of Fuqahā.
Your edit on 1 September: Firstly, you cannot use a single primary source from the mid-thirteenth century to reach a general conclusion on the position of Islamic jurists across the entire medieval period. This is especially true when the quoted author may have contradicted himself in another work; there was a useful discussion of this here on the talk page but it appears to have been deleted. If it were the case that a modern scholar had assessed the available evidence and arrived at that conclusion then your edit would be defensible, but a single source from the middle of the period in question certainly does not suffice. Besides, it is manifestly false to claim that the ‘view of the majority of medieval Muslim jurists’ was that ‘the jizya ought to be taken with gentleness’ because such a claim contradicts the historical record.
For example, dhimmis had to pay the jizya in person during the rules of the Fatimid and Ayyubid dynasties in Egypt, and throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in Iraq, as a mark of their humiliation before the Muslim authority. [1] Similarly, dhimmis in al-Andalus were (among other prohibitions) forbidden from riding horses; where exceptions to these rules are found, they ensue not from the charitable, ‘gentle’ position of the ulema but from the policies of secular rulers willing to trade concessions for assistance (such as in the sphere of banking). [2] In India, the fourteenth-century Muslim historian, Ziauddin Barani, records that Sultan Alauddin Khilji was advised by his qāḍī that ‘the due subordination of the zimmi is exhibited in this humble payment [jizya] and by this throwing of dirt in their mouths’, specifically citing the Qur’anic injunction to ‘keep them under in subjection’ as justification. [3] This is not, therefore, a minority position. Or, if it is, then you should be able to explain why it managed to monopolise state power from the farthest western reaches of the Islamic world to the farthest east, with reference to analysis from the secondary sources.
Secondly, I do not understand why you decided to replace the sentence about the general consensus among Islamic jurists with one specifically concerning the medieval period; even if your rather dubious edit were correct, it would not refute or supersede the existing text. Your edit did, however, leave that section hopelessly partisan, with a paltry 20 in 188 words dedicated to the common exegetical position that ‘wa-hum ṣāghirūn’ relates to submission and humiliation. To leave it in such a state would be a clear breach of /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.
Your response to Eperoton: I disagree with your criticism of Lewis’ work. Having read Abdel-Haleem’s article, I believe Lewis gave the subject a better, more dispassionate treatment. Having said that, I hope you aren’t going to disregard all other sources out of hand in favour of Abdel-Haleem as per our previous encounter. Yuri321 ( talk) 04:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
@Eperoton
1. 100% agree, just that a reliable source should be reflected according to specific criteria: verifiability, relevance to the topic, ... By the way, who is this Ahmed Ziauddin? Is he an accomplished professor, scholar, ...?
2. I think you're having a misunderstanding here. There's a huge difference between the rationale for jizya and the exegesis for the specific Qur'anic term aṣ-Ṣaghār. You should distinguish between those.
3. You're writing as tho the "classical commentators" contradict the common consensus that jizya is in exchange for military service (see the Ibn Hajar reference), where is it "less in tune with modern sensibilities"? In point of fact, classical commentators do not even delve into explaining the justification for jizya, it's actually the jurists who expound on that. Your evaluation of the Arnold reference is also flawed, it's a renowed classic and should be cited and given prominence just like his fellows such as Theodor Nöldeke.
@Yuri321
1. No, I didn't fail to do that, they clearly stated, ""
2. For the Nawawi quote, I explicitly changed "Islamic jurists" to "medieval Muslim jurist" to reflect that.
3. I showed that Ahmed had a different conception of humiliation than the one you use. The position maintened by the majority of jurists is that jizya is in exchange for military service, as stated by Ibn Hajar. This is also the explicit position of the Hanafi school, which was the official school of the Ottoman Empire.
4. NO NO AND NO. THE AUTHOR DID NOT CONTRADICT HIMSELF. Show your proof.
5. Are you serious? The section is explicitly about the exegesis of the term aṣ-Ṣaghār and not about the historical reality. You're confusing things up, and you're providing your own opinion on these sources, which is an invalid approach, so I wont reply to those things who are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, riding horsees???! WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE EXEGESIS OF THE TERM aṣ-Ṣaghār??! OR EVEN ABOUT THE HISTORICAL EMPLEMENTATION OF SOME OF THOSE INTERPRETATIONS??! THAT'S COMPLETELY OFF-TOPIC, right?
6. Dear @ Eperoton:, please read this with the least bias possible and with the utmost neutrality = This is not, therefore, a minority position. Or, if it is, then you should be able to explain why it managed to monopolise state power from the farthest western reaches of the Islamic world to the farthest east, with reference to analysis from the secondary sources. = And tell me whether this individual is serious or seriously biased and has no interest in ameliorating this article? I can't imagine someone seriously wanting to ameliorate this article request that I provide to him an explanation of the Islamic conquests "with reference to analysis from the secondary sources"
..... -_-
7. "Having read Abdel-Haleem’s article" Oh, really? So what does he quote Abu Hayyan as saying in page 77?
I will be writing a set of key points that should be reflected in that article hoping to arrive at a consensus with @Eperoton, at the moment I will not change that part of that section until a consensus is reached here, okay?
-- TalkJizya ( talk) 08:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
References
Quote - The Sultan then asked, "How are Hindus designated in the law, as payers of tributes or givers of tribute? The Kazi replied, "They are called payers of tribute, and when the revenue officer demands silver from them, they should tender gold. If the officer throws dirt into their mouths, they must without reluctance open their mouths to receive it. The due subordination of the zimmi is exhibited in this humble payment and by this throwing of dirt in their mouths. The glorification of Islam is a duty. God holds them in contempt, for he says, "keep them under in subjection". To keep the Hindus in abasement is especially a religious duty, because they are the most inveterate enemies of the Prophet, and because the Prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them, enslave them and spoil their wealth and property. No doctor but the great doctor ( Hanafi), to whose school we belong, has assented to the imposition of the jizya (poll tax) on Hindus. Doctors of other schools allow no other alternative but Death or Islam.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
How to translate this legal maxim?? My suggestion "consideration is granted to objectives (intentions) and meanings and not to terms and al-mabānī." but I don't know how to translate المباني
Proposals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalkJizya ( talk • contribs) 11:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there are any technical terms here. The only issue is with translating "المباني" whose meaning is a mystery to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalkJizya ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I think you're confusing things, for instance, the maxim does not talk about maqasid as in maqasid al-shari'a. I think you'll gain a better understanding by looking at the context in which al-Buti mentioned this maxim:
ما يلزم بتسمية المال الذي يؤخد منهم (جزية)، ومن القواعد الفقهية المعروفة إن العبرة بالمقاصد والمعاني لا بالألفاظ والمباني. (...) ولعلك تسأل: فهل يجب إذا تحول إسم هذا المال من الجزية إلى الصداقة أو الزكاة، أن يضاعف المبلغ عن القدر المطلوب زكاةً؟ والجواب أن هذا من أحكام الإمامة، فالأمر في تحويل الاسم، وفي تحديد المبلغ منوط بما يراه إمام المسلمين في كل عصر.
I think "wording" would be fine, just wanted to double-check. -- TalkJizya ( talk) 17:29, 7 September 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
As is clear from a basic look at the article, many Ar RSs were used, often with a quote in Ar provided. To comply with WP:NOENG policies one ought to provide complete translations. That's why I thought about posting the relevant quotes and translations here, so as to complete them and ameliorate them. 12:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC) CounterTime ( talk)
⑦
وفي مقدار الجزية ثلاث روايات: 1 - أنها مقدرة بمقدار لا يزيد عليه ولا ينقص منه، وهذا قول أبي حنيفة والشافعي؛ [...] 2 - أنها غير مقدرة بل يرجع فيها إلى اجتهاد الإمام في الزيادة والنقصان، قال الأشرم: قيل لأبي عبد الله: فيزداد اليوم فيه وينقص؟ يعني من الجزية، قال: نعم، يزاد فيه وينقص على قدر طاقتهم، على ما يرى الإمام، [...] وعمر جعل الجزية على ثلاث طبقات: - على الغني ثمانية وأربعين درهمًا. - وعلى المتوسط أربعة وعشرين درهما. - وعلى الفقير اثني عشر درهما. [...] وهذا يدل على أنها إلى رأي الإمام. [...] قال البخاري في صحيحه (4/ 117)، قال ابن عيينة: عن ابن أبي نجيح، قلت لمجاهد: ما شأن أهل الشام عليهم أربعة دنانير، وأهل اليمن عليهم دينار؟ قال: جعل ذلك من أجل اليسار، ولأنها عوض فلم تتقدر كالأجرة. 3 - أن أقلها مقدر بدينار، وأكثرها غير مقدر، وهو اختيار أبي بكر، فتجوز الزيادة ولا يجوز النقصان؛
— Ibn Qudamah, Al-Mughni, 13/209-10
Concerning the rate of jizya, [we can discern between] three opinions: 1. That it is a fixed amount that can't be augmented, nor abated, and this is the opinion [as narrated from] Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i; [...] 2. That it isn't fixed, but it is up to the Imam (Muslim ruler) to make ijtihad (independent reasoning) in [determining whether to make] additions or substractions, al-Ashram said: It was said to Abi 'Abd Allah: So we add or reduce it? Meaning from jizya. He said: "Yes, it is added or substracted according to their (dhimmis) capability, [and] according to what the Imam sees [most fitting] [...] And 'Umar made the jizya into three different layers: 48 dirhams from the rich, 24 dirhams from the middle class and 12 dirhams from the [working] poor. [...] And this indicates that it goes to the opinion of the Imam. [...] al-Bukhari said in his Sahih, ... I said to Mujahid: What is the matter with the people of al-Sham who are required to pay 4 dinars, whereas the people of Yemen [only] pay one dinar? He said: .... [...] 3. That its minimum is rated at one dinar, but its maximum isn't fixed, and this is the choice of Abu Bakr, so it is permitted to add, ...
⑧
تزيدات مبتدعة في طريقة استحصال الرسم أو الضريبة التي تسمى الجزية. و في معاملة الكتابيين عموماً، لم نقرأها في القرآن، و لم نجد دليلاً عليها في سنَّة عن رسول الله ﷺ، و إنما ذكرها بعض متأخري الفقهاء. [...] و قد أنكر محققو الفقهاء على إختلاف مذاهبهم، هده التزايدات المبتدعة، و المقحمة في أحكام الشرع و مبادئه، و حذروا من اعتمادها و الأخذ بها
— Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti, Al-Jihad fī’l-Islām (Damascus: Dar al- Fikr, 2005), pp. 132–3.
Heretical additions in the collection methods of the tax or jizya, and in the common behavior with the People of the Book in general, that we didn't read in the Qur'an, and that we didn't find evidence for in the Sunnah of the Prophet of God - Peace be upon him, but that was mentioned by some later fuqaha (jurists). [...] In fact, investigators of jurisprudence, despite their differences in madhab, have denied and refuted these heretical innovations, that ... and they warned against following and .... it.
Relevant discussions goes below:
In ⑧, how would one go about translating "محققو الفقهاء"? I usually think of a محقق as the editor of a book, for instance, شرح السنة للبغوي بتحقيق شعيب الأرناؤوط, here (بتحقيق) means that it was edited by Shu'ayb al-'Arna'ut. However this isn't the meaning intended by al-Buti, the closest English expression for (محققو) I can think of is investigators, or examiners, but I don't think it fits closely in this context. What do you suggest here? 16:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC) CounterTime ( talk)
As anyone can see this section needs a complete rewrite, since it mentions many different opinions to the detriment of cohesion. To start off this rewriting task I would like to mention here one of the best summaries on the amount of jizya according to the different legal schools, it even mentions the opinion of the Shi'ite Imamite, which is made by Wahbah al-Zuhayli in his book ʾĀthar al-ḥarb fī l-fiqh al-Islāmī : dirāsah muqārinah: (translations aren't perfect, anyone can improve them)
و مما يدل على عدالة الإسلام أنه ترك أمر تقدير الجزية إلى إجتهاد ولي الأمر بحسب ما يرى من حالات اليسار و الفقر في مختلف البيئات و الأزمان، و هذا ما نرجحه لاختلاف المقادير التي رويت في السنه و فعل الصحابة، و هو رأي سفيان الثوري و أبي عبيد و الشيعة الإمامية، و نقل الماوردي: أنه رأي مالك، و هو رواية أيضاً عن أحمد. و نظراً لاختلاف المروي عن الرسول ﷺ ذهب أئمة المذاهب إلى تقدير الجزية و أقلها دينار أو اثنى عشر درهماً.
And amongst [the things] that point to the justice of Islam is that it left the task of evaluating the amount of jizya to the independent reasoning (ijtihad) of the ruler according to what he sees [as suitable] to the conditions of capability and poverty in different places and times, and this explains the difference in the rates [of jizya] that were narrated in the sunnah and the actions of the companions, and this is the opinion of Sufyan al-Thawri and Abi 'Ubayd and the Twelver-Shi'ites, and al-Mawardi narrated: that it was Malik's opinion, and it is also the opinion of Ahmad. And keeping in mind the differences in what was related from the Prophet - Peace be upon him - the Imams of the madhabs went to consider the minimum amount of jizya to be one dinar or twelve dirhams.
— al-Zuḥaylī, Wahbah (1998). ʾĀthar al-ḥarb fī l-fiqh al-Islāmī : dirāsah muqārinah. Damascus: Dār al-Fikr. pp. 702–3. ISBN 1-57547-453-0.
I will also recite the quote from Ibn Qudama (the problem would thus be to find a suitable way to merge between these two sources)
وفي مقدار الجزية ثلاث روايات: 1 - أنها مقدرة بمقدار لا يزيد عليه ولا ينقص منه، وهذا قول أبي حنيفة والشافعي؛ [...] 2 - أنها غير مقدرة بل يرجع فيها إلى اجتهاد الإمام في الزيادة والنقصان، قال الأشرم: قيل لأبي عبد الله: فيزداد اليوم فيه وينقص؟ يعني من الجزية، قال: نعم، يزاد فيه وينقص على قدر طاقتهم، على ما يرى الإمام، [...] وعمر جعل الجزية على ثلاث طبقات: - على الغني ثمانية وأربعين درهمًا. - وعلى المتوسط أربعة وعشرين درهما. - وعلى الفقير اثني عشر درهما. [...] وهذا يدل على أنها إلى رأي الإمام. [...] قال البخاري في صحيحه (4/ 117)، قال ابن عيينة: عن ابن أبي نجيح، قلت لمجاهد: ما شأن أهل الشام عليهم أربعة دنانير، وأهل اليمن عليهم دينار؟ قال: جعل ذلك من أجل اليسار، ولأنها عوض فلم تتقدر كالأجرة. 3 - أن أقلها مقدر بدينار، وأكثرها غير مقدر، وهو اختيار
أبي بكر، فتجوز الزيادة ولا يجوز النقصان؛
Concerning the rate of jizya, [we can discern between] three opinions: 1. That it is a fixed amount that can't be augmented, nor abated, and this is the opinion [as narrated from] Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i [...] 2. That it isn't fixed, but it is up to the Imam (Muslim ruler) to make ijtihad (independent reasoning) in [determining whether to make] additions or substractions, al-Shram said: It was said to Abi 'Abd Allah: ... He said: "Yes, it is added or substracted according to their (dhimmis) capability, [and] according to what the Imam sees [most fitting]" [...] And 'Umar made the jizya into three different layers: 48 dirhams from the rich, 24 dirhams from the middle class and 12 dirhams from the [working] poor. [...] And this indicates that it goes to the opinion of the Imam. [...] 3. That its minimum is rated at one dinar, but its maximum isn't fixed, and this is the choice of Abu Bakr, so it is permitted to add, ...— Ibn Qudamah, Al-Mughni, 13/209-10
16:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC) CounterTime ( talk)
In the article I read a quote from Al-Nawawi's "Rawdat al-Talibin": 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."
But is he the same author that in the "Minhai al-Talibin" writes this? "An infidel who has to pay his poll-tax should be treated by the tax- collector with disdain; the collector remaining seated and the infidel standing before him, the head bent and the body bowed. The infidel should personally place the money in the balance, while the collector holds him by the beard and strikes him upon both cheeks. These practices, however, according to most jurists, are merely commendable, but not obligatory, as some think."
[1]
I do not know how to reconcile the two quotes. Any idea? --
Domics (
talk)
08:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
قُلْتُ: هَذِهِ الْهَيْئَةُ الْمَذْكُورَةُ أَوَّلًا: لَا نَعْلَمُ لَهَا عَلَى هَذَا الْوَجْهِ أَصْلًا مُعْتَمَدًا، وَإِنَّمَا ذَكَرَهَا طَائِفَةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا الخراسَانِيِّينَ، وَقَالَ جُمْهُورٌ الْأَصْحَابِ: تُؤْخَذُ الْجِزْيَةُ بِرِفْقٍ ، كَأَخْذِ الدُّيُونِ . فَالصَّوَابُ الْجَزْمُ بِأَنَّ هَذِهِ الْهَيْئَةَ بَاطِلَةٌ مَرْدُودَةٌ عَلَى مَنِ اخْتَرَعَهَا، وَلَمْ يُنْقَلْ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ وَلَا أَحَدًا مِنَ الْخُلَفَاءِ الرَّاشِدِينَ فَعَلَ شَيْئًا مِنْهَا ، مَعَ أَخْذِهِمِ الْجِزْيَةَ
قلت: هده الهيئة باطلة و دعوة استحبابها أشد خطأ
I said: For a collector to act in the manner here described is absolutely forbidden, and it is a grave error to declare it to be commendable.
Minhai al-Talibin is an abridgment and comment of Abu l-Qasim al-Rafi'i's al-Muharrar. So is it the opinion that "an infidel who has to pay his poll-tax should be treated by the tax- collector with disdain..." from the latter? Is it al-Rafi'i's opinion that al-Nawawi comments at the end of the paragraph?-- Domics ( talk) 08:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
He reports Iqrimah as saying that the protected person should give it while standing and the collector receive it sitting; another group of commentators said that the dhimmi or protected person should bring the jizyah on foot, not riding; and then he should be dragged with harshness to the place of payment, and his hand should then be pulled and treated roughly.
This article currently employs a rather obscure translation of Surah 9:29 which differs substantially from all major English translations of the Qur'an, including the three at usc.edu (Yusuf Ali, Picthal and Shakir) as well as those of Arberry, Sahih, Sarwar and Khan. For reasons unknown, the transgression of refusing to "acknowledge the religion of Truth" (Yusuf Ali, though similarly rendered in all aforementioned translations)is replaced with a simple failure to "behave according to the rule of justice". Additionally, it declares that non-believers must be fought "until they pay the tax and submit to it (the tax)", whereas the other translations mention a general, symbolic state of submission ("subjection", according to Shakir). These discrepancies change the fundamental meaning of the verse and prejudice the discussion below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri321 ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Yuri321, 154.127.59.154: It's great to see a policy-based discussion, but please make sure you've read WP:3RR. We aren't dealing with one of the exceptions here, and no great harm will come about if one or another version stays up for a few more hours or even days. One of you has already qualified for an automatic block, and the involvement of multiple IP users in an edit war would normally qualify the page for semi-protection. I agree with some arguments made by both of you and disagree with others.
Yuri321 is correct that WP:NPOV requires us to reflect all significant views found in RSs in proportion to their prominence in RSs. The N in NPOV means that we can't base these choices on our own views about correctness of these views, including our views about the argumentation they use or don't use to support them. What this involves is evaluation of academic credentials and influence of publishers and authors. If there's a prominent RS which argues against a previously accepted interpretation, we should reflect that, but not take its side, unless and until this view has been accepted in the field and superseded the previous view. I see no evidence of that happening in this case, as evidenced by the more recent translation in the Study Quran.
154.127.59.154 is correct that assessing which view is minority or majority requires a RSs which explicitly makes that assessment, and doing so without one violates WP:SYNTHESIS. What is done in these cases is display the citations supporting one and the other. Yuri321 has already done that, though "many" is also a problematic quantifier, and is unnecessary if the reader can count the sources cited for each view for themselves. I do, however, think that we should place the other translation first in that paragraph too, in view of its greater prominence.
I'll make an edit and if there's still disagreement, let's continue the discussion here. I'll comment about al-Buti later, as I have to attend to some non-WP business.
P.S. Has the newly added passage been paraphrased or copied verbatim? If it's the latter, please paraphrase it ASAP in the main article text to avoid
WP:COPYVIO, which is a serious matter. Upon closer inspection it seem to be a paraphrase.
Eperoton ( talk) 13:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Your entire account is a single purpose one, you literally made it just to further one specific agenda.
@ TalkJizya: Well, this is turning to be quite an intricate translation. According to what I know, both in modern Arabic and in usual Quranic interpretation, qatl is the standard word for killing and doesn't mean fighting, so I'm assuming you mean that this other usage is well known to those who are well versed in the writings of classical authors. I don't claim to be one of those people. If there's context in al-Buti to indicate that he's using this other meaning rather the standard usage of the word, could you paste it or link to it here? Aside from the purposes of translation, I'm curious myself. Also, if qatl is left translated as "fighting" without further classification, it will just prompt other editors to change it at a later date. I think we also need to figure out how to handle English glosses for readability, per Yuri's feedback and standard practice in translation for a general audience. Eperoton ( talk) 19:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
References
@ MezzoMezzo and Reeves.ca: With TalkJizya's permission, I'd like to ask for your opinions regarding translation of a passage by Muhammad Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti. The original is as follows:
«الآية أمرت بالقتال لا بالقتل، وقد علمت الفرق الكبير بين الكلمتين ... فأنت تقول: قتلت فلاناً، إن بدأته بالقتل، وتقول: قاتلته، إذا قاومت سعيه إلى قتلك بقتل مثله، أو سابقته إلى ذلك كي لا ينال منك غرة.»
Our current translation reads: "The verse commands qitāl (قتال) and not qatl (قتل), and it is known that there is a big distinction between these two words ... For you say ‘qataltu (قتلت) so-and-so’ if you initiated the fighting, while you say ‘qātaltu (قاتلت) him’ if you resisted his effort to fight you by a reciprocal fight, or if you forestalled him in that so that he would not get at you unawares."
There's currently some disagreement on the following points:
Thanks for your help. Eperoton ( talk) 03:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
This is in the introduction
But there is source that contradicts it = H.R.H. Prince, Ghazi Muhammad; Ibrahim, Kalin; Mohammad Hashim, Kamali (2013). War and Peace in Islam: The Uses and Abuses of Jihad (PDF). The Islamic Texts Society Cambridge. ISBN 978-1-903682-83-8. page 241 says "To the best of our knowledge, the jizyah tax was not a significant source of income for the state" -- TalkJizya ( talk) 16:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
This reference runs contrary to many others such as the reference by Muhammad Imara, al-Buti and by al-Nawawi among others.
Even the author of the article says that
There
is
no
reason
to
take
the
state
of
submissiveness
for
non-Muslim
subjects
in
a
strict
literal
sense.
It
must
be
taken
rather
in
the
political
sense.
Shafi'i
takes
the
word
in
question
in
the
of
sense
sub
mission
to
the
authority
of
Islam.4
According
to
Raghib,
the
word
oj>U
denotes
obedience
to
the
authority
of
Islam
A close study of the early history of Jizya particularly since its imposition by the Prophet till later in the period of Khulafa' Rashidun will reveal that it was a tax through the payment of which the non-Muslim subjects were expected to pay allegiance to the political authority of Islam. There is nothing to prove that it was imposed just to humiliate them or to make them socially degraded.
I'm for deleting this one, Yuri disagrees, what do you think? -- TalkJizya ( talk) 15:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
But here again what concerns us is not the original meaning of the verse but the way in which it was interpreted in historic Islam. On this there is little doubt. The normal interpretation was that the jizya was not only a tax but also a symbolic expression of subordination. The Qur’ān and tradition often use the word dhull or dhilla (humiliation or abasement) to indicate the status God has assigned to those who reject Muhammad, and in which they should be kept so long as they persist in that rejection. [...] The imposition of the jizya, and more especially the manner of its payment, are usually interpreted in this light. [...] In contrast to the commentators and other theologians, the jurists are less ferocious and more concerned with the fiscal than the symbolic aspect of the jizya. [...] Several points must be noted in considering these and other similar passages. First, the jurists, with their more humane and also more practical attitude, belong to the early period of Islam, when it was confident and expanding; the commentators cited were writing in a period of contraction and constraint, when Islam was under threat both at home and abroad. Second, there can be no doubt that it is the attitudes of the jurists, rather than of the commentators and other theologians, that more accurately reflect the practice of Muslim rulers and administrators. Most of these, in the treatment of dhimmīs as in many other matters, failed to meet the exacting demand of their religious advisers and critics. The rules that some of the ulema laid down on the collection of the jizya and related matters belong more to the history of mentalities than of institutions. They have their own kind of importance, which becomes greater in times of crisis or defeat. Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam, pp. 43-45
Authors debate whether the jizya was meant to subjugate and humiliate non-Muslims, or whether it was only intended as a service fee for military protection. Muhammad Hamidullah argues that the jizya was solely for protection. Without citing economic studies, he states, “So, the non-Muslims paid a little supplementary tax, the jizyah … which was neither heavy nor unjust.” Mahmoud Ayoub and Haddad argue instead that it served both functions: it was both a mode of subservience and a method of inclusion. Hamidullah’s account reflects the imperatives of the myth of harmony, while Haddad and Ayoub offer a historical account of the jizya’s complex social function in early Islamic history. [...] the studies on the jizya, in the aggregate, suggest that the jizya was a complex symbol which can be viewed as a tool of marginalization or a mechanism of inclusion, but more fruitfully is understood as both. Emon, Anver M. (2012-07-26). Religious Pluralism and Islamic Law: Dhimmis and Others in the Empire of Law (Oxford Islamic Legal Studies) (p. 99). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition. Eperoton ( talk) 16:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@Eperoton For the Encyclopedia of Fiqh it does not give an overview of the exegetical tradition on aṣ-Ṣaghār, rather it talks about the rationale of jizya, something very different. Those two terms don't appear in the main titles also, so the authors of that entry in the encyclopedia did not state that.
For the Emon Anver source: We are talking about the exegetical tradition relation to aṣ-Ṣaghār, not the historical side.
For the Bernard Lewis: He does not give a full account. Abdel-Haleem does a far better job at giving the multiple accounts on exegesis of aṣ-Ṣaghār. And we already have the al-Nawawi, Imara and al-Buti sources among others. -- TalkJizya ( talk) 16:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Your original criticism: You name two modern scholars, Imara and al-Buti, and state that their work contradicts Ahmed, but you fail to adduce any evidence to support this claim. Please provide quotations or, at the very least, references.
Al-Nawawi, on the other hand, is of little use to us. Having died in 1277, he is ill-placed to offer any assessment of Islamic theology or Qur’anic exegesis in, say, 1700, or any other date after his death.
Your quotation from Ahmed is also of little consequence. His own opinion of the verse has no bearing on the position taken by the majority of Fuqahā.
Your edit on 1 September: Firstly, you cannot use a single primary source from the mid-thirteenth century to reach a general conclusion on the position of Islamic jurists across the entire medieval period. This is especially true when the quoted author may have contradicted himself in another work; there was a useful discussion of this here on the talk page but it appears to have been deleted. If it were the case that a modern scholar had assessed the available evidence and arrived at that conclusion then your edit would be defensible, but a single source from the middle of the period in question certainly does not suffice. Besides, it is manifestly false to claim that the ‘view of the majority of medieval Muslim jurists’ was that ‘the jizya ought to be taken with gentleness’ because such a claim contradicts the historical record.
For example, dhimmis had to pay the jizya in person during the rules of the Fatimid and Ayyubid dynasties in Egypt, and throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in Iraq, as a mark of their humiliation before the Muslim authority. [1] Similarly, dhimmis in al-Andalus were (among other prohibitions) forbidden from riding horses; where exceptions to these rules are found, they ensue not from the charitable, ‘gentle’ position of the ulema but from the policies of secular rulers willing to trade concessions for assistance (such as in the sphere of banking). [2] In India, the fourteenth-century Muslim historian, Ziauddin Barani, records that Sultan Alauddin Khilji was advised by his qāḍī that ‘the due subordination of the zimmi is exhibited in this humble payment [jizya] and by this throwing of dirt in their mouths’, specifically citing the Qur’anic injunction to ‘keep them under in subjection’ as justification. [3] This is not, therefore, a minority position. Or, if it is, then you should be able to explain why it managed to monopolise state power from the farthest western reaches of the Islamic world to the farthest east, with reference to analysis from the secondary sources.
Secondly, I do not understand why you decided to replace the sentence about the general consensus among Islamic jurists with one specifically concerning the medieval period; even if your rather dubious edit were correct, it would not refute or supersede the existing text. Your edit did, however, leave that section hopelessly partisan, with a paltry 20 in 188 words dedicated to the common exegetical position that ‘wa-hum ṣāghirūn’ relates to submission and humiliation. To leave it in such a state would be a clear breach of /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.
Your response to Eperoton: I disagree with your criticism of Lewis’ work. Having read Abdel-Haleem’s article, I believe Lewis gave the subject a better, more dispassionate treatment. Having said that, I hope you aren’t going to disregard all other sources out of hand in favour of Abdel-Haleem as per our previous encounter. Yuri321 ( talk) 04:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
@Eperoton
1. 100% agree, just that a reliable source should be reflected according to specific criteria: verifiability, relevance to the topic, ... By the way, who is this Ahmed Ziauddin? Is he an accomplished professor, scholar, ...?
2. I think you're having a misunderstanding here. There's a huge difference between the rationale for jizya and the exegesis for the specific Qur'anic term aṣ-Ṣaghār. You should distinguish between those.
3. You're writing as tho the "classical commentators" contradict the common consensus that jizya is in exchange for military service (see the Ibn Hajar reference), where is it "less in tune with modern sensibilities"? In point of fact, classical commentators do not even delve into explaining the justification for jizya, it's actually the jurists who expound on that. Your evaluation of the Arnold reference is also flawed, it's a renowed classic and should be cited and given prominence just like his fellows such as Theodor Nöldeke.
@Yuri321
1. No, I didn't fail to do that, they clearly stated, ""
2. For the Nawawi quote, I explicitly changed "Islamic jurists" to "medieval Muslim jurist" to reflect that.
3. I showed that Ahmed had a different conception of humiliation than the one you use. The position maintened by the majority of jurists is that jizya is in exchange for military service, as stated by Ibn Hajar. This is also the explicit position of the Hanafi school, which was the official school of the Ottoman Empire.
4. NO NO AND NO. THE AUTHOR DID NOT CONTRADICT HIMSELF. Show your proof.
5. Are you serious? The section is explicitly about the exegesis of the term aṣ-Ṣaghār and not about the historical reality. You're confusing things up, and you're providing your own opinion on these sources, which is an invalid approach, so I wont reply to those things who are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, riding horsees???! WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE EXEGESIS OF THE TERM aṣ-Ṣaghār??! OR EVEN ABOUT THE HISTORICAL EMPLEMENTATION OF SOME OF THOSE INTERPRETATIONS??! THAT'S COMPLETELY OFF-TOPIC, right?
6. Dear @ Eperoton:, please read this with the least bias possible and with the utmost neutrality = This is not, therefore, a minority position. Or, if it is, then you should be able to explain why it managed to monopolise state power from the farthest western reaches of the Islamic world to the farthest east, with reference to analysis from the secondary sources. = And tell me whether this individual is serious or seriously biased and has no interest in ameliorating this article? I can't imagine someone seriously wanting to ameliorate this article request that I provide to him an explanation of the Islamic conquests "with reference to analysis from the secondary sources"
..... -_-
7. "Having read Abdel-Haleem’s article" Oh, really? So what does he quote Abu Hayyan as saying in page 77?
I will be writing a set of key points that should be reflected in that article hoping to arrive at a consensus with @Eperoton, at the moment I will not change that part of that section until a consensus is reached here, okay?
-- TalkJizya ( talk) 08:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
References
Quote - The Sultan then asked, "How are Hindus designated in the law, as payers of tributes or givers of tribute? The Kazi replied, "They are called payers of tribute, and when the revenue officer demands silver from them, they should tender gold. If the officer throws dirt into their mouths, they must without reluctance open their mouths to receive it. The due subordination of the zimmi is exhibited in this humble payment and by this throwing of dirt in their mouths. The glorification of Islam is a duty. God holds them in contempt, for he says, "keep them under in subjection". To keep the Hindus in abasement is especially a religious duty, because they are the most inveterate enemies of the Prophet, and because the Prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them, enslave them and spoil their wealth and property. No doctor but the great doctor ( Hanafi), to whose school we belong, has assented to the imposition of the jizya (poll tax) on Hindus. Doctors of other schools allow no other alternative but Death or Islam.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
How to translate this legal maxim?? My suggestion "consideration is granted to objectives (intentions) and meanings and not to terms and al-mabānī." but I don't know how to translate المباني
Proposals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalkJizya ( talk • contribs) 11:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there are any technical terms here. The only issue is with translating "المباني" whose meaning is a mystery to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalkJizya ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I think you're confusing things, for instance, the maxim does not talk about maqasid as in maqasid al-shari'a. I think you'll gain a better understanding by looking at the context in which al-Buti mentioned this maxim:
ما يلزم بتسمية المال الذي يؤخد منهم (جزية)، ومن القواعد الفقهية المعروفة إن العبرة بالمقاصد والمعاني لا بالألفاظ والمباني. (...) ولعلك تسأل: فهل يجب إذا تحول إسم هذا المال من الجزية إلى الصداقة أو الزكاة، أن يضاعف المبلغ عن القدر المطلوب زكاةً؟ والجواب أن هذا من أحكام الإمامة، فالأمر في تحويل الاسم، وفي تحديد المبلغ منوط بما يراه إمام المسلمين في كل عصر.
I think "wording" would be fine, just wanted to double-check. -- TalkJizya ( talk) 17:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)