User:CounterTime/sandbox

Jizya article/ Qur'an subsection/edits CounterTime

1. Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day (qā talū’ lladhī na lā yuʾ minū na bi’ llā hi wa-lā bi’ l-yawmi’ l-ā khir)

Commenting on the jizya verse, Abū Ḥayyān states, ‘they are so described because their way [of acting] is the way of those who do not believe in God’, while Mustafa Al-Maraghi comments on it: "fight those mentioned when the conditions which necessitate fighting are present, namely, aggression against you or your country, oppression and persecution against you on account of your faith, or threatening your safety and security, as was committed against you by the Byzantines, which was what lead to Tabuk." In any case, there is nothing in the Qur'an to say that not believing in God and the Last Day is in itself grounds for fighting anyone.

2. Do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden (wa-lā yuḥ arrimū na mā ḥ arrama’ llā hu wa-rasū luhu)

The closest and most viable cause must relate to jizya, that is, unlawfully consuming what belongs to the Muslim state, which, al-Bayḍāwī explains, ‘it has been decided that they should give’, since their own scriptures and prophets forbid breaking agreements and not paying what is due to others. His Messenger in this verse has been interpreted by exegetes as referring to the Prophet Muḥammad or the People of the Book’ s own earlier messengers, Moses or Jesus, but the latter must be the correct interpretation as it is already assumed that the People of the Book did not believe in Muḥammad or forbid what he forbade. They are condemned for not obeying their own prophet, who told them to honour their agreements.

3. Until they pay jizyah with their own hands while they are subdued.

Here ʿan yad (from/for/at hand), is interpreted by some to mean that they should pay directly, without intermediary and without delay. Others say that it refers to its reception by Muslims and means “generously” as in “with an open hand,” since the taking of the jizya is a form of munificence that averted a state of conflict. M.J. Kister understands 'an yad to be a referrence to the "ability and sufficient means" of the dhimmi. The orientalist Mark Cohen claims that 'while they are subdued' was interpreted by many to mean "humiliated state of the non-Muslims". In contrast, Al-Shafi‘i, the founder of the Shafi'i school of law, explains that a number of scholars explained this last expression to mean that "Islamic rulings are enforced on them."

Jizya article/ Qur'an subsection /edits RLoutfy

1. Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day (qā talū’ lladhī na lā yuʾ minū na bi’ llā hi wa-lā bi’ l-yawmi’ l-ā khir)

Commenting on the jizya verse, Abū Ḥayyān states, ‘they are so described because their way [of acting] is the way of those who do not believe in God’, while Mustafa Al-Maraghi comments on it: "fight those mentioned when the conditions which necessitate fighting are present, namely, aggression against you or your country, oppression and persecution against you on account of your faith, or threatening your safety and security, as was committed against you by the Byzantines, which was what lead to Tabuk." In any case, there is nothing in the Qur'an to say that not believing in God and the Last Day is in itself grounds for fighting anyone.

2. Do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden (wa-lā yuḥ arrimū na mā ḥ arrama’ llā hu wa-rasū luhu)

The closest and most viable cause must relate to jizya, that is, unlawfully consuming what belongs to the Muslim state, which, al-Bayḍāwī explains, ‘it has been decided that they should give’, since their own scriptures and prophets forbid breaking agreements and not paying what is due to others. His Messenger in this verse has been interpreted by exegetes as referring to the Prophet Muḥammad or the People of the Book’ s own earlier messengers, Moses or Jesus, but the latter must be the correct interpretation as it is already assumed that the People of the Book did not believe in Muḥammad or forbid what he forbade. They are condemned for not obeying their own prophet, who told them to honour their agreements.

3. Until they pay jizyah with their own hands while they are subdued.

Here ʿan yad (from/for/at hand), is interpreted by some to mean that they should pay directly, without intermediary and without delay. Others say that it refers to its reception by Muslims and means “generously” as in “with an open hand,” since the taking of the jizya is a form of munificence that averted a state of conflict. The orientalist Mark Cohen claims that 'while they are subdued' was interpreted by many to mean "humiliated state of the non-Muslims". In contrast, Al-Shafi‘i, the founder of the Shafi'i school of law, explains that a number of scholars explained this last expression to mean that "Islamic rulings are enforced on them."

CounterTime, Please provide a scholarly source of translation of each quote above, or your own translation of non-English quotes above as required by WP:NOENG. You are doing original research and WP:SYNTHESIS above. You need to find a cite that does the interpretation above, and we can then summarize that cite. RLoutfy (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: The article "The jizya Verse (Q. 9:29): Tax Enforcement on Non-Muslims in the First Muslim State, M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, SOAS, University of London, Journal of Qur’anic Studies 14.2 (2012): pp.72–89, Edinburgh University Press, DOI: 10.3366/jqs.2012.0056, # Centre of Islamic Studies, SOAS" contains a translation of the following sources: "Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ, vol. 5, p. 30." and "Al-Bayḍawī, Tafsīr (2 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1988), vol. 1, p. 401.", all what remains is a translation of the Tafsir al-Maraghi, Kitabul Umm sources, which can be done by building consensus. I invite you to provide your own translation, and if there are any issues we'll discuss that. CounterTime (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN is on you, for every WP:NOENG quote above. We will make faster progress if you provided a scholarly complete translation or your own complete translation. For now, I have serious concerns that you are inadvertently but in good faith doing OR and Synthesis, something wikipedia policies do not allow. RLoutfy (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Here are the relevant quotes from the article "The jizya Verse (Q. 9:29): Tax Enforcement on Non-Muslims in the First Muslim State, M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, SOAS, University of London, Journal of Qur’anic Studies 14.2 (2012): pp.72–89, Edinburgh University Press, DOI: 10.3366/jqs.2012.0056, # Centre of Islamic Studies, SOAS" : "This does not negate the belief of the People of the Book in God, the Prophet and scripture; but rather simply states that they do not act on such belief because they are rebellious. Commenting on the jizya verse, Abū Ḥayyān states, ‘they are so described because their way [of acting] is the way of those who do not believe in God’.8 In any case, there is nothing in the Qur’an to say that not believing in God and the Last Day is in itself grounds for fighting anyone." The footnote 8 is: Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ, vol. 5, p. 30........ it continues: " It cannot relate to their food or drink, or what they say about God, because these are not given as causes for fighting them, and after paying the jizya they will still be consuming these things and saying these things without being fought. The closest and most viable cause must relate to jizya, that is, unlawfully consuming what belongs to the Muslim state, which, al-Bayḍāwī explains, ‘it has been decided that they should give’ ,11 since their own scriptures and prophets forbid breaking agreements and not paying what is due to others.12 " and footnote 11: Al-Bayḍawī, Tafsīr (2 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1988), vol. 1, p. 401.

Is it good now? CounterTime (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not good, it suggests that you are doing WP:OR. If you propose a more faithful summary of these sources including Abdel Haleem's paper, I would welcome that as constructive. If you want I can suggest an alternate summary of these sources and the alternate cites I added. RLoutfy (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Why it isn't good? I literally just quoted what was stated in M.A.S. Abdel Haleem's paper: The jizya Verse (Q. 9:29): Tax Enforcement on Non-Muslims in the First Muslim State, M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, SOAS, University of London, Journal of Qur’anic Studies 14.2 (2012): pp.72–89, Edinburgh University Press, DOI: 10.3366/jqs.2012.0056, # Centre of Islamic Studies, SOAS" Which quote do you have a problem with? CounterTime (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

CounterTime, Here is what Abdel Haleem writes in the abstract of the article you cite (I am quoting parts, and not quoting it entirely to avoid copyvio issues),

The jizya verse has been the basis of a huge amount of writing by Muslims in Islamic law and Qur'anic exegesis, and by non-Muslim scholars writing about Islam. (....) Such analysis will demonstrate that the picture that has been made of this verse, based on various historical contingencies, both by Muslim exegetes and jurists and non-Muslim writers, is far removed from the actual picture as given in the Qur'an itself.

Abdel Haleem is admitting that "there is huge amount of writing on jizya verse" and "both Muslim and non-Muslim writers" have a different view than his new research. Wikipedia summarizes widely held scholarly views to be encyclopedic, not WP:PRIMARY new research of one scholar such as Abdel Haleem or WP:FRINGE. What you have added is WP:OR, and undue. You do not have consensus to add what you did, and just like you deleted what I added to that section claiming WP:BRD consensus issues, please respect the same rules as wiki rules apply to you as much as me. RLoutfy (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: The original dispute was about WP:NOENG policies, I cited Abdel Haleem's article to support the translations. Anything other than that strays from the subject, which would render your objections void and hence I have the complete right to reintroduce the text into the section. Your allegation that I didn't include multiple views from Muslim and non-Muslim writers are completely wrong, see for instance the opinions of Mark Cohen and M.J. Kister that I included. (this is just an example) If you have any objections concerning the translation, you're welcome to discuss them, otherwise don't try to stray from the original point of dispute. Thanks in advance. CounterTime (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

You respecting WP:NOENG is step 1. Now you need to read and respect other wikipedia content policies. Since you are a relatively new account, try getting guidance on this at WP:TEAHOUSE. You can't do original research, nor include undue/fringe content. That is our dispute #2 in this matter. RLoutfy (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I didn't include WP:OR, and as I said for WP:NPOV I mentioned multiple opinions (some from Muslim scholars, and others from non-Muslim orientalists), e.g. the opinions of Mark Cohen and M.J. Kister. (As you can note I'm already familiar with WP policies, and I'm not a "new account", my first contribution was exactly at the 12:32, 28 September 2015) CounterTime (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: BTW you still have to explain why you told me to find another secondary source that translates the arabic sources, in other words, why is my translation wrong according to you? Explain yourself. CounterTime (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum. I am not here to explain myself or engage in forum like discussion. Try teahouse, you will get the help you need on what is original research, and why wikipedia avoids undue/fringe content. Alternatively, try DRN. RLoutfy (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I don't any help concerning WP policies, I already know them. As it seems now it's you who can't respect them and starts evading objections. So please cooperate: answer the following

I didn't include WP:OR, and as I said for WP:NPOV I mentioned multiple opinions (some from Muslim scholars, and others from non-Muslim orientalists), e.g. the opinions of Mark Cohen and M.J. Kister. (As you can note I'm already familiar with WP policies, and I'm not a "new account", my first contribution was exactly at the 12:32, 28 September 2015) CounterTime (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: BTW you still have to explain why you told me to find another secondary source that translates the arabic sources, in other words, why is my translation wrong according to you? Explain yourself. CounterTime (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Alternate addition to Quran section

CounterTime, Consider the following text instead of above, because it reflects the widely accepted view and is well supported in the cites.

Mohammed Ennaji translates this verse as follows,

Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.

— Qur'an 9.29,

Ennaji explains that this verse mandates the payment of jizya by the dhimmis, and that most scholars insist that the term "from the hand" implies that the payment of jizya cannot be delegated, but the tax must be paid in person, "arriving on foot, not not horseback", to show his gratitude for having been spared by his conquerors, reflecting and acknowledging his servile position. Mark Cohen remarks, that the exegetical and juristic literature suggests unclarity on what the last four words – wa-hum sāghirūn – in the above verse 9.29 meant, with most interpreting it to imply "humiliated state of the non-Muslims".

You deleted the above even though it is based on scholarly cites, from the November 18 version. RLoutfy (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I already told you why I 'deleted' it (actually I added the Mark Cohen cite in my own version), here. BTW why add another translation when one already mentioned the Yusuf trans? It seems you're trying to make POV pushing. CounterTime (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Since you are a relatively new account, you might be confused about this. Whenever, multiple translations are provided or multiple views are included with cites, it is the exact opposite of POV pushing. Not taking sides, summarizing multiple sides is proof of WP:NPOV. As a compromise, I am willing to add one or two summary sentences about Abdel Haleem's disagreement with the majority view along with the above. Would that be acceptable to you? RLoutfy (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I repeat, I'm not a "new account", my first contribution was exactly at the 12:32, 28 September 2015. The mere fact that you claim that there's -- to you -- an established consensus (with your two sources) and that everything else should be read as being a 'disagreement with the majority view' (including the 7 or so references I added) is by itself POV pushing. (And I remind you, this isn't a forum where you can engage in discussions over which is the majority opinion and which isn't) As I said earlier in the jizya talk page claims of consensus or of a 'majority opinion' may not necessarily be coherent, for example one source can claim that Q.9:29 is about all the people of the book, whereas another may claim that it only addresses those transgressors amongst them (this is just an example). For a complete WP:NPOV (when two editors have conflicting sources) one should mention both claims without stating anything about a 'consensus'. If however I for instance provide cites from various works in the Islamic tafsir literature that confirm a consensus and there are recent scholarly references that go with that side then one should mention it as being a 'consensus'.

I'm waiting for your answers to the failed allegations you presented above, don't escape from them and try to cooperate. Thanks CounterTime (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I have already replied to above. See here. RLoutfy (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Standstill or DRN?

You are neither addressing my concerns, nor making a constructive reply to my compromise proposal. Shall we leave that section unchanged, or try WP:DRN? RLoutfy (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Stop making false accusations. (see WP:ACCUSE) Instead, start by collaborating instead of ignoring my replies and concerns, since you're the one who is ignoring them! You can even start now here they are: (please reply)

---

@RLoutfy: I don't any help concerning WP policies, I already know them. As it seems now it's you who can't respect them and starts evading objections. So please cooperate: answer the following

I didn't include WP:OR, and as I said for WP:NPOV I mentioned multiple opinions (some from Muslim scholars, and others from non-Muslim orientalists), e.g. the opinions of Mark Cohen and M.J. Kister. (As you can note I'm already familiar with WP policies, and I'm not a "new account", my first contribution was exactly at the 12:32, 28 September 2015) CounterTime (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: BTW you still have to explain why you told me to find another secondary source that translates the arabic sources, in other words, why is my translation wrong according to you? Explain yourself. CounterTime (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I repeat, I'm not a "new account", my first contribution was exactly at the 12:32, 28 September 2015. The mere fact that you claim that there's -- to you -- an established consensus (with your two sources) and that everything else should be read as being a 'disagreement with the majority view' (including the 7 or so references I added) is by itself POV pushing. (And I remind you, this isn't a forum where you can engage in discussions over which is the majority opinion and which isn't) As I said earlier in the jizya talk page claims of consensus or of a 'majority opinion' may not necessarily be coherent, for example one source can claim that Q.9:29 is about all the people of the book, whereas another may claim that it only addresses those transgressors amongst them (this is just an example). For a complete WP:NPOV (when two editors have conflicting sources) one should mention both claims without stating anything about a 'consensus'. If however I for instance provide cites from various works in the Islamic tafsir literature that confirm a consensus and there are recent scholarly references that go with that side then one should mention it as being a 'consensus'.

I'm waiting for your answers to the failed allegations you presented above, don't escape from them and try to cooperate. Thanks CounterTime (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

---

If you ignored these things, then we shall move on to the talk page, and we'll consult the opinions of other users who are involved in the edition of this article. If then there is still no outcome we shall go for WP:DRN, okay? (but in any case, this will only happen provided that you reply to my concerns above instead of ignoring them) CounterTime (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I have already replied to above here. RLoutfy (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)