Talk:Jizya/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Various disputes related to edits made by user RLoutfy

Primary sources: Ibn Qayyim etc

@Al-Andalusi: Cites such as Ibn Qayyim, Ahkam Ahl Zimma, 1/14 are WP:PRIMARY. You can neither interpret primary sources nor do OR in wiki articles. I disagree with the translation provided, and will accept a direct quote in this article from a scholarly translation. Do you have such a source? RLoutfy (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

For WP:3O on proper use of primary sources, pinging @Anders Feder. Here is the edit in question. Would appreciate your thoughts. RLoutfy (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the source of the translation needs to be clear, and that source needs to be WP:RS. See also WP:NONENG - if the translation is "homemade", we'll need consensus that it is faithful.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The primary sources are the Qur'an and the Hadith. Ibn Al-Qayyim is considered a secondary source in this case. Get your facts straight. Also, if you check out the references section, it is filled with such secondary sources quoting Islamic jurisits. It seems that you are being selective here.

Also, you claim a scholarly translation is needed. While preferred, it is not a requirement, per the article linked by the Anders Feder.

Finally, you should avoid blanket reverts, and especially avoid misleading edit summaries. You should do your changes one by one. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ibn Al-Qayyim is a 14th century source, and the cited work is a primary source from Jizya's article perspective. If Ibn Al-Qayyim or such sources are being interpreted elsewhere in this article, they need to be examined, supported by recent secondary sources and revised/deleted. As @Anders Feder has explained, you need to provide the source of the Ibn Al-Qayyim translation. Are you the translator? RLoutfy (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I repeat, it is not a primary source and I suggest you take it to the boards and only come back when you have a consensus that quoting such Muslim jurists is indeed a primary source issue. As for the translation, the policy is very clear in allowing non-English sources to be cited and it does not say amnywhere that the translation should be sourced (although preferred), rather the quote in the original language should, and that was the case before it was obliterated by you. Al-Andalusi (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree here, in the context of jizya the primary sources would be the Qur'an, Hadiths, and the early fiqh books (e.g. the Muwatta' of Imam Malik), in this case Ibn Qayyim's Ahkam Ahl Al-Dhimma would be classified as secondary sources, and about translation we can always reach a consensus. Regards. --CounterTime (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: You state "I disagree with the translation provided," could you please explain why? Thanks.

CounterTime (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

RLoutfy's POV edit - distortion of cited references

I removed these highly misleading claims inserted into the article by user RLoutfy:

Scholars question this rationale because the protection in exchange of Jizya was not permanent, non-Muslims were generally referred to as harbis (at war with Islam), and unbelievers were prevented from gathering means to resist the Islamic authority. (March, Andrew (2009). Islam and liberal citizenship the search for an overlapping consensus. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 125–126. ISBN 978-0-19-971617-3.)

These claims however are not found in the cited reference. Instead, the reference is very clear that it is talking about non-Muslim states and their residents (emphasis mine):

• "Non-Muslim world as darb al-harb, "the abode of war". Consequently, non-Muslim residents of such countries are usually referred to as "harbis".

• "Classical jurists also imposed strict limits on the legitimate duration of a peace treaty, refusing to justify permanent guarantees of security top non-Muslim states…non-Muslims [of those states] had no right to resist Islamic military expansion".

Make no mistake about it, this distortion was intentional. This along with other questionable POV edits on this article from this user makes me treat his/her changes with suspect. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I hope you are reading the paragraph on p. 125 that ends with "For People of the Book, the choice was conversion to Islam, submission to Muslim authority through the poll tax (jizya) or war." For context, Andrew March is answering the two questions he states earlier - whether jihad is for the purposes of spreading Islam, removing barriers to its reception and erasing disbelief; and whether the basic principle of relations with non-Muslims is war or peace. He then summarizes the history, and states that classical sources in Islam give support almost exclusively for war. This discussion is general on all unbelievers, that peace was considered an exceptional condition. This applies to all, including non-Muslim states which he explains with, "as was mentioned earlier in this chapter". Andrew March is discussing Islamic doctrine of citizenship, from non-Muslim and Muslim state perspectives, in his chapters 3 and 4. Nevertheless, I will not revert you on this. Rather, I will get additional WP:HISTRS cites and restate to clarify. Meanwhile, assume good faith, and don't cast aspersions with statements such as "this distortion was intentional". RLoutfy (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

So you do admit that it applies to non-Muslim states. Please do NOT distort the references to impose a POV not implied by the sources. Remember, we too have access to the references you claim to be citing. Al-Andalusi (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It applies to both. RLoutfy (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Provide sources for your claims that (1) the jizya was not permanant", and (2) non-Muslims living within Muslim lands are referred to as "harbis" and (3) are at "war with Islam". Al-Andalusi (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

These need to be answered with examples of how jizya and dhimmi status was practiced, with summary from recent scholarship. I will work on it in due course. RLoutfy (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Divisions of the world are unnecessary and will only add confusion to the article, especially since you'd have to deal with how Hanifites and Malikis only consider a dar Islam and dar Harb (in which a dar becomes dar Islam if it has a treaty with a Muslim "state"), and how Shafi'it consider three abodes, a dar Islam, dar Harb and dar Sulh. 22:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

RLoutfy's POV edit - Exemption from military service as ahistorical?

RLoutfy (talk · contribs) added the following part to the article:

"Some question the theoretical exemption from military service as ahistorical, because non-Muslims historically served in the military in Islamic states."

Turns out, this is far from what the cited reference says:

"While [al-Hudaybi, Supreme Guide of the Brotherhood] acknowleged that non-Muslims did fight for the Islamic army in Islamic history, he said that it would be inappropriate to ask non-Muslims to defend Islam."(p. 101)

I removed the problematic content. Al-Andalusi (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi: The relevant quote is, "Though the jizya still forms an important part of Islamist thinking, some question whether payment of it is even necessary, since the early days of the Islamic community non-Muslims did serve in the Muslim army." Please explain how the above summary is problematic, perhaps with a suggestion of alternate wording. Or self-revert. RLoutfy (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

My bad. However it remains problematic as it is a fringe view (even within the Muslim community) that it is given undue weight. Should be under criticism or way below in the Rationale section. And it is probably better to name the person, rather than say "Some question". Al-Andalusi (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Not fringe. This is the widely accepted view. Non-Muslims did serve in military during wars between Muslim Sultanates from the early days of Islamic history. RLoutfy (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The fringe is with regards to the "questioning" of the jizya, rather than the fact that non-Muslims served. Seems to be coming from a certain "reformed jihadist" who is in politics (opposition member). Also, what do you mean by "theoretical assumption"? is it yet another one of your distortions? Al-Andalusi (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi, quit edit warring, since we are discussing this actively. This talk page is not a forum or venue for repeated personal attacks.

Why do you believe Scott's book published by Stanford University Press is a fringe source? Or her statement about "questioning of the jizya" is fringe. To present only "jizya was for exemption of non-Muslims from military service" theory, while not mentioning "non-Muslims served in military and some therefore question jizya" is a violation of WP:NPOV, because it does not present all sides. Requesting WP:3O since you are edit warring, @Anders Feder: would appreciate your thoughts. RLoutfy (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You are supposed to obtain concensus before restoring disputed content. I'm not questioning Scott, rather it is the reformist politician she cites, whose (critical) view on the application of Jizya and its implications in Egypt is clearly fringe, and should not be given undue weight. The article covers 1,400 years of history and his view directly contradicts the majority view. I offered the compromise of having that under Criticism or at the bottom of the Rational section, with the reformist person named in person rather than using general terms that could imply wider acceptance of the position than it really is, but heard no response. I consider your insistence on giving it undue weight to be POV pushing.

The other thing is that you say "theoretical exemption from military service". You haven't answered where you got that. The "theoratical" part implies a certain kind of betrayal in fulfilling the contract of dhimma, as in individuals paying jizya yet ending up being forced into the military. There is no indication whatsoever for such conclusion from the source, and I ask that you do no introduce your own POV into what you cite. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi: You are using double standards, not practicing what you preach. That is not how wikipedia works. You added the "certain" qualifier two days ago here. I reverted your addition. But you have already edit warred that to 3RR. You need to get consensus before adding it back. Your version is not some WP:OWN-sacred version that sets the benchmark on when revert rule starts. See WP:CONSENSUS. I have added the Oxford University Press cite that does not use "certain" qualifier. We need to stick with faithfully summarizing the cite in this article - will you respect this policy? Don't lecture about 1,400 year history, stop forum like lecturing. If something is the majority view, WP:HISTRS should be easy to find, and you should present the cite with pg numbers.

The "theoretical exemption" part is in the context of Rachel Scott's discussion, and you are frankly nitpicking this out of proportion. Will you be okay if we stated the rest, without the "theoretical exemption" part. What if I added a second scholarly source? RLoutfy (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Still against inclusion due to the reasons listed above (UNDUE). In addition, jurists ruled that dhimmis will be exempted from paying jizyah if they voluntarily chose to serve in the Muslim military (sources available), which would make the entire argument of the Egyptian reformer moot. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I completely agree with Al-Andalusi, please change the wording instead of fringe. 19:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Certain qualifier

@Al-Andalusi: the qualifier "certain" misrepresents the main article, and it misrepresents. The main article, at several places, states that jizya in certain times applied to non-Muslim men and women (see Muhammad in history section, for example). And the cites too state this definition explicitly, see the Oxford text on Islam whose quote I have added. If "certain" qualifier was appropriate, most tertiary sources would state so, but they don't. Don't do OR, stick with what the cite states. RLoutfy (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously questioning the exemptions now? well I guess you can, now that you have removed the views of Muslim jurists in support of that. Another reference for support:

"The Hanbali position is that boys, women, the mentally insane, the zamin, and the blind are exempt from paying jizya. This view is supposedly shared by the Hanafis, Shafi'is, and Malikis".

(Rispler-Chaim, Vardit (2007). Disability in Islamic law. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. p. 44. ISBN 1402050526.)

Al-Andalusi (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

ps: the first sentence above should have ended as, "...it misrepresents the cites at the end of that sentence."

The exemptions were for a short period in early history of Islam, and its application is widely contested for historicity. How about including this sentence in the lead with cites: "Jizya was typically collected from non-Muslim male adults, but sometimes more generally as a collective tax on both males and females or from a specific non-Muslim community?" Would that address the underlying reason why you want to add the "certain" qualifier? We can also add a sentence on exemptions, and mention the dispute on the exemption for NPOV. RLoutfy (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The article covers a history of more than 1,400 years. Choosing a few local incidents here and there to conclude that the entire premise behind the exemptions was false is an extraordinary claim, and per Wikipedia requires extraordinary references to back it up. I will start a section on the article listing the exemptions by jurist/school once I have time. Al-Andalusi (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Your contribution with secondary recent reliable sources will be welcome. The exemptions were the few local incidents, not the other way around. Since you have not directly commented on my attempt at consensus language, nor have you proposed an alternative, I will proceed to change the lead to mention general practice as well as exemptions for an NPOV summary. I will give you a day to make a cogent, constructive response. Note that every major tertiary source (such as encyclopedia and Oxford handbooks on Islam) makes no mention of "certain" qualifier. So, we must stick with what the sources state. RLoutfy (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I did ask for sources to the extraordinary claims you are making, and still waiting for them. As for your last comment, pretty much every reference disucssing jizya has mentioned exemptions one way or the other. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Not a constructive cogent response from someone who nitpicks and demands a cite for "theoretical exemption" phrasing in one case, but ignores what the Oxford University Press publication states as definition of jizya in another case, in the same article. The cites are already there after the sentence, read them. I even added a quote from the Oxford text, for WP:V convenience.

Here is what I propose for the lead: Jizya is a religiously required per capita tax levied by a Muslim state on non-Muslim residents living under Islamic law.[1][2][3] It was typically collected from non-Muslim male adults with certain exemptions,[4][5] and sometimes more generally as a collective tax on both males and females or as a tribute from a specific non-Muslim community.[6] RLoutfy (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absense. Just because your Oxford reference does not explicitly talk about exemptions in its definition, it does not mean that those exemptions are not true or not worthy of being mentioned. That's not how research works. Like I said, nearly all references that I encountered on the jizyah make it a point to mention the exempions, some in detail others not. Even those that do not explicitly raise this point, like the Oxford one, do implicitly state that when it says that it is paid "in exchange for an exemption from military service". Obviously this is in relation to able-bodied males, unless you want to claim that the blind and women served in militaries?

As for the quote, I will need to see reference 6 above, with a quote for "generally" and "on both males and females". Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Take a look now. I tried to address your 'exemption' point in an NPOV manner. The "certain" qualifier is misleading, unsupported by the cites at the end of the sentence, incorrect summary of the main article, and not acceptable to me. RLoutfy (talk) 09:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The word "certain" is uncited? no sir you are lying. The positions of the 4 schools of Islamic jurisprudence were cited, with a reference placed exactly at the "certain" word. Your countering with other references is also misleading as they do not deny the exemptions made by Islamic jurists, rather it is their application, which varied significantly from one place to the other. In any case, you are denying a chance for the law to made clear for some reason. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The reference you added after "certain" does not use that word. The quote you included, "The Hanbali position is that boys, women, the mentally insane, the zamin, and the blind are exempt from paying jizya. This view is supposedly shared by the Hanafis, Shafi'is, and Malikis", is explicitly stating "supposedly". That word expresses doubt, and you are doing OR when you generalize and make it definitive.

Of course, the cites I provided in the lead and the various cites already in the main article deny exemptions. Have you read them? Calling me a liar is another instance of personal attack by you. Please don't.

@NeilN: The version before September 2, for a long time, was without "certain" qualifier in the first sentence of lead. @Al-Andalusi added it here, I reverted the addition because the cites support the older version. How does the revert rule, WP:CONSENSUS apply in this situation? Should the article's first sentence be held at September 2 stable version till new consensus, or should @Al-Andalusi version be retained until consensus to return to old version is re-established. Your guidance as an admin will be helpful. RLoutfy (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD is the usual practice. So, revert to the stable version and discuss. As there are only two of you, seeking a third opinion might be helpful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that the word "certain" cannot be used in the article unless the word "certain" is literally stated in the sources? Please do not invent your own rules. The sources cited in the paragraph clearly state that Muslim jurists made exemptions on women, slaves, minors, and the insane. In fact, one of the those cited sources (Alschech) happens to be added by none other than you here, but was misrepresented (no surprise). Upon consulting this reference, I have found that it states something that further supports the exemptions statement:

"...jurists divided the dhimma community into two major groups. The first group consists of all adult, free, sane males among the dhimma community, while the second includes all other dhimmas (i.e., women, slaves, minors, and the insane). Jurists generally agree that members of the second group are to be granted a "blanket" exemption from jizya payment."

The above reference was used in support of the "certain" claim in my edit here and I added above quote directly in the cite here. This reference states "Jurists generally agree", leaving no doubt for us about the basis of those exemptions in Islamic law. Yet, you have not explained to us why you chose to dismiss your very own reference and simply blanket revert?

As for your other sources in the lede, what about them? do your sources deny that Muslim jurists made exemptions? no they don't. Your claim that they "deny exemptions" is misleading as they question the application of those exemptions rather than their basis in Islamic legal thought. Therefore, your counter is not valid. My edit emphasized the separation between the views of Muslim jurists, and the eventual practice of jizya. I thought you'd understand this part and allow us to finally resolve this dispute, but I guess you are insistent on pushing a certain POV. Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, as explained by @NeilN, the old version without "certain" qualifier in the first sentence stands till we reach consensus. As to rest of your lecture, it is pointless and irrelevant, because the exemptions were and are now already summarized in the lead and the main article. RLoutfy (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you finally learned the lesson. Now, are you still opposed to the inclusion of the word "certain" or any related word? Al-Andalusi (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The lesson is for you to remember and respect, since it is you who added that "certain" word here and edit warred to keep it and violated BRD here and here, here even after requests to take it to the talk page, for example.

Yes I am opposed to the "certain" qualifier in the first sentence, for reasons I explained on this talk page already. RLoutfy (talk) 07:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

RLoutfy's POV edit - Stillman's view

I removed:

and they were a "crushing burden for the non-Muslim peasantry who eked out a bare living in a subsistence economy" according to Norman Stillman.

(Stillman, Norman (1998). The Jews of Arab Lands. p. 28. ISBN 978-0827601987.)

Because other scholars say the opposite:

Lewis observes that the change from Byzantine to Arab rule was welcomed by many among the dhimmis who found the new yoke far lighter than the old, both in taxation and in other matters, and that some, even among the Christians of Syria and Egypt, preferred the rule of Islam to that of Byzantines.

(Lewis (2002) p. 57)

Surely this debate does not belong in the lede. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

We need to summarize both for NPOV. I will do so. It is significant and needs to be in the lead. RLoutfy (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Per BRD, when you add content that gets disputed by editor, you will need to discuss and reach consensus before restoration. And btw, your attempt is clearly not in-line with NPOV. Al-Andalusi (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is not taking sides, and presenting all sides properly. How does the following, which you reverted here, not "in-line with NPOV":

These taxes were a crushing economic burden for the non-Muslim peasants eking out a living in a subsistence economy,[StillmanCite, ISBN 978-0-82760-19-87, p. 28] yet in some cases such as the Byzantine region, these taxes reflected a lower burden than taxes before.[LewisCite, ISBN 978-0-19280-31-08, p. 57]

What alternate wording would you propose to present both Stillman and Lewis? RLoutfy (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

For WP:3O, I am pinging @Shrike and @Iryna Harpy. Would appreciate your comments on whether the above meets NPOV, or alternate wording. Best regards, RLoutfy (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why you are calling for 3O when you have not even given enough time for a discussion to take place. Your insistence on reinstating disputed POV content here and here before reaching consensus is not in line with WP:BRD. And now, you chose the easy way of blatantly canvassing other editors who you feel would support your views. @NeilN:: what do you think? Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what the other pinged editors' views are on this dispute but yes, that not how WP:3O works. Existing discussion should be given time and after that, the dispute should be listed per Wikipedia:Third_opinion#How_to_list_a_dispute. A neutral, uninvolved editor who should be acceptable to both parties will respond. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi:: you wrote above, "Surely this debate does not belong in the lede." I assumed you had no objection regarding the material in the main article. Why does this well sourced expanded version, summarized from recent scholarly publications, not belong in the main article?

@NeilN: Thank you for the link. I will list this dispute. FWIW, I have never had any interactions with @Shrike or @Iryna Harpy before, and @Al-Andalusi's fear of "other editors who you feel would support your views" is strange because I do not expect support, just a third opinion. I will now follow the WP:3O process. RLoutfy (talk) 05:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I also see that two other editors have already been pinged requesting third opinion. One of those pings was a request for a third opinion. The second of these pings was a request for a fourth opinion. I see that editor User:NeilN, a respected administrator, has already expressed a third opinion (that this dispute is not ready for third opinion). I will be removing the third opinion request. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, Thank you. I will treat that this dispute is not ready for third opinion, and the existing discussion should be given more time.

@Al-Andalusi: I welcome your reply, to "Why does this well sourced expanded version, summarized from recent scholarly publications, not belong in the main article?" Lets discuss and understand why you don't want these cites and summaries in the main text. If you don't reply, I will presume you have no further objections to including the text in the main article. RLoutfy (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

RLoutfy's POV edit - WP:OR with 20%-50% claim

From the article:

• "Jizya tax rates on non-Muslims have historically varied from being a fixed annual amount to between 20% to over 50% of annual income."
• "The rate of jizya and Kharaj tax, head tax and land tax respectively, exceeded 20% for all non-Muslims, and payable by new moon"
• "with minimum rate being 20% of all estimated assets and any sales.'

Combining different numbers from different sources referencing different time periods to come up with a single one-size-fits-all claim that the rate varied between such and such is entirely misleading. It is a case of WP:SYNTH and implies a conclusion not supported by each individual cited source. So unless you have a reference that speaks in general terms about those tax rates, you do not include them in the article unbound without mentioning the time period or the country where it applied. The other conclusion implied is that the fixed amount was no longer observed for long periods of Islamic history, which is obviously false and contradicted by one of the cited sources.

More importantly however, it seems that the editor who added those statements is unaware of the fact that jizya and kharaj were used interchangeably. I suspect that those percentages are kharaj rates rather than jizya. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

You allege WP:SYNTH, stating it "implies a conclusion not supported by each individual cited source". What is that conclusion? On rest, again remember this is not a forum to express your suspicions and your WP:OR lectures. RLoutfy (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

They are stated in general terms, which seems to imply that those rates were (1) applied almost universally, in both time and place across the Islamic empires, and (2) that those rates applied as stated to all classes of non-Muslims (i.e. the wealthy, the moderate wealth, the workers and the poor paid the same rate). Further, it conflates jizya and kharaj. I suggest you take a look at the "India" section for an example of how specific rates and obligations are mentioned in context. Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Multiple cites state that Jizya and Kharaj were implemented in practice together in many cases, and were interchangeable terms. This article must summarize that fact and what the consequent rates were, according to WP:HISTRS. Yes, theoretically some Islamic jurists differentiated those terms, but this is wikipedia, not a handbook of Islamic jurist opinions. The article needs to be encyclopedic while respecting community agreed content guidelines. And yes again, we need to clarify that jizya application ranged from being a separate fixed charge to being a composite tax rate. RLoutfy (talk) 05:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

There is page for kharaj where you can include all the maths. Here, the scope is limited to jizya (the poll-tax). Saying the jizya was x% when you know for a fact that part of it was taken for land or produce is misleading. Al-Andalusi (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It is your WP:OR and "jizya is what Islamic jurist say" that is misleading. We need to summarize the reliable sources which state "jizya and kharaj" were in practice interchangeable, not present your preferred revisionist version of what Jizya should have been in history. Again, this is wikipedia, not a handbook of Islamic jurist opinions. RLoutfy (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No sir. Now, where are the sources that state the 3 statements the way they are stated above? Al-Andalusi (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi: Sir, please check this section of the talk page on the 50% rate claim. Thanks in advance. 22:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Dubious tag after Brill Academic publication

Al-Andalusi, you added this dubious tag here, with the edit comment, "a mursal hadith that received no attention from Muslim jurists". That is inappropriate use of the tag, and I am removing it until you provide a convincing explanation for the tag. In this case, it looks fine to me, and past editor's interpretation of Ben Shemesh source is proper.

Note that the theoretical opinions of some Muslim jurists is not the only thing relevant for this article. Equally important is the practice, how jizya was actually implemented and textual records in non-Muslim communities on how jizya was collected from them, as described in WP:RS. Ben Shemesh, Ari Ariel as well as Eliyahu Ashtor and Leah Bornstein-Makovetsky publications are discussing the practice. RLoutfy (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the source is reliable. I'm questioning the cited claim as it directly contradicts the views of Muslim jurists with a known consensus regarding exempting women from jizya. A quick search shows that the hadith in question is deemed mursal by hadith scholars, which means its reliability may or may not be true. As a matter of fact, one of the narrators of this hadith expresses his confusion and says it is the only narration he's ever heard regarding the collection of jizya from women. Hence, why I tagged it for further verification. Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Respect the reliable source then. Again, this is wikipedia, not a handbook of Muslim jurist opinions. If you have a WP:HISTRS cite that presents a different view, let us add a summary from it too for NPOV, and remove that dubious tag. I am not going to have a forum like conversation with you on your incorrect or correct or confused personal views on hadith reliability or other topics. That is not what article talk pages are for, see WP:TALK. RLoutfy (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

RLoutfy's POV edits - Blanket revert

This is a clear blanket revert by RLoutfy (talk · contribs). You can't just undo in one edit 8 of my consecutive edits. For many of my edits, I made a BOLD move to undo content you have added and added separate sections for each edit on this talk page. Per WP:BRD, you were supposed to discuss and reach concensus before restoration of disputed content, rather than a blanket revert. Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is above. I accepted several of your edits, incorporated WP:BRD comment by @NeilN above, and so it wasn't a blanket revert. Don't be disruptive. RLoutfy (talk) 04:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The talk page is filled with issues regarding your edits and you chose to be disruptive and blanket revert without even reaching any sort of agreement let alone consensus. Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent. See WP:TPNO. RLoutfy (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Adaptation of pre-Islamic tribute systems

Yet another lie from RLoutfy (talk · contribs) who claims in his recent edit summary here: the following: "rm OR in wording, summarize the source more faithfully"

Yet when we look at the reference cited, we find that the previous wording was indeed correct:

"As Islam spread, previous structures of taxation were replaced by the Islamic system, but Muslim leaders often adopted practices of the previous reginmes in the application and collection of taxes".

(Mirza, editor, Gerhard Bowering  ; associate editors, Patricia Crone ...  ; assistant editor, Mahan; et al. (2013). The Princeton encyclopedia of Islamic political thought. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. p. 283. ISBN 0691134847. {{cite book}}: |first1= has generic name (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |first1= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link))

Note that this editor, whose edits have been repeatedly shown to be misleading, was insistent on presenting the jizya as a concept innovated by Islam *(Qur'an and hadith). In an earlier edit, this editor re-worded the article's phrase "scholars note that Muslim rulers adapted existing systems of taxation and tribute that were established by previous regimes (Byzantine and Sassanian) of the conquered land" into the more ambigious "Scholars note that jizya concept of tribute exited in pre-Islamic (Byzantine and Sassanian) regimes.", i.e. removing the key fact that Muslim rulers adopted and adapted existing of taxation, giving readers the impression that the practice was purely driven by Qur'an and hadith. Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi: Once again, avoid repeatedly calling other editors as liars. Such personal attack are not acceptable in wikipedia. You can contest an edit without personal attacks, can't you? Here is what the source is saying (the author BTW is Matthew Long and cite details for Princeton Encyclopedia you provide are partly wrong),

at p. 283, 2nd column: The Persian and Byzantine empires and pre-Islamic Arab tribes had already established systems of taxation and tribute. As Islam spread, previous structures of taxation were replaced by the Islamic system, but Muslim leaders often adopted practices of the previous reginmes in the application and collection of taxes. Examples of the application of the jizya are found in a number of hadiths.

The version you favor read (which I have now removed, since we have no consensus and need a due process): However, scholars note that Muslim rulers adapted existing systems of taxation and tribute that were established by previous regimes (Byzantine and Sassanian) of the conquered land.[9][10][11][12]

That is not a "faithful summary of all four cites". It is OR. Because, even Matthew Long is explicitly stating the "Persian and Byzantine empires" context and that previous tax structures were replaced as well. Your favored wording is cherry picking and misleadingly implies that this was the case with all Muslim rulers such as in North Africa, Spain, Sicily, Southeast Europe, India, Indonesia, etc. The bracketed addition of (Byzantine and Sassanian) does not clarify but confuses. We must also consider what the main article is stating and the other 3 cites are saying. From Patricia Seed's Cambridge University Press text, mentioned in the main article, "Scholars disagree on the origin of the concept of jizya taxation, with some suggesting the subjugation tax was an adaptation of the Byzantine and Sassanian system of taxation." So, the theory that Islamic Jizya origins has disagreements, and the lead summary cannot choose a side and must be NPOV and non-OR.

I propose either of the following language to help reach consensus. [1] However, some scholars note that these Islamic texts adapted existing systems of taxation and tribute that were established in Byzantine and Sassanian regimes. [2] Scholars note that Muslim rulers who replaced Byzantine and Sassanian regimes substituted prior taxation system with Islamic system as well as adopted the previously existing taxation policies. Do either appeal to you? Alternate suggestions? RLoutfy (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The previous wording that existed in the article (the one I favour) indeed says "Byzantine and Sassanian" quite literally. If the bracket bothers you, then remove them. I don't have a problem with that. As for your proposals, I would go with the first one provided that the wording "Islamic texts adapted" is changed to "Muslim rulers adapted", as this wording is unsourced.

FYI It is becoming more and more clear that your problem is not with the Byzantine and Sassanian context (which isn't a problem to begin with), rather it is your insistence on pushing an unsubstantiated POV that the jizya taxation system was an innovation of Muslims, which is a lie. You have purposefully ignored mentioning the last reference in the removed paragraph with the following quote that directly addresses you claim: "Sources indicate that the taxation system of early Islam was not necessarily an innovation of Muslims; it appears that 'Umar adopted the same tax system as was common at the time of the conquest of that territory. The land tax or kharaj was an adapted version of the tax system used in Sassanid Persia. In Syria, 'Umar followed the Byzantine system of collecting two taxes based on the account of lands and heads." Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

On your second point, you have misdiagnosed the issue. There are indeed scholars who suggest that Jizya was adaption of Byzantine and Sassanian tax system, while other scholars disagree with this theory for good reasons. This has been mentioned in the main article by past contributors to this article. The issue here is that we need to summarize all the scholarly sides, not take sides, and the article's lead needs to summarize the main article.

I can accept with "However, some scholars note that Muslim rulers adapted existing systems of taxation and tribute that were established in Byzantine and Sassanian regimes, but other scholars consider Jizya taxation an 8th century invention." The second part is supported by Patricia Seed's book published by Cambridge University Press in 1998, p. 79 note 35 (it is in the article). RLoutfy (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The latter part is not backed up Patricia Seed. This is your reading, and is not explicitly stated in the way you make it seem. Should be dropped from the proposal. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Patricia Seed writes, "Subsequent Western (not Muslim) scholarship has argued that the poll tax [jizya] was an eighth-century invention..." RLoutfy (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Patricia bases this claim on Julius Wellhausen (1927) whose view was discredited in the 1950s. Mark R. Cohen writes:

Dennett and Lokkegaard take issue with the theory advanced by Julius Wellhausen, in his history of the Umayyad Caliphate (Das arabische Reich und sein Sturz [1902]; English translation: The Arab Kingdom and its Fall [1927]) that the dhimmi poll tax was an Islamic innovation of the eighth century arising out of the fiscal exigencies of the Umayyad dynasty. Dennett and Lokkegaard demonstrate (and subsequent scholarship has largely concurred) that the poll tax was not an Islamic, but rather was taken over from the Byzantine and Sassanian revenue systems, and that its Islamic adaptation varied from place to place during the period of the conquest. (Gerber, edited by Jane S. (1995). Sephardic studies in the university. Madison [N.J.]: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. p. 54. ISBN 0838635423. {{cite book}}: |first1= has generic name (help))

This should settle the dispute. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Al-Andulusi, "taking issue" does not mean "discredited". And "largely concurred" wording does not mean it is the universal view. For NPOV, we need to present both sides. How about the following, "However, scholars largely concur that Muslim rulers adapted existing systems of taxation and tribute that were established in Byzantine and Sassanian regimes, but some scholars consider Jizya taxation an 8th century invention." RLoutfy (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Here we go again. What Dennett and Lokkegaard say goes completely against what Wellhausen claims, therefore it is discredited. You are misunderstanding NPOV. WP:FRINGE theories cannot compete with the views of reliable academic sources and given equal weight. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Both are reliable sources. Both Patricia Seed and Jane Gerber are saying the same thing. We need to summarize what they are stating, not pick a winner and jump to OR conclusion "therefore it is discredited" (neither source makes that conclusion). WP:NPOV page in a nutshell states,

Policy: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.

I sense why we are having all these issues with you. Perhaps, you misunderstand what NPOV means. RLoutfy (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing in your proposal that indicates that the "Islamic creation" view (1) was formulated earlier in time before the majority view, and (2) was contested and demonstrated to be false by more recent research, which as a result of which (3) most scholars came to adopt the alternate view. As well as that it was (4) a "theory" rather than something more concrete and that it was (4) formulated by a single proponent and not "some scholars". In addition, the lede typically includes the view of the majority and there is no requirement to list each and every singular view as you claim. So your understanding of NPOV, and other things is certainly broken. You are having issues with me, because your editing skills are disingenuous. Plain and simple. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Your OR and lectures and personal attacks are not only wrong, they are getting tiresome. The four arguments you make is OR, deriving a new conclusion that the neither sources make, and nothing to do with NPOV. Why not just summarize what Patricia Seed and Jane Gerber publications are stating, as faithfully as we can? Why pick a side?

How about this third alternate wording instead for consensus purposes, relying on Jane Gerber cite: "However, scholars largely concur that Islamic Jizya taxation was taken over from the Byzantine and Sassanian practice, and its Islamic adaptation varied in different places during the period of the conquest." RLoutfy (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Lambton views

I removed note @Al-Andalusi just added to the lead, because the main article explains the situation differently. Ann Lambton's observation is tentative and context limited, it is also disputed by content in the main article such as from Shemesh, Goiten, Ciggaar, Lewis, etc. Emphasizing Lambton's view in the lead violates NPOV. But unlike @Al-Andalusi stance on Stillman and Lewis, I am fine with Lambton sourced content being added to the main article. So I am adding it there. RLoutfy (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Lambton's conclusions are not context limited as you claim, since she made her conclusions in very general terms "These rules, formulated by the jurists in the early 'Abbasid period, appear to have remained generally valid thereafter". Do you want more general than this? Also, your claim that it contradicts other sources is just not honest, considering that your "counter" sources all talk about the obligations on the poor, which is something that Lambton does not even claim to be an exemption. To summarize, Lambton's view is not in conflict and should be restored. Try something better RLoutfy. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It is context limited. For context, you need to read the chapter that contains that sentence, not just a sentence. You are taking the sentence out of its context, and Lambton's "appear to have" clause to be more generally definitive than it is. RLoutfy (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Which context are you talking about? It seems Lambton was talking in general. I really see no point in arguing that Ann makes any restriction. 16:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

RLoutfy's POV edits - general claims made in the lede

I have removed the following problematic content recently added by user RLoutfy, as those a references to local practices bound to a specific time and place and hardly representative of the Islamic period to be placed in the lede.

Sometimes jizya was demanded from both non-Muslim men and women, from children 12 years or younger, and as a combined tribute from a specific non-Muslim community.

If you have references that make your conclusions in the general terms you speak of, then re-instate. Otherwise, this is a case of WP:UNDUE. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

References

@Al-Andalusi: How is it "in the general terms"?, when the sentence starts with "Sometimes". RLoutfy (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Your reference says: "In the list of jizya taxpayers in Ruschuk in the year 1831". Therefore, it was hardly a trend, it was certainly not common enough to make such claims on a wide scale, in the lede no less. Your edit is a classic example of WP:UNDUE. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

"Sometimes" does not imply "wide scale". What if I add another cite/quote about jizya on children in earlier centuries? RLoutfy (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not an article on the "Jizya in Ruschuk". This article covers 1,400 years of history, and your addition, like all your other edits is disingenuous, clearly intended to mislead readers. Your other example remains context limited. You will need sources that make general conclusions on a wider scale, like the one I posted for Lambton. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't cook up your own rules for wikipedia, don't cast aspersions (such as "clearly intended to mislead readers"), you don't own this place. The jizya on children cite/quote I offered to add is from a different region and very different century - suggesting that the practice of jizya varied and was complicated. The word "sometimes" is a good qualifier to set the context. This article will be more encyclopedic, more NPOV if includes the above sentence and four scholarly cites. RLoutfy (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This is classic example of WP:OR where you bring up few local instances here and there and come up with your own sweeping generalizations and conclusions. If your views are worthy, we would have seem them stated as such in reliable academic sources, which you've been asked to provide for support to your own conclusions. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi, Again, the opening word "Sometimes" in the sentence does not imply "sweeping generalizations and conclusions". The sources above, with embedded quotes, support the content. Do you not know what "Sometimes" mean? RLoutfy (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It is quite hypocritical to complain about a lack of Byzantine and Sassanid contexts in another discussion, while here claim that it is ok to strip those examples from their context and use the general "sometimes". Sometimes, in the span of 1,400 years implies a lot more than what your references say. Is this the kind of language that an encyclopedia from Oxford or Routledge would use for their articles on jizya? certainly not. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

"Sometimes" does not mean general. Don't misrepresent me or what I wrote on Byzantine and Sasanid issue, per WP:TPNO. There, in other NPOV disputes we have in this article, and this specific case, I am asking that we state the context. You are suppressing information, by deleting it entirely from the main article and the lead, even though reliable scholarly sources support it. You have not yet suggested alternate wording that will clarify the context to you. Please do. I wait for your proposed alternate wording in this case that clarifies the context in a manner that you believe would be consistent with the cites. By the way, the Princeton University Press etc cites are reliable - don't be disingenuous alleging that these are not "reliable academic sources". RLoutfy (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought about your Jizya in Ruschuk article suggestion above. We can do so if the Ruschuk or specific state/region/community section gets large. For now, such content needs to remain here. See WP:SPINOFF. RLoutfy (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

RLoutfy's POV edit - "Scholars"

It appears that my attempt to make the article more in line with NPOV by changing "Scholars" to "Some contemporary scholars" has been met with resistance from user RLoutfy.

I would like to note that this user did modify the original "Some scholars" from a stable version to "Scholars" here on September 2. Per BRD, RLoutfy is now required to discuss his changes before restoration. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The stable version in June was "Scholars", not "Some scholars". It was changed, without an explanation, without edit summary in what seems like a test / vandalism. I restored it to the stable version. RLoutfy (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

"Poorly cited" deletion

CounterTime, I didn't understand this deletion: [1]. What do you mean by poorly cited? Eperoton (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: It contained tags from November 2015, such as , , and it seemed to me to not be cohesive with the rest of the paragraphs.

But of course you may revert that edit and try to ameliorate those sources.

Thanks in advance.

--CounterTime (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@CounterTime: It's ok to delete dubious unsourced statements, especially if they have old "citation needed" tags. For "quotation needed" or "page needed" tags, we should attempt verification. This may be a problem if the source is unavailable, but in this case the two articles have free access in JSTOR and I can help verify the citation from EI2. Eperoton (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@CounterTime: Depending on your legal environment, you may verify EI2 citations yourself here [2]. Eperoton (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@CounterTime: And a third comment. I don't think "page needed" tags are appropriate for encyclopedia citations. For example, there are no page numbers in the online version of EI2. I suggest we delete these tags or replace them with "quotation needed". Eperoton (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Jizya versus kharaj

As has been discussed here earlier, the two terms are liable to confusion and it has spilled into this article. I propose following the approach taken by Brill's Encyclopedia of Islam 2nd ed, which has an article called "Jizya" about the poll tax and another (much longer one) called "Kharaj" about the land tax. The two phenomena have distinct historical developments, and, though both EI articles discuss how the terms arose and became specialized, they generally don't replicate material. I'm taking a bold step of placing a scope disambiguation message at the top of the page. Hopefully, this will encourage development of the article about the land tax and help sort out the confusion here. Eperoton (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Excellent suggestion. Reeves.ca (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Rationale section

CounterTime, it seems the Rationale section would gain in clarity if we distinguished between the different types of views: juridical interpretations, views of the parties involved (rulers and subjects), and views about the role jizya played in society. The deleted Mikhail comment is relevant to this broader perspective, and seems unobjectionable on policy grounds (although his reference to the Quran in this context is bizarre). I think the title of the section should be changed to reflect its contents to something broader like "Rationale and significance" Eperoton (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Alright, but I don't think that on historical grounds the opinions of "average individuals" or whether it is doubtful that they believed X or not would be relevant here. So it would be better in my view to only state the different opinions of Muslim jurists. What do you think? CounterTime (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@CounterTime: We could limit this section to juridical rationales, though it would mean verifying that the statement "Thirdly, jizya created a place..." reflects a juridical opinion rather than Emon's interpretation. It would also require verifying that Abu Kalam Azad's view is a juridical opinion rather than his view as a historian. However, I don't see why only views of jurists would be relevant to the article, so we would want to move other views to another section. In general, I think this article concentrates too much on what jizya was supposed to be according to jurists rather than what it actually was. Eperoton (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: I think there should be a clear distinction between theory vs practice. Some of the previous versions of this article lacked that, for instance in one edit one stated in the exemptions section some rare cases of jizya taken from childs, ...etc and then goes on to state a minority opinion amongst some jurists to justify it, which is a very POV style of writing. This makes it clear that there should be a clear approach as to how the practice vs theory should be presented in the article. I think that the

1 Etymology and Meaning

1.1 Disambiguation of the terms Kharaj and Jizya

2 Scripture

2.1 Qur'an

2.2 Hadith

3 Rationale

4 Application + its subsections (however there's no harm in giving a few historical examples here and there)

should all contain the theory. As for the practice I think that it should be specifically included in the History section and its subsections.

What do you think?

Regards.

--CounterTime (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed in principle. I would propose having one top-level section called Doctrine, comprising Quran, Hadith, Rationale, and subsections from Application; and another top-level section called History. In fact, I would prefer placing history before doctrine. I've placed theory before practice in my attempt to disentangle the two in Zakat, but that was an article about one of the Five Pillars, and in this case it seems odd to prioritize legal history over actual history. Eperoton (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: To me I find it more convenient to place theory before practice. I would be happy to see the opinions of other users. 20:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

the exemptions to jizya in the lede

CounterTime reverted my trimming of lede, asking in his edit summary
"BoogaLouie why did you delete the exemptions mentioned in the lede?"

original text

Muslim jurists required adult, free, sane males among the dhimma community to pay the jizya while exempting women, children, elders, handicapped, monks, hermits, the poor, the ill, the insane, slaves, ... and musta'mins (non-Muslim foreigners who only temporarily reside in Muslim lands).

my edit

Muslim jurists required able-bodied, sane, adult, male non-Muslim subjects (dhimmis) permanently residing in Muslim lands under Islamic law to pay the jizya.

And the the answer is:

1. If you list those who have to pay a tax, it at the very least implies that those who do not are exempt. So the spelling out of those who are exempt is redundant in a section (lede) that is supposed to summarize the main points of the article, i.e. be concise.
2. in the article proper there is a whole subsection on Exemptions repeating what I trimmed.

NOTE: I should have kept "free" in the sentence. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: The answer is that "able-bodied, sane, adult, male" do not exclude the poor, hermits, monks for instance. The original wording — although it contains a bit of "repetition" — is arguably better, as a matter of fact, all of the Encyclopedias I saw who had an entry on jizya had the exact same structure, for instance in the The Princeton encyclopedia of Islamic political thought we find: "Free adult males who were not afflicted by any physical or mental illness were required to pay the jizya. Women, children, handicapped, the mentally ill, the elderly, and slaves were exempt, as were all travelers and foreigners who did not settle in Muslim lands.."

Regards,

18:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime:

1. I would never advocate excluding that detail (hermits, monks), just putting it in main body of the article ( Exemptions)
2. There seems to be some disagreement over whether "jurists" exempted the poor or some jurists did. ("In terms of who was suppposed to pay the tax, jurists generally agreed that tax is levied only on those who are male, adult, free, and mentally competent. Some excused the poor (with varying definitions) from payment." (Islamic Law in Action: Authority, Discretion, and Everyday Experiences in ..., By Kristen Stilt 2011)) ) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie:

1. I reject your claim that it is a simple "detail", in terms of importance the lede of an encyclopedic article on jizya should include exemptions, and as I said earlier "as a matter of fact, all of the Encyclopedias I saw who had an entry on jizya had the exact same structure", see also the The Princeton encyclopedia of Islamic political thought example I gave.
2. I have two points here: (1) The first one is that the citation you gave is simply ambiguous when talking about exemptions for poors, and it doesn't tell us which is the majority opinion. (2) It may seem entirely manifold — although on closer inspection one finds that it is very relevant here — but I think Al-Yaqoubi comment here applies: (although it's about a different issue) "The Shafi'is said that jizya can only be taken from Christians, Jews, and Magians [Zoroastrians], not from others. But this has never been practiced; the Shafi'i opinion on this has never been followed. We have a rule in fiqh: "Practice takes priority." In other words, the position of a madhab that becomes majority practice is validated, whereas as an opposition position of another madhab, if not followed in a certain land, cannot be practiced there."(Al-Yaqoubi, Muhammad (2015). Refuting ISIS: A Rebuttal Of Its Religious And Ideological Foundations. Sacred Knowledge. p. 54. ISBN 978-1908224125. {{cite book}}: Check |first= value (help)) So a single minority opinion doesn't have weight in opposition to a majority opinion. The same thing can be stated here.

19:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime:

1. OK, how about: Muslim jurists required able-bodied, sane, adult, male, non-monk or hermit, non-Muslim subjects (dhimmis) permanently residing in Muslim lands under Islamic law to pay the jizya.
2. follow the link to the book. Seems to be information on the impact of the tax. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie:

1. Why would you prefer such complicated wording when there's a much more used one? Again I refer you to the wordings present in the majority of jizya entries in encyclopedias.
2. You're relying on two pages of a book you found using Google Books (using the search: 'jizya poor') to make such a definite case? For the classical reference on the impact of the tax please see Daniel Dennet — Conversion and the Poll Tax, it gives a much more throughout and detailed analysis.

20:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime:

1. It is not "more complicated", it's more concise, not repetitive.
2. "definite case"? It's a book on application of Islamic law quoting a number of sources. I put it to you that "the poor were exempt from jizya tax" is a definitive statement that needs defending. Not something like "sources disagree over whether the poor were exempt from Jizya". --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie:

1. Can you give me one good reason to use that wording over the one which is used in virtually all encyclopedias who have entries on jizya? Just why? If you still insist on your version we'll proceed via WP:RFC, would you be happy with that?
2. Look at how many citations were given for that, look also at the citations given in the relevant sections of the article.

21:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime:

1. The article will have that wording, just not in the lede where we keep things short.
2. here are some more sources from my searching:

• one Sultan Muhammad in medieval Bijapur in southern India charged poor Hindus with a job and income one quarter the full jizya tax. (The Sufis of Bijapur, 1300-1700: Social Roles of Sufis in Medieval India)
• "jizya poll tax prescribed for jewish and christian minorities reduced some communities to extreme poverty" Islam in Context: Past, Present, and Future By Peter G. Riddell, Peter Cotterell (unpaged) --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The phrasing "...male, non-monk or hermit, non-Muslim..." seems awkward to me. A clause like "monks and hermits excepted" would be easier to parse. Eperoton (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: The lede is already short using that wording.

You're mixing up theory vs. practice, just because some few historical incidents suggested that sometimes poor dhimmis weren't treated well, doesn't mean the legal theory suggest that. Again please see the citations given in the relevant sections of the article.

Also stop misquoting sources, for instance for the second, right after saying "jizya poll tax prescribed for jewish and christian minorities reduced some communities to extreme poverty" the authors state: "Nevertheless, as Bernard Lewis states: "The Dhimmis were secondclass citizens ... But by and large their position was infinitely superior to that of those communities who differed from the established church in western Europe in the same period." This was especially so for the Jews; far better to be Jewish in the Islamic domains than in Europe during this period."

22:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Section organization

I think there's a broad agreement that theory should be clearly separated from practice, but I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts about section organization. In particular, should we keep the two combined under the current "Application" section, or should we separate statements about historical practice and move them to the history section? Personally, I initially wanted to move all statements about historical practice to the history section, but now I think that contrasting theory and practice under these thematic headings is enlightening, though it should be clear in each case which is which. However, I suggest that the "Application" section be renamed to "Jizya in the classical era", so that the complicated early history and later regional developments can be separated out in the history section. Eperoton (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Is the "Comparison between Zakat and Jizya under Islamic law" table necessary?

It seems more or less to be a "summary" of the article, is it really necessary? 22:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: It's a comparative summary of two articles and potentially useful for that. I'm not how sure how useful it actually is, but it uses some references which are not found elsewhere in the article, so simply deleting it doesn't seem like a good idea. We should verify the citations and clean it up, for a start. Eperoton (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: We should rather take some of its references and stuff and introduce them back to the article, its usefulness is in my opinion void. (Why compare zakat and jizya in the first place? Why not jizya and kharaj or 'ushr or other related taxes? Why summarize that when the lede already discusses the distinction between them?) 15:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: It makes some sense to compare jizya to zakat because they were both personal taxes. It may also make sense to compare different types of land taxes. Let me think about it some more. In the meantime, I'd be curious to hear what others think. Eperoton (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@CounterTime: After some reflection, I've come to think that the potential insight of comparing jizya and zakat is outweighed by the oversimplification of both subjects which the table format occasions. I suggest we move any jizya references where appropriate and remove the table. Eperoton (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Jizya less than zakat

We need better sourcing for this claim. Dagli is a junior faculty specializing in another area. Le Bon was a non-specialist who wrote this in the 19th century and his quote doesn't even support the statement. Based on what I've read, medieval Islamic tax rates are difficult to compare because they depended on many factors, such as what the individual did for a living, but Muslims probably paid less taxes than non-Muslims, ceteris paribus. Eperoton (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Alright, I'll try to find more sources for that.

17:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@Eperoton: After some thinking I think that your rating of the Caner K. Dagli essay isn't quiet accurate, it may be the case that he's specializing in another area, but he wrote many things on the topics of jihad, jizya, ...etc, in particular he is the one who wrote the essay "Conquest and Conversion, War and Peace in The Qur'an" in the recently published (2015) The Study Quran (HarperCollins).

As for the Le Bon quote, it was added to confirm the earlier reference, i.e. "the incidence of taxation fell more heavily on a Muslim than a non-Muslim", which implies that the taxes on Muslims were more than those on non-Muslims.

But as I said earlier, I'll try to find more sources if possible.

Regards.

11:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Thanks for pointing out Dagli's publication. I think we are in agreement that he has solid academic credentials as a "specialist in Sufism, Islamic philosophy, interfaith dialogue, and Quranic studies" (as he's identified in "The Study Quran") and that we should look for citations from specialists in economic and social history to strengthen sourcing on this important point. However, aside from my general concern about Le Bon as a RS, I did't understand your point about the citation. I'm referring to ref #23, which seems to contradict the sentence it sources ("seems" because it may not, as it refers to total taxes while the sentence refers to the poll tax, but I certainly don't see how it supports it). Eperoton (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Hmm, so you're saying that the Le Bon quote contradict what was actually implied? Could you please clarify more? Thanks in advance. CounterTime (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@CounterTime: Ahh, sorry. My eyes were actually refusing to believe what Le Bon wrote there. I had looked at that quote several times, and each time misread this phrase in the opposite sense. You're right, the sourcing is correct as it is, though I expect that we'll need to reflect contrary opinions, because I know I've come across them before. Eperoton (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Alright, I myself thought that I was incorrectly misreading Le Bon's statement. Anyway it is correct that there's another opinion, which was that jizya was a heavy tax that was used to subjugate people to make them convert to Islam, I was myself planning to read Danniel Dennett, Conversion and the Poll Tax, where he refutes this general notion. Maybe he says there something about the rate of these taxes and whether they were usually greater than the zakat or not, I'll try to look into it later. CounterTime (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@CounterTime: I would also like to research this more. I've recently read Robert Hoyland's discussion in his book on the early conquests. He says that the poll tax was a re-branded Sasianian tax with exemptions for the political elite (position now taken over by the Arabs, who made up about 1% of the total population under the Rashidun) and conversions were not encouraged. Then, when conversions picked up (encouraged by religious activists) and mawali began demanding to be treated equally with other Muslims, the rulers didn't want to lose their revenue base and they tried to remove the incentives for conversion and preserve revenue in various ways, including raising taxes on Muslims. However, I was going to read other sources on this. Eperoton (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

See this note from Anver Emon: [3] --Domics (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: I have one, this is talking about a single historical event, and not in a general way (the sources I provided stated that usually jizya was lesser than zakat (Note the term usually here). CounterTime (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

To be more precise, we have two different statements in the two currently cited sources, one comparing total tax burdens, and another comparing "jizya" (presumably the poll tax) to zakat, although they may amount to the same thing in times and places where land was taxable under the kharaj system regardless of payer's religion. Eperoton (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not think that what Umar did could be dismissed as a 'single historical event'. This was the interpretation of the jizya in relation with the Muslim tax as understood in the first years of Islam by a Caliph as Umar. Furthermore read Friedmann quoted by Emon: "Some studies suggest that the doubled rate of the Muslim tax might have approximated the jizya rate." This is a general statement on this topic.--Domics (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: The rates of jizya diverged in the time of Umar from region to region, as you can see from what the Hanbali jurist Ibn Qudamah states in al-Mughni here: (do you read arabic? if you don't I may provide a rough translation)

وفي مقدار الجزية ثلاث روايات

1 - أنها مقدرة بمقدار لا يزيد عليه ولا ينقص منه، وهذا قول أبي حنيفة والشافعي؛ لأن النبي صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فرضها مقدرة بقوله لمعاذ - تقدم -: خذ من كل حالم دينارا أو عدله معافر. . . . وفرضها عمر بمحضر من الصحابة فلم ينكر عليه، فكان إجماعا. 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، وذكر أنه زيد عليهم فيما مضى درهمان، فجعله خمسين، قال الخلال: العمل في قول أبي عبد الله على ما رواه الجماعة، فإنه قال: لا بأس للإمام أن يزيد في ذلك وينقص على ما رواه عنه أصحابه في عشرة مواضع، فاستقر قوله على ذلك، وهذا قول الثوري، وأبي عبيد؛ لأن النبي صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أمر معاذا أن يأخذ من كل حالم دينارا، وصالح أهل نجران على ألفي حلة النصف في صفر والنصف في رجب. وعمر جعل الجزية على ثلاث طبقات: - على الغني ثمانية وأربعين درهمًا. - وعلى المتوسط أربعة وعشرين درهما. - وعلى الفقير اثني عشر درهما. وصالح بني تغلب على مثلي ما على المسلمين من الزكاة، 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؛ لأن عمر زاد على ما فرض رسول الله صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، ولم ينقص منه، وروي أنه على ثمانية وأربعين، فجعلها خمسين

There's also the fact that Zakat was calculated as a percentage of one's capital, but Jizya was a static poll-tax (flat rate per-person).

Regards.

--CounterTime (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we can draw conclusions from either of these sources. Perhaps the author cited by Emon makes a general statement, but that's not clear from his footnote, and a 13th century discussion of what 8th/9th century jurists said about what happened in the 7th century falls under WP:PRIMARY as far as historical facts are concerned. Eperoton (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Hmm, I don't understand your comments on the al-Mughni source, since Ibn Qudamah draws on the most credible early sources (e.g. قال البخاري في صحيحه) --CounterTime (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Modern academic historians assess reliability of hadith differently from traditional Islamic scholars and most of them view the isnads very skeptically. In any case, the policy is pretty emphatic in instructing us to leave interpretation of primary sources to reliable secondary sources, which in WP context means modern academic publications, especially with respect to historical facts. There's some grey area about using modern Islamic scholarship to make generalizations about classical Islamic scholarship. I think that's a reasonable domain-specific interpretation of WP's RS policy, but I imagine others may disagree. We can use al-Mughni to source Ibn Qudamah's views and perhaps the views of jurists he quotes, if our use of the text is uncontroversial. Eperoton (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Okay so if I combined all of your requirements we would need a source (1) other than a hadith source, (2) other than the statement of a jurist, (3) from a specialist in economic and social history, (4) who in addition is an academic historian, (5) that confirms whether in general zakat was more than jizya or not. From my experience it would be extremely hard to find such source.

19:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

We just need to reflect what RSs say on the subject. What primary sources historians use to make generalizations is an interesting question intellectually, but it shouldn't (in theory) influence our editing choices. It may well be hard to find generalizations on this particular point in RSs. Even leaving aside the challenges of primary sources, it's not clear how one compares a fixed-amount tax to a proportional tax. Eperoton (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Yeah, but I think that the comparison was a rough one, i.e. that in most cases either the average individual sum paid for jizya per individual was more/less than the average individual sum paid for zakat. 20:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Maybe. If a specialist on the subject makes that generalization, they would presumably mean something like that. It's far beyond my competence to even attempt armchair history on this subject, with all the data scattered around primary sources, the complexities of jizya exemptions and nisab computations, and averaging computations. Eperoton (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: There's also another dimension which we missed, zakat is obligatory on Muslims regardless of gender, whereas women are exempted from it. 23:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Yep, gender-related issues is another complication. On the one hand, women had to pay zakat but not jizya; on the other, they probably had on average much less zakatable income and property than men. Another reason why I think the takeaway message of currently available sources should be that jizya and zakat are difficult to compare systematically rather than stressing claims and counter-claims of uncertain validity. Hopefully we'll come across more authoritative sources that touch upon this point. Eperoton (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of hadith section

Hadith compilation always skirts WP:PRIMARY, since the choice of hadith is in itself a form of editorializing. In this case it seems particularly problematic. For history, we should be relying on RSs to evaluate historicity of specific reports. For jurisprudence, we should be relying on RSs to tell us whether and how jurists utilized them. Quoting jurists directly is ok, especially for illustration of generalizations made in RSs, but anthologizing hadith here strikes me as a clear violation of WP:PRIMARY. Eperoton (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)