Talk:Dhimmitude

Edited Misleading bernard lewis Quote

The full Bernard Lewis quote has been provided to correct the partial misleading quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.197.150 (talk) 21:16, October 14, 2006‎ (UTC)

Discrimination

Adding the discrimination category and side-bar implies that "Dhimmitude" is real. But from the article we can see that Dhimmitude is at best a controversial concept and at worst a myth. We can't treat it as fact.VR _talk 03:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

What you say is demonstrably false. For instance, religions other than Islam are not permitted in Saudi Arabia. See Freedom_of_religion_in_Saudi_Arabia. Consider Tomorrow's Pioneers, a television show produced by Hamas that teach children to hate Jews. Read the article Persecution of Christians and pay particular attention to the section on persecution by Muslims and Muslim nations. People are still killed by government officials and by mobs for converting from Islam to other religions. Shall I go on? Is any of this not proof of discrimination? None of this is a "myth" as stated by Bernard Lewis. Besides, Lewis was talking about the status of HISTORICAL dhimmi, not present. This article isn't particularly concerned with the case of historical dhimmis. -- Frotz(talk) 09:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Your above justification is purely WP:OR. Few reliable sources, if any, consider Saudi laws to be an example of dhimmi. Not to say that historically dhimmis weren't discriminated against (they were, they couldn't carry arms etc.), but this article is about a politically motivated neologism, not actual history.VR _talk 18:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that it's OR to look at other Wikipedia articles for my justification? Look at the article for Bat Ye'or. There is a quote from Robert Spencer linking the two terms of "dhimmitude" and "discrimination". Put the two terms into Google and see what you find. What more proof do you need? -- Frotz(talk) 20:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Frotz, your arguments have no basis in wikipedia policy. You can neither rely on google, or other wikipedia article to make assertions on content. The term dhimmitude is controversial and disputed by scholars. Thus we can't treat it as fact.VR _talk 13:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Something being controversial and disputed is no reason to pretend it doesn't exist. -- Frotz(talk) 14:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on verifiability only. If something is disputed amongst reliable sources, its existence is far from certain, as far as wikipedia is concerned.VR _talk 16:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that "Islamophobia", which Vice regent added to the article, is just as controversial a "political neologism" as Dhimmitude. Shrigley (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that point was made quite some time ago when the criticism section was added. -- Frotz(talk) 21:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind adding discrimination in the See Also section, like I added Islamophobia there.VR _talk 16:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

by the same logic there wasn't any racism in the United States, it's all in the past and can't be verified today and shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Nor is there any such thing as Islamophobia, it just happens that 90% of all terriorist are of the Islamic religion, again it can't be verified can it. Or does just publishing a book act as that verifiable fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.79.224.1 (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Please, be serious, people! "Dhimmitude" is found straight in the Quran and says something like this "We, the Muslims "admit" religious brotherhood to those of "the Gospels/Bible" and "the Torah/Taurat"." Dhimmitude in practice is to say Ecumenical understanding to the Jews and the Christians and that this larger group is, as we know, from the people of Abraham in the Bible. Please, see the authoritative Quran, http://quran.com/ , with official support from the home of the Holiest sites of Islam, the Mecca and the Medina. Cheers! 85.166.63.12 (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"which literally means protected"

In the lede I find the assertion that dhimmi "literally means protected". It doesn't. First of all, it's a noun: It describes a person being in some specific condition, state or cicumstance. Many Arabic words ending in -i do this, e.g. a Hajji is somebody having performed Hajj, or a Takfiri is sombody who committed Takfir, etc.

For the translation let's turn to the large standard scientific dictionary of Arabic, the Hans Wehr, 4th. ed.: - dhimmi: subject of a pact of protection, free non-muslim subject in Muslim states (see dhimma, ahl al-dhimma) - dhimma: tutelage, protection; pact of protection, treaty; responsibility, obligation (to pay), debt; inviolability, protection for life and limb; protection, guarantee, security; conscience; rebuke, disapproval

There is no literal English translation. I tried to fix this, but was reverted.

88.75.8.48 (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"regressive left"

why ist this in the "regressive left" category? Who's the one meant? Tibi, Gemayel, Yeor, Lewis? Please elaborate or delete 178.2.122.80 (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Heavily biased and almost irrelevant

This entire article is written to defend against an attack that doesn't exist, and is written as polemic against anyone who's used the term dhimmitude. I've fixed the glaring POV problems in the introduction, but they're pervasive and I don't think the article is worth the effort needed to salvage NPOV. If someone is willing to step up, fix the POV, and find examples of its relevance, it might be worth salvaging. As it is it's not notable and should be merged into dhimmi or just deleted. 76.103.244.155 (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)