Talk:Jizya

Lack of proper sources

Many sources aren't specific, I highlighted only some in the article. --HakimPhilo (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@HakimPhilo: They are specific. I checked a few and was able to verify. The nonspecific tag must only be used in this or other articles when cite is missing, not when cite is present. The template page states, "This tag is for placement after purportedly factual statements that could be relevant, but are not cited". It is inappropriate to use of this tag, when cite is present, and some editor uses a page range and you couldn't be bothered to read those pages for the context and WP:V, something you seem to be doing in this and other Islam-related wiki pages. RLoutfy (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

To give just one example of your disruptive abuse in this article, @HakimPhilo, you tagged 'nonspecific' here. The cite stated p. 69-73. I checked. I find abundant support in the cited Malik book, and the specific support is in lines 17-22 of p. 69. Did you really bother to check any of the cited sources in this and other Islam related articles, before tagging it 'nonspecific'? RLoutfy (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

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'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'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)

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'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)

Summary

There is some dispute between RLoutfy and Al-Andalusi, but it seems difficult for others to follow. Can you please summarize in as few words as possible? I am always quite suspicious when statements sourced to scholarly sources from Stanford and Oxford are removed or challenged, unless some case can be made that they are somehow WP:UNDUE.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

One open issue is this above. The dispute is about content from recently published scholarly cites. One cite states "Jizya and Kharaj were crushing burden on non-Muslim peasants", while the other states, "in Byzantine region, the Islamic tax burden was lower than before".

I want all sides to be summarized in the main article, and a shorter summary in the lead. @Al-Andalusi, for reasons unclear to me, states that this sourced content does not belong in this article because it is NPOV, and has deleted it from main as well as the lead, here and here. This is one instance where we have come to a standstill, without a consensus. I am waiting for a third opinion. I am open to alternate wording that better summarizes the cites. RLoutfy (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit vandalism per RLoutfy.

Dear @RLoutfy. Why did you inexplicably revert my edits?

@Iryna Harpy. I first want to thank your efforts at ameliorating this article. You stated that my latest edit in this article "... did not appear to be constructive". Could you please show how isn't constructive? Thanks. --CounterTime (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It is unconstructive because it is based on cites that are non-RS and very old (see WP:HISTRS), relies on you interpreting primary sources and wrongly if I may add (I can read Persian and Arabic and your translations are simply wrong and don't say what you claim they say). You must not edit war with Iryna Harpy and I. You must provide recent reliable secondary cites. RLoutfy (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to be constructive, much appreciated. Please show me the cites that are very old, (e.g. how in the world is the Abdel Haleem scholarly article old?) and show me how I'm interpreting my sources wrongly, I too can read arabic, for instance when I quoted Al-Qurtubi: "قال علماؤنا: الذي دل عليه القرآن أن الجزية تؤخذ من المقاتلين... وهذا إجماع من العلماء على أن الجزية إنما توضع على جماجم الرجال الأحرار البالغين، وهم الذين يقاتلون دون النساء والذرية والعبيد والمجانين المغلوبين على عقولهم والشيخ الفاني"

Where I wrote: "there is a consensus amongst scholars that jizya ... isn't taken from women, the childs, the slaves, the insane, and the old."" --CounterTime (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Arnold in your edit here is very old, from 1913. And that view by some historical Islamic scholars "isn't taken from women, the childs, the slaves, the insane, and the old" was already in the article, with cites from recent scholars. RLoutfy (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

For the fifth time, Arnold is considered to be quiet reliable despite being old. "And that view by some historical Islamic scholars "isn't taken from women, the childs, the slaves, the insane, and the old" was already in the article, with cites from recent scholars." But it doesn't mention that there is a consensus amongst scholars that it isn't taken from ...etc... Anyway going to sleep now, we'll continue the discussion later.--CounterTime (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Just because you think 1913 cite is okay, doesn't mean it is, or that we must ignore WP:HISTRS. If the view of Arnold continues to be current, you should have no problem finding recent scholarship stating the same. RLoutfy (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

1. First, can you show how I mistranslated and distorted al-Qurtubi's statements: "قال علماؤنا: الذي دل عليه القرآن أن الجزية تؤخذ من المقاتلين... وهذا إجماع من العلماء على أن الجزية إنما توضع على جماجم الرجال الأحرار البالغين، وهم الذين يقاتلون دون النساء والذرية والعبيد والمجانين المغلوبين على عقولهم والشيخ الفاني" Where I wrote: "there is a consensus amongst scholars that jizya ... isn't taken from women, the childs, the slaves, the insane, and the old.""??
2. Second, Arnold is a very famous orientalist, he is known as the author and co-founder of important institutions or undertakings in Islamic studies such as the Encyclopaedia of Islam and the School of Oriental [and African] Studies. His book 'The Preaching of Islam' despite being old, is considered reliable, I think instead of passively displaying a bias against Arnold, you should instead work to improve this article, so as to make this Encyclopedia better.
3. Third, you state "If the view of Arnold continues to be current, you should have no problem finding recent scholarship stating the same." However ALL views should be represented, so to respect WP:NPOV, please read it! --CounterTime (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime, The original cannot be translated as "consensus amongst scholars...", and in other parts, you have cherry picked words to make the translation to fit your POV. For example, why not translate "جماجم" in there? Do you know what the translation for "جماجم" is? In other sections, you have added primary sources and your translations are wrong. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, you need to provide a source that does the translation and interpretation. 100 year old cite is unacceptable. See WP:HISTRS. Please feel free to take this to WP:DRN. RLoutfy (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Please note that, while I have not had time to do any thorough research, I did check into Arnold's credentials via Google Scholar. The last time he was cited by any author was approximately 1936, and only a handful of times in the 20th century full stop. This indicates that the credibility and value of the author's knowledge on the subject of Orientalism (in itself a questionable term) is very much an historic one. Please stop pushing the bounds of good sourcing for an encyclopaedic article in the 21st century, CounterTime. Being verifiable does not automatically reliable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy Why cannot it be translated as so? "وهذا إجماع من العلماء" is pretty clear to anyone with some minimal knowledge in arabic, it means there's a "consensus amongst scholars"... I don't see why you deny that. *** "you have added primary sources and your translations are wrong" Could you please show me where my translations are exactly wrong? *** "100 year old cite is unacceptable" you want it or not, but Arnold is considered reliable despite being old, as I explained many times here, also see talk page on Q.2:256. -unsigned comment by User:CounterTime

@IrynaHarpy You need to see what scholars have said about his book, instead of looking at particular cites. Your conclusion would dramatically change. Thanks. --CounterTime (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@IrynaHarpy Actually, after I made a google scholar search myself, I found out that there are actually more than 463 cites for one edition of the book. --CounterTime (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, CounterTime, I'm in agreement with you as to his contemporary significance per a number of scholars such as Dr Haifaa Jawad (here) and Reza Shah-Kazemi (here). Although his work isn't without its critics (i.e., here), and much is said about 'Orientalism' as being an anachronistic, Victorian understanding of Islam, having perused a few academic works (it's the quality of the scholars citing him, not the quantity), it appears that the mainstream view is that "The Preaching of Islam" is still considered to be a seminal work. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime:: The word العلماء is ale'ulama, which can be translated as know all, expert, scholar, authority depending on the context, but in this text the reference is to "Islamic". As I mentioned above already, I am concerned about you cherrypicking and find your translations inappropriate. This talk page is not a forum. There are numerous recent English publications on Jizya, by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars, and this article should rely on them, and their scholarly translations. RLoutfy (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, this is, indeed, the crux of the matter. Whether Arnold is still considered to be a viable source or not isn't the issue. What is at issue is that, since early September, this article has exploded into long, convoluted and fragmented piece that no reader just wanting to familiarise themselves with what 'jizya' means would want to plough through... nor would they come out feeling much the wiser for having read it. Trying to pile in too much detail leads to confusion as to what is salient and what is not. I feel that some serious redaction is required in order to focus on the most relevant content. Tracts of "In Number 754899 so and so said this" is not helpful: it's a hindrance (in fact, with no offence intended, it's quite boring and not particularly edifying). Readers (like myself) can't see the forest for the trees. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Well you didn't show that my translation is wrong, 'ulama in this context -as said by the Islamic scholar al-Qurtubi- is Islamic scholars, hence your attack on me that my translation is POV and flawed doesn't stand, and I'm waiting for explanation concerning that. --CounterTime (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I 100% agree with you, but you must understand the situation, RLoutfy is actually doing his best to mess things up and to minimize the time we spend on editing the article by bringing void issues such as: "your translation is flawed" (when it isn't) see above. He needs to cooperate and abandon his POV, just see how many POV accusations he got from other users: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7)....etc --CounterTime (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: We do need to trim out text tracts such as "In Number 754899 so and so said this" to improve this article. I will try to dedicate some time to this article in the coming days.

@CounterTime: Personal attacks are not okay either by you as you did here, or by those you seem to find comfort in. On the quote, will you accept including a "complete" translation by an uninvolved wiki editor, in this article, and holding off including that content till such a third party translation appears, as suggested by Iryna Harpy? RLoutfy (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: None of those are personal attacks. Concerning translations I'll do that after you explain to me how you could judge my translations as 'flawed', 'POV', ...etc when you can't even write arabic correctly. --CounterTime (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: You still didn't answer this comment of mine: Well you didn't show that my translation is wrong, 'ulama in this context -as said by the Islamic scholar al-Qurtubi- is Islamic scholars, hence your attack on me that my translation is POV and flawed doesn't stand, and I'm waiting for explanation concerning that. --CounterTime (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Again CounterTime, this is not a forum. I have already explained what needed to be. Don't wait for further forum style explanations from me, as it will only feed a forum like discussion by you and that is not what this talk page is for. You can provide a complete translation if you feel like, but we will rely on uninvolved third party translations. I ask again, "will you accept including a "complete" translation by an uninvolved experienced wiki editor, in this article, and holding off including that content till such a third party translation appears, as suggested by Iryna Harpy"? RLoutfy (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: We're talking about this article, anything that is related to it can be included in the talk page. Furthermore, I do accept that, only and only after you explain to me how you could judge my translations as 'flawed', 'POV', ...etc when you can't even write arabic correctly. --CounterTime (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

CounterTime, Your "I am waiting for explanation concerning that" or diagnosing your original research based on non-English publications is not same as improving this article by summarizing secondary and tertiary English publications. Wikipedia admin NeilN and another editor Iryna Harpy have both suggested the use of a neutral third party translator for a complete translation, a suggestion I accept, do you? You must stop this focus on me with your personal attacks across Islam-related articles on this talk page, and instead focus on cooperating to improve this article. RLoutfy (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Because of you much time has been wasted in meaningless disputes concerning "wrong translations", when further analysis shows that you can't even write arabic correctly. So why are you making us waste time by claiming that my translations are wrong when you can't even write arabic properly? I need some explanation. --CounterTime (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo:, @Aboluay:, @JohnChrysostom:, @ⵓⵛⵛⴻⵏ:, @Mamdu:, @Rehman:, @Greyshark09:, @Toothswung:, @Qoan:, @Mhhossein:, Can you please confirm or not that وهذا إجماع من العلماء على أن الجزية can be translated as "there is a consensus amongst scholars that jizya ..." ? Thanks in advance. --CounterTime (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

CounterTime: Salaam, the translation is correct. Btw, "و" should be translated as "and". Mhhossein (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Correct.GreyShark (dibra) 08:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear @Mhhossein: and @Greyshark09:, thank you so much for confirming the translation. Cheers! --CounterTime (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:, @Greyshark09:, others, it would help if you can provide a complete translation of the following: "قال علماؤنا: الذي دل عليه القرآن أن الجزية تؤخذ من المقاتلين... وهذا إجماع من العلماء على أن الجزية إنما توضع على جماجم الرجال الأحرار البالغين، وهم الذين يقاتلون دون النساء والذرية والعبيد والمجانين المغلوبين على عقولهم والشيخ الفاني". If you have access to the source, it would help if you can confirm that the context is "Islamic scholars". RLoutfy (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: First, why did you think that my translation was flawed, POV, and wrong? Second, they already confirmed that the context is Islamic scholars, or just scholars per al-Qurtubi's original wording "...من العلماء...". --CounterTime (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: By the way, can you provide your own translation? --CounterTime (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Correct. "قال علماؤنا" literally means "our scholars said" which from the context here means "Islamic scholars said." Reeves.ca (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Reeves.ca, Thank you. It would help if you translated this and few other quotes in the article in their entirety. RLoutfy (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Alright, I've placed the original text along with my translation and notes:

قال علماؤنا: الذي دل عليه القرآن أن الجزية تؤخذ من المقاتلين... وهذا إجماع من العلماء على أن الجزية إنما توضع على جماجم الرجال الأحرار البالغين، وهم الذين يقاتلون دون النساء والذرية والعبيد والمجانين المغلوبين على عقولهم والشيخ الفاني

"Our scholars have said: that which the Koran has indicated is that the tribute is taken from fighters ... and there is a consensus amongst scholars that the tribute be only placed on the heads of free men who have reached puberty, who are fighting with the exclusion of women and children and slaves and the crazy insane and the dying old man."

A tried to be as literally when possible, but here are a few clarification notes:

• "علماؤنا" literally means "our scholars", but in this context means "our Islamic scholars"
• "العلماء" literally means "The scholars", again from the context, means "the islamic scholars"
• "جماجم" literally translates to "skulls", but from the context it means "heads"
• "دون" is an article of negation, which in this context means "with the exclusion of"
• "المغلوبين على عقولهم" literally translates to "defeated on their minds", which means here "insane"

I hope this helps somehow. Regards, Reeves.ca (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. I will now incorporate this translation. RLoutfy (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I would highly recommend having more people weigh in on the translation as I'm not a translator by profession. Regards, Reeves.ca (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Reeves.ca, can you also translate the following, Quote2: "ولا جزية على شيخ فان ولا زمن ولا أعمى ولا مريض لا يرجى برؤه، بل قد أيس من صحته، وإن كانوا موسرين: وهذا مذهب أحمد وأصحابه، وأبي حنيفة، ومالك، والشافعي في أحد أمواله، لأن هؤلاء لا يقتلون ولا يقاتلون، فلا تجب عليهم الجزية كالنساء والذرية." Quote3: "ولا جزية على صبي ولا امرأة ولا مجنون: هذا مذهب الأئمة الأربعة وأتباعهم. قال ابن المنذر: ولا أعلم عن غيرهم خلافهم. وقال أبو محمد ابن قدامة في " المغنى " : (لا نعلم بين أهل العلم خلافا في هذا " RLoutfy (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Here's the translation I have offered in the article: ""(1) And there is no Jizya upon the aged, one suffering from chronic disease, the blind, and the patient who has no hope of recovery and has despaired of his health, even if they have enough. (what follows isn't in the article) And this is the madhab (lit. way) of Ahmad and his followers, and Abu Hanifa, and Malik, and al-Shafi'i in some accounts, since those aren't fought and don't fight, hence jizya isn't required on them such as the women and the kids. (2) There is no Jizya on the kids, women and the insane. This is the view of the four imams. Ibn Munzar said, ‘I do not know anyone to have differed with them.’ Abu Muhammad ibn Qudama said in al-Mughni, ‘We do not know of any difference of opinion among the learned on this issue." Could you please provide your very own translation? CounterTime (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

CounterTime, your translations for Quote2 and Quote3 above are reasonably close. @Reeves.ca: any fine tuning? If not, one of us must insert it into the cite to satisfy WP:NOENG. RLoutfy (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Arnold as source

I have removed Arnold is many sections, but not all, per NeilN comment, "Older sources can be used unless superseded by modern scholarship". The repetition of Arnold's statement of "exemption of Christians who served in Muslim army" is not necessary. Stating it once is enough. I will look into more recent scholarship for those sections that still have Arnold and consider if it should be replaced or just the second cite added and Arnold retained. RLoutfy (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: You can't do that, see what @Iryna Harpy: stated

Okay, CounterTime, I'm in agreement with you as to his contemporary significance per a number of scholars such as Dr Haifaa Jawad (here) and Reza Shah-Kazemi (here). Although his work isn't without its critics (i.e., here), and much is said about 'Orientalism' as being an anachronistic, Victorian understanding of Islam, having perused a few academic works (it's the quality of the scholars citing him, not the quantity), it appears that the mainstream view is that "The Preaching of Islam" is still considered to be a seminal work.

— Iryna Harpy

@RLoutfy: Please bring back the Arnold sources. --CounterTime (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I have a few sources on my desk that disagree or are critical of Arnold. For NPOV, I need to consider these. I also need to reconsider the cites Iryna Harpy identified. RLoutfy (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Just because you have one or two sources that disagree of Arnold doesn't mean that you should remove citations and quotations from his monumental work The Preaching of Islam. For WP:NPOV you need to add both. --CounterTime (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Etymology and meaning (section needs review)

This section has several issues:

• Most importantly, this section is too long. Quoting Iryna Harpy from here: "[...] What is at issue is that, since early September, this article has exploded into long, convoluted and fragmented piece that no reader just wanting to familiarise themselves with what 'jizya' means would want to plough through... nor would they come out feeling much the wiser for having read it. Trying to pile in too much detail leads to confusion as to what is salient and what is not. I feel that some serious redaction is required in order to focus on the most relevant content. [...]"
• Secondly, the very first paragraph is worded awkwardly and the citation is broken. We'll need a better opening paragraph for this section, but in the meantime, I'm strongly recommending the removal of the uncited source, thus starting the section with "Commentators disagree on the definition and derivation of the word jizya:" - thoughts on this?

Reeves.ca (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Reeves.ca: My idea: We discuss how jizya was understood and defined by some Muslim scholars, some mufassirun, then we move on to how some orientalists view it. What do you think? --CounterTime (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

That is a good starting point. It will provide both points of view and give some structure to this otherwise unwieldy list of definitions. @RLoutfy: Do you agree with CounterTime's suggestion concerning organizing this section? Reeves.ca (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

And one important thing, it should be summarized as much as possible, without going against WP:NPOV. --CounterTime (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: please proceed with the organization of this section as you've proposed. Do not redact or summarize any of the definitions unless there is a very clear overlap. I'll remove the unverifiable awkwardly worded intro. Reeves.ca (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Reeves.ca: Allright, I'll do that after I'll gather a good chunk of reliable sources. --CounterTime (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: Not that I mind having more reliable sources, but the first goal is organization. Please keep that in mind. Reeves.ca (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Reeves.ca: Okay, I'll first limit the sources mentioned. CounterTime (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hadith Source (section needs review)

This section has a few errors. I will attempt to highlight a few below along with the suggested solutions. Reeves.ca (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Regarding "Non-Muslims who failed to pay jizya were detained and punished." The hadith(s) you cited are described under a sectioned called "Chapter 31: GRIM WARNING TO ONE WHO TORMENTS PEOPLE WITHOUT ANY VALID JUSTIFICATION." The entire section is about warning against torture of anyone, but more specifically those who do not pay jizya. I recommend the statement be updated to reflect the correct meaning of the hadiths: "Grim warnings to those who torment non-Muslims who failed to pay jizya." Reeves.ca (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point. But the valid justification part is important, as "not paying jizya" can be considered a valid justification for torture of non-Muslims. Please note that WP:OR policy of wikipedia requires that we do not interpret and insert personal original research such as "who failed to pay jizya" to the end as you did, because that is not what that title is stating. Will you accept the following addition, "These Shahih Muslim hadiths are part of grim warnings to those who torment people without any valid justification"? RLoutfy (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy You are making the assumption here, not me. You are choosing a "justification" when there is no indication of that in the text. You are freely interpreting the text, which goes against the WP:OR policy of Wikipedia. The hadith comes from "The Book of Virtue, Good Manners and Joining of the Ties of Relationship" and the title of the chapter is "GRIM WARNING TO ONE WHO TORMENTS PEOPLE WITHOUT ANY VALID JUSTIFICATION." and the text clearly warns against torturing people who have not paid Jizya - this is not original research, it's the text. So, I don't agree that a simple addition will correct the false statement. Your sentence is misleading as it stands. Reeves.ca (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I completely agree with @Reeves.ca:, if even you read the meant hadiths you would get the point: " Hisham reported on the authority of his father that Hisham b. Hakim b. Hizam happened to pass by people, the farmers of Syria, who had been made to stand in the sun. He said: What is the matter with them? They said: They have been detained for Jizya. Thereupon Hisham said: I bear testimony to the fact that I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Allah would torment those who torment people in the world." and the other hadith " 'Urwa b. Zubair reported that Hisham b. Hakim found a person (the ruler of Hims) who had been detaining some Nabateans in connection with the dues of Jizya. He said: What is this? I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Allah would torment those persons who torment people in the world." --CounterTime (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: So, we can agree the "'not paying jizya' can be considered valid justification for torture of non-Muslims" is your assumption, which violates WP:OR. Kindly update the sentence to reflect the cited sources. I propose again: "Grim warnings to those who torment non-Muslims who failed to pay jizya" using the same citations. I could update the article myself, but I would rather we work together on this. If you can't make the change, let me know and I'll take care of it. Regards Reeves.ca (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Just added the title from the cite under fair use, because making either assumption is WP:OR. RLoutfy (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Being under the Hadith section, this area is intended to answer the question: what does Hadith say about it? The answer, in the way you've worded it, is that non-Muslims should be punished. In fact, the Hadiths warn, they do not encourage as is implied by the statement (even after you edit). It seems like we've reached an impass. What is the process here to reach a resolution? Thanks, Reeves.ca (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Stop distorting and twisting sources, this is a clear violation of WP:POV policies. CounterTime (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: Kindly try to assume good faith - I know there's a history between you two, but accusations will not help any of us get to a resolution. Let's keep this focused on the information as much as possible. Much appreciated. Reeves.ca (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Reeves.ca: Sorry for that. Which wording would you suggest? CounterTime (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: For this collection of Hadiths, I suggest: "Grim warnings against tormenting of non-Muslims who fail to pay jizya"

References

50% rate

I have removed the dubious tag added in the lead after "to 50% of annual produce", after cite re-check. Remaining concerns if any should be explained on this talk page. RLoutfy (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: The Dubious tag should have remained because the statement made is correctly sourced (at least for Tal Ben-Shahar), but seems unlikely to be historically accurate; there is uncertainty about the accuracy of the given source. The psychologist, Tal Ben-Shahar, makes the claim without citing any verifiable historical evidence. He is neither a historian nor was his work a historical publication to be reviewed thusly. His views contradict all historical evidence to date. Making his opinionated, non-historically backed, view sound like a fact is misleading. I'm in the process of gathering primary and secondary historical evidence to prove the fringe nature of his claim and will likely upgrade the tag to disputed at that point. Reeves.ca (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm also currently in the process of verifying the second citation, but so far was unable to find the exact text of "The Jews of Arab Lands by Norman Stillman" available in the academic or public domain to be reviewed and scrutinized by his peers. I will likely have to purchase the book to, at the very least, verify the citation is in there as claimed before further qualifying it against available historical evidence. Reeves.ca (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy I've verified that the "The Jews of Arab Lands" by Norman A. Stillman does not contain the 50% claim made here. I'm removing that citation as evidence and marking Tal Ben-Shahar's citation as Dubious until historical evidence is provided. Update: As it turns out, some bot won't allow me to do that - so I'll rely on the good judgement of other editors to correct this. Thanks. Reeves.ca (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Just as a confirmation, I also cite checked Stillman and found nothing regarding the 50% claim. The Stillman reference has now been removed, leaving only Tal Ben-Shahar's citation pending further qualification and/or supporting sources. (As an aside, it will stick this time, Reeves.ca. ClueBot is a genuine bot and misread what was happening because you'd removed a reference and got the template structure and parameters muddled a couple of times, hence producing a false positive as potential vandalism.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: The p. 18, 2nd para of Norman Stillman book, has "...the Khaybaris agreed to pay the Umma (Ummah) one-half of their annual date harvest". The context is "protection money" and "jizya" as mentioned in the sentences and pages that follow. Please recheck. RLoutfy (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: How in the world is 'one half of their annual date harvest' equivalent to 'one half of annual produce' (which is claimed in the article) ? --CounterTime (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Let Iryna Harpy verify it first, then we can work on the wording. Another source, p. 101 of A Short History of Islam: From the Rise of Islam to the Fall of Baghdad, 571 A.D. to 1258 A.D. by Mazhar-ul-Haq (1977): "All other Jewish colonies in North Arabia, viz., Fadak, Wadi'l- jQara, Tayma, Ayala, etc., submitted on the same feudal terms of paying Jizya to the extent of half of their produce." RLoutfy (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Another: p.90 of Tolerance and Coercion in Islam: Interfaith Relations in the Muslim Tradition, Yohanan Friedmann (2003), Cambridge University Press, in the last paragraph, "The expulsion from Medina is said to have been carried out by the Prophet; he intended to expel the Jews of Khaybar as well, but allowed them to remain there on the condition that they continue to work the land and yield half of the agricultural produce to the Muslims." That the context is Jizya is verifiable by reading the paragraphs before and after. RLoutfy (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear @RLoutfy:. I'm not talking about the wording. I'm talking about the claim that "Jizya tax rates on non-Muslims have historically varied from being a fixed annual amount regardless of one's income, to 50% of annual produce" was supported by the the provided sources. (the claim is in bold) Your citation of Norman Stillman's book doesn't support that as it's talking about 50% of annual date harvest, which is different from 50% annual production (in everything). Furthermore can you please provide the full quote of the Mazhar-ul-Haq source, I can't find it for the current moment? Thanks. And finally the quotation of Yohanan doesn't support that either, as it is talking about agricultural production. --CounterTime (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The full quote from Mazhar-ul-Haq is already above. What would you suggest to Iryna Harpy as an alternate wording to consider for consensus, given the four cites with the four quotes? RLoutfy (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The 50% of produce was Kharaj tax, not Jizya. Please review the definition of Kharaj; a tax on agricultural land of conquered territories which become a tax applied to all landowners, including Muslims. It's important to note that Kharaj tax has no basis in the Qur'an or hadith - while Jizya does. Reeves.ca (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Reeves.ca: do you have a WP:RS cite for "it was kharaj tax"? We cannot rely on your or my opinion, and wikipedia articles cannot be cited within wikipedia for WP:V. RLoutfy (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Here you go:

Part of the musāqah (irrigation) bargain between Muhammad and the Jew of Khaybar involved a land tax, or kharāj. Professor Nayazee explain the meaning of "kharāj":
Kharāj is of two types. The first is one of which the Imam imposes a fixes levy in accordance with what the land is able to bear. The second type is the taking of part of the produce as karāj. Both types are valid. It appears that the people of Khaybar were being subjected to the second type.

— Raj Bhala, Rice Distinguished Professor, University of Kansas, School of Law, Understanding Islamic law (2011), p.646

This quote supports the general definitions of both karaj and jizya, and removes the confusion permeating the article as it currently stands. Reeves.ca (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I asked you to provide the full quote of Mazhar-ul-Haq with the context, so that we can understand it properly. --CounterTime (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Reeves.ca: Here's another source that confirms that:

Some studies question the nearly synonymous use of the terms kharaj and jizya in the historical sources. The general view suggests that while the terms kharaj and jizya seem to have been used interchangeably in early historical sources, what they referred to in any given case depended on the linguistic context. If one finds references to "a kharaj on their heads," the reference was to a poll tax, despite the use of the term kharaj, which later became the term of art for land tax. Likewise, if one fins the phrase "jizya on their land," this referred to a land tax, despite the use of jizya which later come to refer to the poll tax. Early history therefore shows that although each term did not have a determinate technical meaning at first, the concepts of poll tax and land tax existed early in Islamic history. Denner, Conversion and the Poll Tax, 3-10; Ajiaz Hassan Qureshi, "The Terms Kharaj and Jizya and Their Implication," Journal of the Punjab University Historical Society 12 (1961): 27-38; Hossein Modarressi Rabatab'i, Kharaj in Islamic Law (London: Anchor Press Ltd, 1983).

— Anver M. Emon, Religious Pluralism and Islamic Law: Dhimmis and Others in the Empire of Law, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199661633, pp. 98, note 3.

So even if a certain source uses the term 'jizya on their land', it would be kharaj 'despite the use of the term jizya which later came to refer to the poll tax.' --CounterTime (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Reeves.ca, See the Emon quote above on interchangeable nature of kharaj and jizya. This was common after Islamic armies invaded the lands of non-Muslim people, there are numerous cites that state the taxes on non-Muslims were just called jizya-o-kharaj or kharaj-o-jizya or equivalent. We must acknowledge this in this article, yet also mention instances when these were not the same. @CounterTime: I would welcome a summary of the above Anver Emon statement, clarifying the interchangeability as well as difference between jizya and kharaj in this article's Associated taxes with jizya section. We will need to reword it to avoid WP:COPYVIO issues. I invite you to summarize this in the article. RLoutfy (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy:, a section clarifying the interchangeable usage of the words is a great suggestion as it is pivotal to understanding Jizya. But, we must be clear that while the terms were interchangeable, the concepts of Kharaj and Jizya are not interchangeable and were understood as different taxes with different applications. Reeves.ca (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Reeves.ca, The concepts are different, but historical records suggest they often were not differentiated in Spain, India, southeast Europe and parts of central Asia. But, yes, you are right, the important differences and interchangeability need to be properly explained in this article. The article has other issues too. We will fix this article and make it NPOV. RLoutfy (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: In any case, do you agree now with the established evidence that @Reeves.ca: and I provided that the 50% rate isn't supported by all the sources you presented and that it should be now removed? --CounterTime (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Can you also add the full quote from Mazhar-ul-Haq with the context for verifiability (WP:V) purposes? --CounterTime (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

CounterTime, NPOV does not imply removing content to push a POV or silence a POV, it only means stating all significant sides. The 50% jizya rate should remain per WP:BRD and because it is supported by multipe sources. For the full quote from Mazhar-ul-Haq, see above. RLoutfy (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: In light of the evidence provided above, and the constructive discussions we've had; can we at least agree that the 50% rate fits the definition of Kharaj verbatim and that it does not belong in the lede as a generalized statement about Jizya? Your citation can belong in the section (yet to be created) discussing the historical usage of the terms Jizya and Kharaj and their respective differences. Let's reach some common ground here folks. - unsigned comment by Reeves.ca

I agree that the lead needs fixing too, as Reeves.ca suggests. We must clarify two things - one, that the jizya and kharaj were sometimes used interchangeably but are different concepts, and that the 50% rate has been called a kharaj or alternatively jizya by different scholars. That would be NPOV and acceptable common ground. RLoutfy (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: That is not NPOV...from the Explanation of the neutral point of view:

---

"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."

---

Placing this information as a general fact in the lede is confusing and misleading. Cherry picking the 50% example of the interchangeability of the term in the lede is not going to help the reader understand Jizya. I do like the first part "that the jizya and kharaj terms were sometimes used interchangeably but are different concepts", I prefer a paraphrasing of "the terms kharaj and jizya seem to have been used interchangeably in early historical sources, [but] what they referred to in any given case depended on the linguistic context" by Anver M. Emon (cited above by CounterTime). The 50% of produce (from the Jewish tribe of Khaybar) example can go in the section regarding the usage of the two words/terms we've allude to before (the one we have yet to create). Are we in agreement? Reeves.ca (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: WP:NPOV doesn't mean citing examples of kharaj and putting them in the article as do they are examples of jizya. Furthermore all the citations you stated talk about kharaj and not jizya, so no confirmation can be based on them. And finally you didn't provide a full quotation of Mazhar-ul-Haq with the context, which is what I demanded. Could you please do it? CounterTime (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy:, @Reeves.ca:, Okay, so we remove the 50% rate claim now in the light of the above cluster of evidence, right? --CounterTime (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: I made my case and RLoutfy has agreed that these were clearly different concepts. We also agreed that we need a clarification section for the terms (Kharaj and Jizya)...

However, we have not agreed yet on the next steps. So, to summarize, here's what I'm proposing: (1) like you said, we edit-out the 50% example from the lede (misleading as discussed before), (2) we then add a new section under Etymology with its own sub-heading "ex: Historical Usage the Terms Kharaj & Jizya" or something along those lines, (3) we use the references above to explain the historical usage of the terms, and finally (4) we use the 50% of produce tax on the Jews of Khaybar as an example/illustration.

@RLoutfy: Any objections to this proposal? Regards, Reeves.ca (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Reeves.ca: I like your proposals #2, #3 and #4. For lead, I suggest that we clarify, not suppress information. How about,

Current: Jizya tax rates on non-Muslims have historically varied from being a fixed annual amount regardless of one's income,[14] to 50% of their produce.[15][16][17]

Proposed: Jizya tax rates on non-Muslims have in theory, and often in practice, been a fixed annual amount;[14a][14b] however, in some instances, where the jizya and kharaj was implemented as an interchangeable tax on non-Muslims, the rate was a portion of their produce, such as 50%.[15a][16a][17a]

I suggest this because there are numerous examples over Islamic history in Spain, Yemen, India, and Sahel where Jizya-o-Kharaj was considered the same as an implemented practice (though not in theory). This article should present not just theory of Jizya, but its implementation from both non-Muslim perspective and Muslim perspective. I am open to and welcome alternate wording that you feel would be more accurate, and would make this article more encyclopedically useful. Please go ahead and edit the article for #2, #3 and #4. Your edits to the main article, in this matter, will also help us formulate a consensus for the lead. RLoutfy (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Thanks for the feedback; I'll implement points 2, 3 and 4. However, would you kindly provide verifiable citations for the claim above? I need to confirm that the land tax (Kharaj - not mandated in the Quran) did indeed superseded the poll-tax (Jizya - mandated in the Quran) in those regions. Thanks, Reeves.ca (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Reeves.ca: I am delighted that you will implement those changes. Supersede isn't the right word, because al-kharaj was simply called al-jizya in these regions, through long stretches of their Islamic history. For instance, refer to p. 641 in Johari and Ibrahim (2010), The Dynamism In The Implementation Of al-Kharaj During The Islamic Rule, Shariah Journal, 18(3); and refer to pp. 283-285, Peter Jackson (2003), The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History, Cambridge University Press, to start with. Jackson remarks that there was a lack of clarity, and Jizya was sometimes implemented on non-Muslims in the form of several kinds (all called Jizya, one of which was theoretically Kharaj). RLoutfy (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: The references you provided support the different, concrete (non-theoretical) application between Kharaj and Jizya - even in light of the mixed usage of the terms. I'll quote from the first publication (emphasis mine):

"Taxation systems that had been implemented in Islamic countries were land tax (al-kharaj), protection tax (sulh al-jizyah), poll tax (jizyah al-ru’us) and commerce tax (al-‘usyr). Al-Kharaj represents a specific percentage of income obtained from land or property and it includes land obtained from war or by peaceful means. Al-Kharaj was implemented early in the Islamic rule in Khaibar when the Jews requested for the land that Muslims had conquered to remain as theirs because they were very good farmers. The prophet p.b.u.h. consented to the request on condition that they surrender half the revenue obtained from the land as tax al-kharaj; in accordance with the al-muzara’ah principle." - p.631 Johari and Ibrahim (2010), The Dynamism In The Implementation Of al-Kharaj During The Islamic Rule, Shariah Journal, 18(3)

With all the evidence so far provided, the 50% Jizya tax argument is looking tenuous. For discussion's sake: Could you please provide the exact citation relevant to the 50% land tax as Jizya? Because the consensus from all cited sources (including the latest ones you've provided) do not support the claim. Thanks again, Reeves.ca (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Reeves.ca: You asked for "would you kindly provide verifiable citations for the claim above? I need to confirm that the land tax (Kharaj - not mandated in the Quran) did indeed superseded the poll-tax (Jizya - mandated in the Quran) in those regions." In response, I referred to p. 641. Now you are citing p. 631, which is good, but that is not what you asked for. I thought you wanted to confirm that Kharaj and jizya terms were used interchangeably. On p. 641 of Johari and Ibrahim, you read, "Even the term al-jizyah and al-kharāj are used interchangeably in hadiths and throughout the history of Islam". You will find a similar discussion on pp. 283-285 of Jackson. As third cite, refer to p. 101 of A Short History of Islam: From the Rise of Islam to the Fall of Baghdad, 571 A.D. to 1258 A.D. by Mazhar-ul-Haq (1977): "All other Jewish colonies in North Arabia, viz., Fadak, Wadi'l- jQara, Tayma, Ayala, etc., submitted on the same feudal terms of paying Jizya to the extent of half of their produce." I have provided others. For WP:NPOV, both sides need to be summarized - that jizya and kharaj are theoretically different, and that sometimes jizya and kharaj were interchangeable terms and taxation rates in Islamic history. Refer to Peter Jackson, for instance, for specifics. If you want, I will provide more cites. This is widely accepted, and needs to be properly discussed in this article. RLoutfy (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: To avoid making assumptions, I have read the entirety of p.641 and still could not find the evidence - so I proceeded to read the entire chapter for context. What I quoted above, was the author's explanation of the terms at the beginning of the chapter that you cited - thus further clarifying the ambiguity of the terms.

I don't disagree that the clarification about the context of the terms needs to be discussed in the article for WP:NPOV; in fact, it was my recommendation to have a dedicated section specifically for that purpose. Every citation you provide supports the discussion about context of the terms. You have already agree these are different concepts with different applications. We have multiple citations clarifying that the land tax on the Jews of Khaybar was understood as Kharaj (not Jizya) - which is still the originally contested source of the 50% tax as it currently stands in the lede. There were many other citations that also clarified the terms are to be understood from context.
It seems like the discussion is going in circles. Again, I'll reference WP:NPOV under Explanation of the neutral point of view:

---

"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."

---

What we have here is a seriously contested assertion (claiming the 50% rate as Jizya). The 50% rate is presented as a direct statement even with all the supporting evidence pointing to the contrary. I propose we remove this seriously contested claim from the lede as it is misleading.
@Iryna Harpy: It seems that we might be at an impasse here; How do you recommend we proceed? Thanks, Reeves.ca (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: You still didn't provide the full context quote of the Mazhar-ul-Haq source. I'm still waiting. CounterTime (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

CounterTime: Welcome to wikipedia. We need to respect WP:COPYVIO policy of wikipedia. I have already provided the quote, which is covered by fair use, but large sections of a copyrighted publication cannot be posted in an article or the talk pages of wikipedia. You should get the publication and read it to get the context. RLoutfy (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Reeves.ca: In light of the new kharaj and jizya section and cites recently added, what do you think of the following,

Proposal for summary in the lead: Jizya tax rates on non-Muslims have in theory, and often in practice, been a fixed annual amount;[cite1][cite2] however, in some instances, where the jizya and kharaj was an interchangeable term on non-Muslim individuals or communities, the annual tribute rate imposed on them was a significant portion of their produce.[cite3][cite4]

I welcome alternate wording that would be a better summary in the lead. Since there is some disagreement between sources on this subject, for WP:NPOV, see the suggestion of editor Anthony Appleyard here where he suggests, "Some say XXXX; some say YYYY; there is a long-standing contradiction here." type language. RLoutfy (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

RLoutfy's POV edits

@RLoutfy: Can you please show a quote of "Ennaji, M. (2013). Slavery, the state, and Islam. Cambridge University Press; pages 60–64; ISBN 978-0521119627" which supports the claim "Jizya has also been rationalized as a symbol of the humiliation of the non-Muslims in a Muslim state for not converting to Islam"? --CounterTime (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion of content

The user @RLoutfy: continues in his series of POV edits when, as eloquently explained by Reeves.ca "Why is RLoutfy freely editing the article while so much is in dispute while my edits are reverted? Shouldn't the disputes be resolved first as you stated above?", anyway he deleted my additions in the Qur'an subsection (3.1), I'm waiting for explanations for that. --CounterTime (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion of a tag

The user @RLoutfy: deleted the "Primary source" banner in the subsection "Hadith sources" which only relies on translations of Hadiths from various Hadith collections. I've restored it, and we ask the meant user to explain his act. --CounterTime (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Other Unexplained deletion of content

RLoutfy deleted in this edit my content stating that english sources are preferred over nonenglish ones, however most of it comes from the M.A.S. Abdel Halem peer-reviewed article on Q.9:29, only Kitabul Umm and Tafsir Maraghi are nonenglish, and one can reach a consensus concerning their respective translation. --CounterTime (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You need to wait for that consensus. The problem is your OR that you added in first and second part, and misrepresentation of the mainstream view for the last four words of verse 9.29. I have added summary from two recent English language sources from scholars instead, where they explain the mainstream majority view. We need to include significant minority views, but from WP:RS and if anything is from non-English sources, you must comply with WP:NOENG policies. RLoutfy (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: What? I misinterpreted the mainstream view of 9:29? First this isn't a forum, and so you can't make claims like "the mainstream view..."etc and other forum like expressions. Here we are talking about sources and what concerns the article. I added that view for WP:NPOV, however note that al-Shafi'i states in kitabul Umm that the mainstream view in his view was that it meant that "Islamic rulings are enforced on them.". So both views for WP:NPOV. Ah! I forgot, the section is under the Islamic sources one, so one must provide references to exegesis of the Qur'an (or statements of Muslim scholars commenting on the verse) and not mere opinions of orientalists of what constitutes or not the mainstream opinion. --CounterTime (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you read the cited pages in the two books? The authors take pains to explain the disagreements in interpretation of 9:29 and then the "majority view". RLoutfy (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: 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'. --CounterTime (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I am pleased you agree that the article must summarize two or more significant sides for NPOV, without claiming consensus. I disagree that Islamic tafsir literature has the final say, if that is what you are trying to suggest. If non-Islamic scholars present a different conflicting view in reliable publications, that view must be summarized and the disagreement summarized. I invite you to respect community agreed WP:NOENG policies, along with WP:W2W, WP:CLAIM guidelines. RLoutfy (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: There's a difference between stating what Islamic scholars generally state in the exegesis of Q.9:29 and what orientalists think of it per their own views. Both should be summarized, per WP:NPOV. --CounterTime (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I am pleased we agree. I feel we can now begin building consensus language to improve this article with this NPOV guideline in mind. RLoutfy (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Okay, I'm really happy to see you collaborating. You may feel free to edit the second section in this sandbox so that we can reach consensus on it, without engaging in edit wars. What do you think? --CounterTime (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

A contradiction

In the section "Islamic legal commentary" we're told that: "According to Abu Yusuf, Jizya must be collected from anyone who has any means (income, property), even if he is a cripple, invalid, monk or blind..." whereas in the subsection on exemptions we find: "Abu Yusuf wrote, "slaves, women, children, the old, the sick, monks, hermits, the insane, the blind and the poor, were exempt from the tax"[79][95] and states that jizya should not be collected from those non-Muslims who have neither income nor any property, but survive by begging and from alms.[79]" --CounterTime (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Another contradiction: One is told in the jizya/zakat table that "Jizya is obligatory on a Dhimmi's regardless of income or wealth; no minimum (Nisab) to determine Jizya[205]", yet we find in the exemptions section that the poor were exempt from the tax. --CounterTime (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Stable version until consensus is reached

Context:

@CounterTime: Here is the link to the stable version before your or my bold edit. I have reverted it to pre-your and pre-mine, November 17 stable version. Once we have a consensus per WP:BRD, we can revise it. RLoutfy (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Okay, great, thanks for cooperating. Now all you have to do is to explain and answer all the issues underlined in the talk page. --CounterTime (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)