From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on June 27 2006. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group.
WikiProject Islam (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Toward an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights, and International law[edit]

This source is parsed in the lead as "and would face restrictions in personal law". This does not accurately reflect the sources which describes "the humiliating and discrimantory implications" that had "obvious psychological and social consequences". Ankh.Morpork 12:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree source misrepresentation should be fixed.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
see the discussion about the historical context above.-- altetendekrabbe  12:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Which thread discusses this source and the issue of the source misrepresentation? Please explain why you reverted my edit which accurately reflected the source? Ankh.Morpork 12:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
the burden is on you, not me. you have made the same edit before and it was rejected by other users. now, you reverted, blatantly gaming my 1-rr restriction. i'll report you now.-- altetendekrabbe  12:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer that you pointed out to me a previous dicussion in which I could participate in, or explained to me why you object to my edit, as I do not understand what is bothering you or how to go about rectifying it. Ankh.Morpork 12:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Is this an appropriate source for the article anyway? It's really an essay advocating reform in Islam. The author isn't a medieval historian. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
He specialises in human rights in Islam. Isn't Dhimmi right up his alley? Ankh.Morpork 12:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The book printed in University Press the best WP:RS that could be found--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this one. I see he is an expert in Islamic law. I'll take it to RSN. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

RSN thread opened now, with a number of questions. While we wait for uninvolved editors to comment there, I think it should be obvious that the "disabilities" wording is supported by the text, but only in relation to certain specific legal areas. If that quite neutral wording is dubious, then the stronger wording even more so. I shall take it out completely until this is resolved. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

this is the disputed edit, [1]. exactly the same edit was reverted weeks ago. ankh has no consensus, and the burden is on him.-- altetendekrabbe  15:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I've had to go trawling through the page history to see that the reference was initially put in by User:Pudeo, as a compromise and to replace a definitely inferior reference. Well, given the current editing climate, consensus is still elusive. Let's see what is said by RSN regulars. I have also seen that this whole battle goes back to May when a user with precisely 13 edits put in a large chunk of material sourced to Rodney Stark, and Ankh-Morpork accused you of vandalism in an edit summary reverting your revert. An apology is surely due for that. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
And soon after, I explained that this was accidental and explained my objection. Your comments are unfounded. Ankh.Morpork 16:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Not the most gracious of apologies, is it? But I do apologise to you for missing your explanation. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Though comments such as these 123 may have affected my graciousness.Ankh.Morpork 16:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
the most funny thing is: he continued to edit war after his apology...-- altetendekrabbe  16:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I shall restore this confirmed reliable source with attribution as suggested. Ankh.Morpork 10:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
It has not been 'confirmed' that the source is reliable for the statement it was originally cited for - please indicate what your proposed edit is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
According to An-Na'im, Dhimmis were discriminated against in penal law with humiliating effect that had "psychological and social consequences". In the administration of criminal law, they were not accorded total parity with Muslim men, and they were similarly discriminated against in personal law.Ankh.Morpork 18:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Citation needed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
What is not contained in this source and what modifications do you suggest? Ankh.Morpork 19:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry - misread it. Let me look again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
...And once again, you are misrepresenting the source. The paragraph is discussing a particular aspect of Shari'a law - that relating to fornication, and makes clear that the discrimination it describes was "at the discretion of the authorities". It also points out that Muslim women were similarly sometimes discriminated against, and on that basis, it is misleading to imply that An-Na`im is writing about discrimination against dhimmi's alone. The source cannot be use in the way you are proposing to make general and categorical statements about Islamic law. It simply doesn't assert what you are citing it for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph is discussing a particular aspect of Shari'a law - that relating to fornication

  1. The paragraph states, "Shari'a penal law discriminates among citizens according to gender and religion". Why is this not a general statement?
  2. The paragraph states, "The reputation of a dhimmi is not valued the same way as the reputation of a Muslim". Why is this not a general statement?
  3. Since you declare the paragraph is discussing a specific aspect, what is this aspect being cited as an example of?
  4. The paragraph refers to "discriminatory implications of the distinction". What is this "distinction" and is it being cited as an example of a wider concept as is seemingly indicated by "Thus...".

It also points out that Muslim women were similarly sometimes discriminated against, and on that basis, it is misleading to imply that An-Na`im is writing about discrimination against dhimmi's alone.

  1. Why does mentioning one group preclude the discrimination against others?
  2. Would you state the same if they were in seperate sentences, different chapters or even different books, as the underlying principle of 'An-Na`im did not write about discrimination alone' would similarly apply. Ankh.Morpork 20:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not interested in debating your endless circular arguments. The source given does not support the statement you are citing it for. You are cherry-picking. If the general statement is unequivocally true, find a source that says so, without referring to "discretion of the authorities", or to "differences of opinion among the various jurists and schools of jurisprudence over the precise scope of these and other discriminatory principles and rules of Shari'a" - except of course that this source can then be cited for just that - an assertion that discrimination against dhimmis (and women) under Shari'a was not universally applied. Then again, the source could also be cited for the way Shari'a discriminates against Muslims (or against people it recognises as Muslims) - most specifically in relation to apostasy (see p. 86 and on). You are selectively reading text about a general subject (discrimination under Shari'a law) to 'prove' that dhimmi's were a specific target of discrimination. Then again, the book isn't even about discrimination - the next chapter is entitled "Criminal justice", and right at the start (P.101 2nd paragraph, in a section entitled "criminal justice in the modern nation state") says that "The state seeks to maintain law and order and preserve security through the power to impose criminal punishments affecting the life, liberty, and property of the individual. The imposition of criminal punishment involves not only the possible loss of life, liberty and property for the individual but also severe social stigma and psychological pain and suffering..." And note this isn't Shari'a law that is being referred to, but the modern nation-state. On this basis, to suggest that the fact that discrimination against dhimmis may have caused "psychological and social consequences" would be seen by the author as something unique in law is somewhat questionable, to say the least. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I have asked you several specific questions regarding the source and you have declined to address them. Instead you present the familiar rambling bombast that when its cloak of indignant emotion is deftly removed, reveals a squirming vacuity squiggling for cover beneath fresh invective, frantically evading the penetrative glare of substance and dispassion. So cease frantically interweaving the fabric and demagoguery of yet another yarn and its polemical embroidery; it is time to forgo the evanescent gossamer of motive and speculation, for I behold a shivering source that has been awaiting veracious vestiary and sartorial syllogism for far too long. I exhort you: let us together use this thread to fashion a pom-pom hat of probity to gently fit upon the unwieldy head and frigid ears of this stubborn source. Ankh.Morpork 22:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The source given does not support the statement you are citing it for. Now go boil your head... AndyTheGrump (talk)
Following the RSN, I have re-added the source that was originally in the article but was recently removed. I have tried to capture its contents, please effect improvements as opposed to engaging in total removal. Ankh.Morpork 21:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Current Dhimmi situations[edit]

I would suggest that dhimmi is alive and well and enjoying something of a resurgence today. Instead of messy edit warring, I would suggest that if a number of islamic states or organizations either directly refer to establishing a dhimma contract or much more likely refer to paying the tax required by this contract, the jizya then the populations that pay are modern dhimmi and should be listed. After a suitable number of examples are gathered, perhaps in a sandbox, the section would be elevated to the actual article. I'm looking for commentary as to how many communities need to have paid and how many organizations need to be seeking to get communities to pay the jizya in order for a legitimate modern dhimmi section to be justified? Let us leave aside whether such communities exist, I'm just looking to avoid the tiresome discussions about who or what is fringe and the edit war pattern by laying out the ground rules in advance. Any takers? TMLutas (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That would constitute original research. Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources. If you want to do this, you will have to do it somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I came here looking for this. I think it would be a valuable contribution to the article. This might be a good place to start, there are references at the end. Lansey (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Source needs better identification[edit]

Reference [1] is "Juan Eduardo Campo, ed. (2010-05-12). "dhimmi". Encyclopedia of Islam", with a quotation. No such text occurs in the second or third editions of Encyclopedia of Islam published online by Brill. What Encyclopedia is it? We need the publisher, the edition, and the author of the entry if specified. Zerotalk 11:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Article needs updating. New name of Dhimmi seems to be called Zimmi officially in Pakistan[edit]

From this article: "The word 'Zimmi' had been used instead of minorities as it refers to non-Muslims of an Islamic state."
I am not an expert on proper etiquette on how to go about doing this so I will leave it to you guys. This new word has the same meaning and is a similar sounding word. Does it belong under Dhimmi? or should it be referenced? Thanks
--OxAO (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Glenn Patrick[edit]

I just made an edit to the article, adding the word jizya in the Lead. Glenn Patrick has mentioned the word here: [2], so please don't revert my edit. Thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)