Talk:Jizya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith (Rated Start-class)
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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating 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.
 
WikiProject Taxation (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of tax-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 


Proposal to remove the discrimination sidebar[edit]

I'm not sure if this article should be filed under discrimination; jizya might have its criticisms, but those criticisms are disputed and are not the prevalent opinion, and the presence of the discrimination sidebar implies that this topic has been agreed upon by most communities around the world to be discriminative (such as how the concept of attacking same-sex relationships is considered discrimination, for example), which is not the case. Therefore, I'm proposing the removal of the discrimination sidebar.

--محمد.طارق94 (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Classifying jizya as discrimination is dubious and POV at best. BlindMic (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Fully agree.Truth-seeker2004 (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Is treating people differently based on religion not discrimination? Jimp 09:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
@Truth-seeker2004, BlindMic, محمد.طارق94:The inclusion of a sidebar does not "...impl[y] that this topic has been agreed upon by most communities around the world to be discriminative...", merely that it has been cited as discriminatory by a 'notable' and reliable source.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of the discrimination sidebar[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jizya&diff=487721070&oldid=486851139

How and why is taxation based on religion (or rather not belonging to 1 religion) not discriminating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.105.239.3 (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Reintroduction of discrimination sidebar or navbox[edit]

It is. I propose putting the sidebar back. Jimp 09:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Jiyza isn't on the Template:Discrimination sidebar and maybe it is too specific to go on. Another option is to use the navbox Template:Discrimination. Jizya should be added to this navbox. I agree the Jiyza article should have one or the other of these templates. A reference to discrimination should be made in the article with sources, if not currently present.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Good point about its being too specific. It's just a form of religious persecution. Adding it to the navbox is a better idea. Jimp 11:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to Make Current[edit]

In the first section as part of the introduction, it is stated, "From the point of view of the Muslim rulers, jizya was a material proof of the non-Muslims' acceptance of subjection to the state and its laws,". This should be edited to state that "jizya is a material proof". Using "was" makes jizya sound like a historical practice when it is being imposed today.

In the section titled: "Ninteenth century", the last paragraph states, "In the 20th century, Hindus in British India who..." A new section or sections should be created called "Twentieth century" and also "Twenty-first century". Otherwise "history" should be defined differently rather than denoting the century.

It appears that the jizya has been imposed between the years 2000 and 2013 in some countries. See:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2013/1222/What-the-Middle-East-would-be-like-without-Christians
http://shoebat.com/2013/06/27/syrian-cleric-christians-now-obligated-to-pay-jizya-tax/
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/12/19/lebanon-sectarian-attacks-tripoli
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2013/September/Egypt-Christians-Killed-for-Not-Paying-Jizya-Tax/

The current imposition of jizya should be included in this article to bring it up to date. Figlinus (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This makes sense, made 21st century section. I've put 19th and 20th century together because because relented events happened over the turn of the century.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Twenty-first century addition should be added[edit]

Militants Set Down Strict Laws for Christians in Syrian City. new Jizya tax. I would add this myself but whenever i do on Wikipedia someone has to change it or remove it for some stupid reason. Thanks
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/militants-set-down-strict-laws-christians-syrian-city-n40146
--OxAO (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

@OxAO: please add any 'notable' and reliably sourced information. Other editors may make a bold revert, in which case try and gain consensus on the issue. Consensus can be attempted on the talk page, another method is WP:RfC. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Tagged for source[edit]

I've tagged the following statement for sourcing: "There is no equivalent to jizya in either Judaism or Christianity, which do not extract taxes on non-adherents."

Without sourcing, this seems potentially POV, as it could be taken to suggest that Islam is more discriminatory than either Judaism or Christianity. And I'd be very surprised if there was not either a Christian or Jewish society that has done the same thing at some point (especially given things like historical Christian treatment of the Jewish). — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sasuke Sarutobi: I agree it is bad wording, potentially WP:Synthesis. Correct me if I'm wrong but Jewish and Christian texts don't go into how a society should be run economically to the same level? If that is the case better wording could be: Jonpatterns (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
There is no direct equivalent to Jizya outlined in Jewish or Christian texts.
@Jonpatterns: Thanks for the quick response. That it's from religious texts is a good point, so that would be an important equivalence. This could be a better wording for the mean time, but I would say still suffers from the same issue of unclear sourcing. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Sourcing would be quite tricky, it would need someone to have compared the tax systems of different cultures and religions. In my opinion this criticism may be best removed. It may be helpful to start a WP:RfC to get more opinions. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Remove it. It seems that the whole point of the sentence is to stir up trouble, to attempt to prove the Christianity and Judaism are somehow better than Islam. It might be interesting to mention a similar tax being levied by a government under the influence of a different religion but the absence of any such thing isn't noteworthy. This is a bit like having a sentence on the Elephant page about the fact that hippos and rhinos don't have trunks. Jimp 09:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
It appears to have already gone. I agree that it doesn't need to be in the article. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Exemptions from Jizyah[edit]

The sentences about exemptions from Jizyah are vague and very poorly sourced. It says that there were exemptions in "early periods of Islam", which period specifically? There are two sources given, one is a modern article from a journal, and the other is incomplete, only "Ali (1990)" is provided. There are no Sunni hadiths that reference any such exemptions. So I have added the following sentence: "Though there is no mention of any such exemptions in Sunni Islamic Law, or any example of exemptions being given by Prophet Muhammad or his companions." But I think that if we cannot find any early sources that mention any exemptions, the whole section should be removed.

Explaining revert[edit]

Per WP:BRD please discuss. You need to confirm verifiability (I checked and couldn't), explain the reliability of blog and sources cited, evidence that content is widely accepted, as well as the relevance of the added content before adding those changes to the subsection or table. Please note that much of the content is also another attempt to copy and paste, and violate wikipedia's copyright policies, from book ISBN 978-1433033681 into this article. That book is unreliable and is a commercial brochure as evidenced by the advertisement for services at the bottom of each page. Repeated attempts to violate wiki's copyright policy is unacceptable. Latifa Raafat (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

And you are refusing to check those reliable citations that I had added to the article? I cannot help there, but I can only say that the citation was good enough for citing these, if you want more, just add something yourself or give some time. Removing it wouldn't work. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you referring to Murat Çizakça, Holger Weiss, Kamaruddin Sharif references? Or to islamway.com you re-added? The latter is not WP:RS. Or, are you referring to Thomas Arnold sourced content? Can you provide a second source to confirm Thomas Arnold's claim has a wider acceptance? Latifa Raafat (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Islamway was of course unreliable citation. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)