Talk:Jizya/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

RFC for one of the opening sentences in the lede

Should one of the very first sentences of the article which now reads:
"Muslim jurists required adult, free, sane males among the dhimma community to pay the jizya while exempting women, children, elders, handicapped, monks, hermits, the poor, the ill, the insane, slaves, and musta'mins (non-Muslim foreigners who only temporarily reside in Muslim lands)."
Be Changed to "Muslim jurists required able-bodied, sane, adult, male, non-Muslim subjects (dhimmis) permanently residing in Muslim lands under Islamic law (monks and hermits excepted) to pay the jizya" ... as suggested by BoogaLouie? 22:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk) (made Eperoton's change --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC))

References

• Oppose. As I said earlier, the original wording — although it contains a bit of "repetition" — is arguably better, as a matter of fact, all of the Encyclopedias I saw who had an entry on jizya had the exact same structure, for instance in the The Princeton encyclopedia of Islamic political thought we find: "Free adult males who were not afflicted by any physical or mental illness were required to pay the jizya. Women, children, handicapped, the mentally ill, the elderly, and slaves were exempt, as were all travelers and foreigners who did not settle in Muslim lands..". See my previous discussion above. 22:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
• Mostly support. If the lead can be made more concise without sacrificing important details, I think that's an improvement. I would suggest a slightly different version (because the term "dhimmis" is already mentioned in the first sentence and "in Muslim lands under Islamic law" seems redundant): "Muslim jurists required able-bodied, sane, adult, male, non-Muslim subjects permanently residing in an Islamic state to pay the jizya, monks and hermits excepted." Exemption for the poor is addressed in the following sentence. By the way, what sourcing do we currently have on this point of legal theory? I see just a quote from Kalin, which is unspecific and curiously phrased in the present tense, and a quote from Stilt, which on its own is also too vague to rely on exclusively. Eperoton (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: The 'poor are exempt' is actually contained in the first original sentence we're discussing, the refs present there do mention it:

1. 'Abu Yusuf, Kitab al-Kharaj, quoted in Norman Stillman (1979)., pp. 159–161 Quote: "Abu Yusuf wrote, "slaves, women, children, the old, the sick, monks, hermits, the insane, the blind and the poor, were exempt from the tax""
2. Yaser Ellethy (2014), Islam, Context, Pluralism and Democracy: Classical and Modern Interpretations (Islamic Studies Series), p. 181. Routledge. ISBN 1138800309. Quote: "... that elders, poor people, handicapped, women, children, monks and hermits were exempted, leave no doubt about exploitation or persecution of those who did not accept Islam. Comparing its amount to the obligatory zaka which an ex-dhimmi should give to the Muslim state in case he converts to Islam dismisses the claim that its aim was forced conversions to Islam."

I don't think that there's any need for more sources on that, but if you insist then I may provide other ones.

Regards,

12:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

On poors any generalization is a-historical; we must distinguish between the different schools as it is specified in the article by Eli Alshech: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233715749_Islamic_Law_Practice_and_Legal_Doctrine_Exempting_the_Poor_from_the_Jizya_Under_the_Ayyubids_1171-1250 --Domics (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: As far as my knowledge is concerned, all the four schools state that in theory poors are exempt, except probably a minority of Shafi'is. Whether that was the practice during a certain time in a certain place — which is the question that Eli Alshech tries to answer — is irrelevant in this case, except probably in the History section, see this previous discussion of mine on how to define the boundary between theory/practice. See also my comments here — in particular the Al-Yaqoubi quote — on whether a minority opinion in a certain madhab has any theoretical relevance when faced with an opposite opinion from the other Sunni schools of law.

13:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Thanks, let's put the Ellethy quote into the ref. I don't think we can use the Abu Yusuf quote to support such a broad generalization per WP:PRIMARY, although we can use it to illustrate its use by Ellethy and other secondary sources. We have a RS saying that the Shafi'i school had two opinions on the subject. I don't see any source saying which one was a minority opinion, but we do have another RS apparently making a generalization about all madhhabs (I'm not entirely sure about the context of this footnote). I think based on that we should include a qualifier, such as "generally", in the lead and flesh out the details in the main body of the article: "Dhimmis who chose to join military service were supposed to be exempted from payment,[4][11] as generally were those who could not afford to pay." I also suggest adding "supposed" to make it clear that we're still talking about legal theory. Eperoton (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Here's another reference from a classic: Thomas Walker Arnold — The Preaching of Islam : A History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith, p. 60. — Second Ed. London. Constable & Company Ltd. 1913. Quote: "The tax was to be levied only on able-bodied males, and not on women or children. The poor who were dependent for their livelihood on alms and the aged poor who were incapable of work were also specially exempted, as also the blind, the lame, the incurables and the insane, unless they happened to be men of wealth ; this same condition applied to priests and monks, who were exempt if dependent on the alms of the rich, but had to pay if they were well-to-do and lived in comfort. The collectors of the jizyah were particularly instructed to show leniency and refrain from all harsh treatment or the infliction of corporal punishment, in case of non-payment."

Why not leave the wording as it is (just like pretty much all jizya entries in encyclopedias)? The statement "Muslim jurists required..." itself alludes to legal theory, not practice.

18:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

• Support Eperoton version - As the immediate cause of the RfC I feel I should have more knowledge on the issue but I defer to Eperoton and Domics. (P.S. I certainly hope historical jizya practice is not "irrelevant" to the lede. It should have a more prominent place in the article than jurists' theorizing.)--BoogaLouie (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: I never stated that the historical practice should have no place in the lede, just that in this case it is a bit irrelevant, for instance the lede contains things like: "However, scholars largely agree that early Muslim rulers adapted existing systems of taxation and tribute that were established under previous rulers of the conquered lands, such as those of the Byzantine and Sasanian empires.[10][14][15] The application of jizya varied in the course of Islamic history. Together with kharaj, a term that was sometimes used interchangeably with jizya,[16][17][18] taxes levied on non-Muslim subjects were among the main sources of revenues collected by some Islamic polities.[19] Jizya rate was usually a fixed annual amount regardless of one's income" How's that just "jurists' theorizing"? 18:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: We should reflect both generalizations and significant exceptions -- with details in the article and with appropriate phrasing in the lead. The alternative opinion among Shafi'i scholars might have been omitted if it had no significant impact, but we have a source arguing that it was the basis of official policy in Ayyubid Egypt (it's hard to tell from Stilt's text whether others have made the same argument for Mamluk Egypt). Note that these sources are based on the Cairo Geniza, which didn't begin to make an impact on historical writings until recent decades. The sources still by and large identify it as a minority legal opinion in the Sunni tradition overall, which I'm suggesting to reflect by the word "generally" in the lead. I don't think it's clear that the phrase "Muslim jurists required" applies to this sentence. What do the others think? Eperoton (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton:@CounterTime: Sounds good to me. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: There are two narrations attributed to Shafi'i with conflicting content, do you have the necessary knowledge to determine which one is more authentic? See also my comments here — in particular the Al-Yaqoubi quote — on whether a minority opinion in a certain madhab has any theoretical relevance when faced with an opposite opinion from the other Sunni schools of law.

20:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Our role here is to reflect what RSs say. We can't base our editing choices or interpretation of primary sources or juridical arguments. We have a RS that discusses an alternative opinion in the Shafi'i school and its historical impact, and I see no policy-based rationale for ignoring it in the lead. While it's good to distinguish theory from practice, the article isn't just about the theory of jizya, so whether or not you're right about its theoretical irrelevance (which we should also leave to RSs to determine), the RS arguing for its historical significance makes it relevant to the article. Eperoton (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: The main point on which we disagree is that it shouldn't be included in the lede, and that it should rather be discussed in the History or even Exemptions sections. That part of the lede is mainly theoretical, quoting it: "Jizya or jizyah (Arabic: جزية‎ ǧizyah IPA: [dʒizja]; Ottoman Turkish: cizye) is a religiously required per capita yearly tax historically levied by Islamic states on certain non-Muslim subjects (dhimmis) permanently residing in Muslim lands under Islamic law.Muslim jurists required adult, free, sane males among the dhimma community to pay the jizya while exempting women, children, elders, handicapped, monks, hermits, the poor, the ill, the insane, slaves,and musta'mins (non-Muslim foreigners who only temporarily reside in Muslim lands)." As you can see it is mainly talking about the theory. If we allowed ourselves to mention a bit of history in the very first few lines (and not in the lede itself, as you can see I never stated that historical perceptions shouldn't be included in the lede, just not in a passage which is itself theoretical -- trying to make a definition and how it should have theoretically been applied) then it would create another point of conflict as disputes over which specific historical events should take precedence over, or which practice was the majority ...etc 21:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: I understand your argument, but I don't think it's consistent with WP policy. You are suggesting phrasing a sentence in the lead in a way that ignores some RSs, based on a rationale which relies on your view of "theoretical relevance" in the fiqh tradition. Even if I agreed with that general plan (and in this case I don't, because I don't think the relevance of a juridical opinion to the article can be separated from its practical impact), the judgement of theoretical relevance would have to come from a RS and not from an editor's expertise. Eperoton (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: The phrasing should be as general and as consistent as possible, just because some other RS says something whose specific meaning contradicts the general statement doesn't mean that it should be changed. [see Example 1] And I never argued that "the relevance of a juridical opinion to the article can be separated from its practical impact", rather I said that in the lede, and more precisely the very opening chapter, one shouldn't go onto details about whether X was a historical practice or for Y there was a historical circumstance Z that violated Y or was in accordance with Y, just like other encyclopedias do. [see Example 2]

And here's an illustration, using The Princeton encyclopedia of Islamic political thought: [Example 1] the relevant quote is: "Free adult males who were not afflicted by any physical or mental illness were required to pay the jizya. Women, children, handicapped, the mentally ill, the elderly, and slaves were exempt, as were all travelers and foreigners who did not settle in Muslim lands.." The encyclopedia didn't contain anything whose phrasing excluded a generality, and by that I mean that it mainly spoke about theory, and didn't mix it up with some specific historical events such as those which relate that jizya was sometimes taken from some children. And secondly that practice didn't force a shift in the general meaning, as you would suggest in this case. (i.e. the " I'm suggesting to reflect by the word "generally" in the lead") [Example 2] The encyclopedia didn't state "Free adult males who were not afflicted by any physical or mental illness were required to pay the jizya, although sometimes historical evidence points to the opposite." That's just not how summaries of a given subjects are phrased, since one never tries to include specific things in them;

I hope you understand my point.

Regards,

22:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime:@Eperoton: "The encyclopedia ... mainly spoke about theory, and didn't mix it up with some specific historical events". But that's because it is an "encyclopedia of Islamic political thought", not Islamic history or Islamic practice. We are not that specialized. "specific historical events" are important to us and the users of WP in general. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@CounterTime: Our disagreement is not about mixing theory with specific historical events, but about reflecting what our sources say about juridical opinions in this sentence. The encyclopedia example you give contains unqualified generalizations which are supported by the other sources, and I'm not proposing changing them. Note, however, that it does not make a similar blanket generalization about the poor. In fact, upon closer inspection, none of the sources do. They are all based on one or two specific texts.

• Kalin: "According to Abu Yusuf […] jizya was […] 12 dirhams on the poor ploughman-peasant and manual worker. According to Shafi’i, the jizya is one dinar for the poor and four dinars for the rich. […] Those who cannot afford to pay it are not forced to do so." p.50-51
• Arnold: "Abu Yusuf […] may be taken as generally representative of Muhammadan procedure under the Caliphate. […] from the poor, i.e., the field labourers and artisans, only 12 dirhams were taken. […] The poor who were dependent for their livelihood on alms and the aged poor who were incapable of work were also specially excepted." p. 55
• Ellethy apparently bases his description on Abu Yusuf.

So, we can't even say that we have a disagreement among the sources, since a summary of Abu Yusuf does not bear on a difference of opinion among Shafi'i jurists. Alsech's article has by far the most thorough discussion of the issue among our sources, and it's the only one where we have an explicit generalization about Hanafi, Hanbali and Maliki views on this point. However, he suggests that the stringent Shafi'i opinion was in the majority in that era: "It is evident that contemporary Shafi’i scholars preferred the non-exemption ruling attributed to Shafi’i scholars over the more lenient Shafi’i’ position. [...] The choice made by al-Nawawi, Ibn al-Salah al-Shahrazuri, and al-Rafi’i points to a return to an old position within the Shafi’i school, a position that appeared to have been rejected later by al-Ghazzali and al-Shirazi. Al-Mawardi adopted al-Muzani’s choice of the strict opinion attributed to al-Shafi’i and vehemently rejected the more lenient position. In this respect, al-Ghazzali and al-Shayzari [sic] stand out for their reluctance to prefer the more stringent Shafi’i ruling." [p. 371-372] He also writes: "Fatimid law does not offer any exemption to poor dhimmis." [p. 350] If you want to keep only unqualified generalizations in the lead (though I don't know why), then the answer would be to make no mention of the poverty exemption, as the encyclopedia does. The sources we have just don't support the unqualified version. Eperoton (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

a clarification: when Alshech writes that al-Ghazzali and al-Shirazi 'rejected later' the strict opinion it does not mean that they accepted the lenient opinion but that they "treated the two opinions equally".--Domics (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: That's not compatible with what the encyclopedia contains, since it does indeed talk (mainly) about history, see for instance pp.114-5; pp.231-4; (in the latter are the biography of some scholars, mainly historical) 17:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@Eperoton: But there's that very same problem, you seem to imply that your sources have studied a broad range of all the juridical opinions on this topic and have the authority to decide which one was the majority, however you make the false assertion that a study of the four standard Sunni schools of thought would be sufficient to declare a relevance to any minority point. Phrased in another way, did these sources study the opinions of Twelver Shi'i jurists (Ja'afarism, Isma'ilism), what about the Jariri madhab, what about the Zahiri one, what about all the other madhabs which had a historical influence? Unless we can dissect the opinion of each one (and we aren't experts) we wouldn't be able to make any sort of generalization (and Alsech article itself is based on few material from only a fixed period of time).

You state: "The encyclopedia example you give contains unqualified generalizations which are supported by the other sources, and I'm not proposing changing them. Note, however, that it does not make a similar blanket generalization about the poor." Yes, but it also states that the "mentally ill" were exempt, however one can find an opposing view expressed by a scholar who states that they shouldn't be exempted. Secondly, when referring to that quote I was talking about the wording, namely "Jizya is X, leviated on Y, exemptions granted to Z", BoogaLouie proposed that it should be changed to "Jizya is X, leviated on Y" without explicitly mentioning exemptions, which is the point of conflict.

17:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: It sounds like we're getting two unrelated disputes confused here. As far as I can tell, the change proposed at the top of the RFC involved just removal of redundant verbiage (of the form "required for X, with non-X exempted") with no change of meaning. I understand that you prefer the previous wording, but I don't understand what it is you object to in the proposed version. Please let us know your specific objections, so we can work toward a consensus. My objection to the previous version is that it's needlessly wordy for the lead, which will need to grow as we expand the history section.

For the dispute that involved adding a qualifier for the poverty exemption, I think we need to get back to restating what WP editors are and aren't supposed to do. If one reliable non-primary source says "X is true" and another says "X is mostly true but sometimes false", we can't turn that into a statement "X is true" per WP:NPOV (see the very first sentence). Doing it based on an editor's theoretical argument of why the "sometimes false" should be ignored (as you seem to be doing using the notions of majority and minority and theoretical relevance) can't be done per WP:OR. Even if that argument is found in a RS but not applied to that specific case there, we still can't do it per WP:SYNTHESIS. There are three things we can do:

1. reflect a disagreement between the RSs
2. show that one source should be given precedence over the other on policy grounds (based on credentials of the author or publisher)
3. show that one them doesn't actually say that.

There's an argument of type 2 that could be made to support my position (and I've just checked that the jizya article in Brill's EI2 also declines to include a generalization about poverty or ability to pay in its similar list of exemptions), though what I would prefer to do here is convince you using an argument of type 3. As I wrote about, I don't think that the other sources are actually making a generalization about Islamic law overall, because they cite specific texts, which clearly don't cover the spectrum of legal schools. Alshech is the only one making explicit generalizations (including a long footnote about Shia fiqh, by the way) and nothing in them suggests that the "sometimes false" cases are insignificant, much less irrelevant. If you believe that some of the secondary sources are making a blanket generalization, I won't argue with you, but the upshot of that would be going with option 1 and still adding a qualifier, though at the secondary source rather than primary source level. Eperoton (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: My objection to the proposed version is that it is needlessly "wordy" if you will, which is very clear by reading it: "Muslim jurists required able-bodied, sane, adult, male, financially able, non-Muslim subjects (dhimmis) permanently residing in Muslim lands under Islamic law (monks and hermits excepted) to pay the jizya" (the correct proposed addition of mine is in italic), instead of using the simple version "Jizya is X, imposed on Y with exemptions for Z." And this is the wording that — another of my arguments — most entries on jizya in encyclopedias use.

Now I perfectly understand that there is a disagreement between us over whether all jurists without exceptions exempted the non-working poor, but then what do we do? We add a note? If we added the word "generally" then it would mean "Most Jurists exempted women, childs, poor... but a minority didn't exempt them", so it should be specific to the poor, so it would be worded "Jurists exemted women, childs, (most) poor...." which is needlessly 'complicated'.⁽⁺⁾ My position was to leave it as it is, and then in the exemptions section one should add further detail, but if we wanted to express disagreements over juristic schools then one should add full details, including the positions of extant schools such as the Jariri, or the school of Ibn Hazm.

But as I see it, this conflict will grow without bounds, so I'll accept to add a qualifier, as you proposed, phrased in a coherent matter that doesn't have the defect I outlined in (+).

Regards,

11:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Let's find a consensus about the substance of poverty exemption before figuring out the best way to phrase it. Here are the options:

1. Most Muslim jurists made an exemption based on indigence. This is how I'm reading the available sources.
2. Some historians state that Muslim jurists exempted those who could not afford to pay, while other historians state that most jurists made an exemption based on indigence but some did not. This is the meaning we would have to convey if you disagree with my reading of the sources.
3. Muslim jurists exempted most poor dhimmis. This is the interpretation implied in the phrasing of your last reply, but I'm not sure you really meant that.

Eperoton (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Excellent, I choose the second option, we would probably add a note after ", ...., poor" to explain that based on the original wording? Is everybody ok with that now? 17:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

I think the other view has stronger support, but I'm willing to compromise on this point and put it into a clearly marked footnote in the lead. We do need to distinguish the indigent (apparently rendered as miskin or faqir) from the poor. The criteria for this exemption were defined by different jurists in different ways, but it was a category apart from the poor, who were subject to jizya at a lower rate, as Kalin and Arnold also state. Eperoton (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Not only indigents, many jurists defined the "poor" who were exempt as those who weren't working. We should also mention that according to most jurists, poor dhimmis aren't only exempt from jizya, but they are supported by the Bayt al-mal. I'll try to add references to that later. 19:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: You're right, some jurists used criteria based on indigence while others used criteria based on ability to work. In fact, "those who could not afford to pay" in the next sentence is the closest approximation for both cases that comes to my mind. I suggest we add the footnote there and remove the word "poor" (which is both redundant and wrong) from this sentence, and this will have the added benefit of matching the list of exemptions used in the two encyclopedias. Given the additional opposing vote below, I'll go along with the current sentence structure. Eperoton (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: There's still one question, why does Arnold, Louay, and even scholars like Majid Khadduri, base their discourse on jizya on Abu Yusuf's writings only? 11:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: For Arnold, I think it's because he's not making a statement specifically about the fiqh, but rather about the general reality of taxation, and he takes Abu Yusuf as "representative" because this work was commissioned and partly put into practice by a caliph. The state of social-economic history of that period was fairly rudimentary in Arnold's time. I'm not familiar with Louay's and Khadduri's writings. If they were making generalizations about the fiqh based on Abu Yusuf, perhaps they just didn't feel up to the task of reviewing the vast body of primary literature on the subject and couldn't find secondary sources to do it for them. It's just a guess. Eperoton (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Arnold wasn't talking specifically about that period of time, if you're reading the context you'll see that he makes generalizations. But my question was that since many authors and encyclopedias seem to all quote Abu Yusuf, then that would mean that it's supposed to be the general primary reference.

16:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: I'm not aware of any modern specialist or specialized encyclopedia that bases their discussion of jizya exclusively or primarily on Abu Yusuf. EI2 cites many primary sources, as does İslâm Ansiklopedisi [[1]] (you can read the bibliography even if you don't know Turkish). The "Princeton encyclopedia of Islamic political thought" cites only secondary sources. Arnold belonged to an era when many of these sources were unpublished and/or hard to find. I'm not sure who Louay is, but Kalin, Ellethy and Khadduri don't seem like experts in either classical-era jurisprudence or socio-economic history. Eperoton (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: If we were to discuss the scholars credentials based on whether or not their expertise is in "classical-era jurisprudence or socio-economic history" then I'm pretty sure that most of the current article would vanish. I was not saying that all entries on jizya relied primarily or exclusively on Abu Yusuf, but pretty much all of them cited him in addition to the other sources which I mentioned, such as Arnold, Kalin, Ellethy and Khadduri, which is way different. 21:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: I'm not sure what we're disputing here. If some parts of the article aren't consistent with state-of-the-art scholarship, then they should vanish. That's what we're here for. :) P.S. Upon closer inspection I see that I was wrong about Khadduri. He has a significant body of publications on Islamic law, and I also don't see him giving a preferential place to Abu Yusuf in matters of jurisprudence. He does rely on Abu Yusuf as a source on the early history of jizya, explaining his choice as follows: "Since Baladhuri's texts agree in general with those of Abu Yusuf, and since Abu Yusuf's texts provide the earliest recorded sources for later juridical formulations, these are the texts which will be reproduced hereunder." (War and Peace in the Law of Islam, pp.182-183) Eperoton (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose and LOL. Why do you want to exclude the statement that women and others were exempt? Perhaps any rationale can be provided for taking out this balance? There are Eleven kinds of people who are exempt.

1. women
2. children
3. elders
4. handicapped
5. monks
6. hermits
7. the poor
8. the ill
9. the insane
10. slaves
11. (non-Muslim foreigners who only temporarily reside in Muslim lands)

Why would anyone want to reduce this mention to mere 2 is beyond me. A particularly irritating comment may be made here that "OMG there is a section of exemptions, no need to mention here" The simple answer is that WP:LEDE clearly states that the lede should summarize the article, so this does not hold water. Another reason which should be nipped in the bud is that "we should just mention who pay the tax, all others are exempt". First of all this is not given in any wikipedia policy, nor in any grammatical law. To be frank the exact opposite is given in many books of English grammar. Also the proponent of such a reason should show where he has explained/mentioned the terminology of musta'mins and given a link to that article. Furthermore the sentence with the high amount of adjectives is atrocious, atrocious English. You just get lost reading the adjectives. When the trade off with keeping something short is doing away with good English, we should keep the sentence long and prevent bad language from creeping in. I am quite sure that someone who reads and writes English regularly will take affront at this ridiculous sentence merely from a syntactical point of view. SO it appears to be a pretty useless edit which does mroe damage to the article than the TEEENY TTTIIINYYYYYYYY extra space that is taken up by the extra words. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support the eleven kinds of person exempted quoted from Ellethy are from different jurists, from diferrent times and different schools. As far as I know we can not find two Muslim jurists or a modern encyclopedia entry who list all eleven. Paradoxically, in the same way we could list many of these categories and find jurists who do not exempt them. And all that ignoring the historical applications. --Domics (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: Actually all jurists agreed that women, children, the insane, handicapped, ... don't have to pay. The difference is on whether the non-working poor or the working monk. Ellethy quotes Abu Yusuf and Yusuf al-Qaradawi's book ghayr almuslimin fi almujtama alislamiy (non-Muslims in a Muslim society). 11:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

please could you give me Ellethy's quotes from Abu Yusuf and Yusuf al-Qaradawi?--Domics (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: Sorry, my error, I meant "cited". 12:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@Domics: I supported the change for brevity reasons, but these generalizations about exemptions (except for "the poor" broadly construed, who were taxed, though at a lower rate) are well supported elsewhere. For example, the article on jizya in EI2 says: "A certain number of rules formulated during the 'Abbasid period appear to be generally valid from that time onwards. Jizya is only levied on those who are male, adult, free, capable and able-bodied, so that children, old men, women, invalids, slaves, beggars, the sick and the mentally deranged are excluded. Foreigners are exempt from it on condition that they do not settle permanently in the country. Inhabitants of frontier districts who at certain times could be enrolled in military expeditions even if not Muslim (Mardaites, Amenians, etc.), were released from jizya for the year in question." (vol. 2, p. 561) We can discuss exceptions in the article, but we should rely on RSs to make (or not make) generalizations. Eperoton (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: We didn't agree on removing "the poor" rather we agreed that it would have been better to add a note to explain that only some Shafi'ites disagreed while the Malikis, Hanafis, Hanbalis and some Shafi'ites and Shafi'i according to one narration exempted the poor, although they had different definitions (but in general non-working poor). 15:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Hmm, you've lost me there. No sources make a generalization about exempting "the poor", just some types of the poor. Even the sources you prefer are explicit about taxing others. E.g., Arnold: "Abu Yusuf […] may be taken as generally representative of Muhammadan procedure under the Caliphate. […] from the poor, i.e., the field labourers and artisans, only 12 dirhams were taken. […] The poor who were dependent for their livelihood on alms and the aged poor who were incapable of work were also specially excepted." Eperoton (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: So it should also be included in the note, right? 16:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: I'm not sure I understand your question. I was going to include a footnote at the end of the following sentence. We could also delete the clause on "those who could not afford to pay" and change "the poor" to "some types of the poor", adding the footnote there. In fact, I think it the better option, because the other phrasing comes from a single, relatively weak source and it's liable to misinterpretation. We can't make a generalization about "the poor" because it's not supported by the sources. Eperoton (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: So we both agree that we should add ".... poor ..." (either non working or as you say "some types" or another variant) plus a note detailing the position of different madhabs, right? And also I think there's a certain problem in our behavior with some sources and claims, just because the present references aren't strong enough for a claim doesn't mean we should discredit it alright, rather we should at the same time see if there are better sources that talk about that same claim. Anyway that was just a note. 22:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: It sounds like we do agree. For the "could not afford" phrasing, my point was not about discrediting a claim but rather about giving undue weight to the formulation used in one source when other sources, including more authoritative ones, use different formulations. Eperoton (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

My problem is this. According to Ellethy the exempted are "elders, poor people, handicapped, women, children, monks and hermits"; according to the EI2 "children, old men, women, invalids, slaves, beggars, the sick and the mentally deranged... Foreigners". Do you see that the categories do not match all? So who is right? is the EI2 wrong in not listing the monks or is Ellethy wrong in listing them? Is the EI2 righ in listing the slaves or is Ellethy wrong in not listing them? As I do not know I think that it would be better to express in the lede in a generic way and then to examine the single cases in the article and not to make an arbitrary summary of all exempted from multiple sources who may refer to different periods or schools. --Domics (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: Both of these sources spoke in general (i.e. not about a particular period or school), there is no mutual contradiction between two sources listing exemptions even if these lists differ or are incomplete, in view of other sources who mention these exemptions (particularly anything which sources Abu Yusuf, like the Thomas Arnold or Majid Khadduri references). 10:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime, nowhere Abu Yusuf writes that 'all' old men, monks, blindmen or invalids are exempted but this is what a reader of the lede would understand.--Domics (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Add the jizya tax to the series and portal on discrimination

I believe that we should add this article to the discrimination portal and series because the jizya tax discriminated against the non-muslim minorities by forcing only them to pay the tax while the muslim majority didn't have to pay the tax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyb9999 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Should we also add zakat, which only Muslims had to pay? Eperoton (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Abu Yusuf and the exemption of monks from jizya

In the 'Liability and exemptions' section I read: "The Hanafi scholar Abu Yusuf wrote, "slaves, women, children, the old, the sick, monks, hermits, the insane, the blind and the poor, were exempt from the tax."Just belove I read: "Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf held that monks were subject to jizya if they worked."
But I quote: "Abu Yusuf (d. 798), in his Kitab alKharaj, states that jizya was only taken from monks living in monasteries if they were wealthy. If they were poor, it was to be paid on their behalf by wealthy monks. Jizya was also paid by ascetics who lived in towers (ahl als ? awa ¯mi', or stylites) only if they were wealthy; otherwise, monasteries paid for them." [2]
So I do not understand. If only poor monks and poor stylites were exempted it means that there is any special exemption for monks as all poor men were exempted according to Abu Yusuf. Not only: Their exempted taxes were transferred to other (wealthy monks for poor monks and monasteries for stylites) so at the end there is no exemption. This should be acknowledged in the 'Liability and exemptions' section. If Abu Yusuf is the source of Arnold and Ellethy this should be specified also in the lede otherwise a reader might be misled into believing in a total exemption for monks and hermits. --Domics (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: What about adding a note after mentioning these exemptions and adding the word 'generally'? (Note: Ellethy isn't relying in particular on Abu Yusuf, he cites a book by al-Qaradawi) @Eperoton: What do you think? 11:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

I'm not yet sure about the nature of discrepancy on this subject in the secondary sources. I see that EI2 and the Princeton encyclopedia don't include monks and hermits in their general list of exemptions. EI2 discusses monks in an earlier passage about the pre-Abbasid period: "However, difficulties very soon appeared. In Egypt monks were exempt from poll-tax; the Copts, who since Roman times had been past masters of tax evasion, noted that the taxpayer could escape payment of poll-tax if he left the district where he was enrolled or, better still, if he entered a monastery. It therefore became necessary to make all monks in their turn subject to poll-tax." EI2 doesn't discuss what classical jurists wrote about taxing monks, exactly. I think we should first lay out statements from RSs on the subject in the article body, and then figure out how to best summarize what we have in the lead. P.S. This is what I'm also planning to do regarding the poor when I have gone through a few RSs, which I'm currently doing for a rewrite of the early history section. Eperoton (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: The Muhammad Abdel Haleem source I added says that monks were exempted, it refers to al-Qaradawi's book ghayr almuslimin fi almujtama alislamiy. 15:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Ok, we should cite that. By the way, al-Qaradawi's book can be found here: [3] Eperoton (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Is it okay if I cited fatawa hindiya? There's a detailed discussion when it comes to exemptions. 19:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Hmm, if it quotes classical-era jurists, we could use that as a complimentary primary source, although we should use primary sources to illustrate generalizations rather than make them. Otherwise, I'm not sure how opinions of 17th century Hanafi jurists would fit here. I think it would be helpful to quote Abu Yusuf, however, since Domics has pointed out what seems to be three contradictory statements about his text. We can't use a primary source to overrule a secondary source, but we can quote it alongside to let the reader judge for themselves. The details should probably go into a footnote, though. I think we're doing our job in clarifying discrepancies between the sources, and it will help us to formulate the best way to acknowledge them, but I doubt most readers will want to read the details. Eperoton (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

if both Ellethy and Muhammad Abdel Haleem refer to al-Qaradawi's book is it possible to know the jurists cited/quoted by al-Qaradawi and his geographical and historical context? Thanks. --Domics (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I see many problems in any generalization about the monks. It seems to me that there is a strong disagreement among Islamic jurists. Apart from that already written I quote from Ella Landau—Tasseron,“Non— Combatants' in Muslim Legal Thought” p.5-6 [4]: "...in spite of the prohibition against killing monks, al-Thawri insisted on demanding that they pay jizya." "The jurist AbÙ ‘Ubayd, who set down this rule in the beginning of the third/ninth century, was of the opinion that monks residing in monasteries have to pay jizya." "...ShÁfi‘i states that all infidel men without exception must convert to Islam or be killed; all men of the protected religions (ahl al-kitÁb) must pay jizya or be killed. He emphasizes that this rule applies to monks as well..." --Domics (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: You're bringing now the classic dispute on the casus belli of war in Islamic thought, let me say at the outset there is no 'strong disagreement' as you phrase it, rather "only the Shaf‘i school, contains the view that a person’s belief can be a reason for fighting against them. This view, however, is mitigated by the fact that an opposite view, in agreement with the majority, is also attributed to Shaf‘i,", furthermore "the views of Shaf‘i and Sarakhsi do not represent the majority, let alone the ‘orthodox’, stance of the jurists. The common tendency to present this particular defnition of jihad as the mainstream position of Islam not only disregards the views of Abu Hanifah, Malik ibn Anas, Abu Yusuf, Shaybani, Awzai, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah and others but also ignores the historical and contextual nature of such juridical rulings" (Source: War & Peace) Let me now detail the difference between the jurists in what concerns exemptions as much as I can: (based on the Kuwait encyclopedia of fiqh)

1. Women, children, insane, slaves: The consensus was stated by Ibn Qudamah and Ibn Mundhir (a tenth-century scholar who collated the many and varied opinions of Muslim scholars to determine when consensus had actually occurred) and others.
2. The financial capability: According to this encyclopedia jurists came to a consensus that jizya is taken from the working poor, but they differed on the non-working one. The overwhelming majority of jurists from the Hanafis, Malikis, Hanbalis and Shafi'i in one opinion, exempted them. Some Shafi'is and Abu Thawr, required them to pay, however if he isn't able then it becomes a debt, and he is asked to pay it until he becomes able according to them.
3. Monks: Abu Hanifa in a narration of Qaduri, and Malik ibn Anas, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal in a narration, and al-Shafi'i in one of his two sayings, said that the monks who were dedicated in worship were exempted, even if they were able to work. And Abu Hanifa in a narration of Muhammad bin al-Hassan, and Abu Yusuf and Ahmad ibn Hanbal in one narration stated that jizya was obligatory on monks if they were able to work.

14:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Great source, CounterTime! Forty five volumes, forty years in the making, contributions from scholars of all Sunni madhhabs. Certainly seems authoritative. Eperoton (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@CounterTime, My intention was not to bring a dispute on the casus belli of war in Islam. I cited three jurists on the exemption of the monks. It is true that Shaf‘i expressed a different view on the killing of the monks as Landau-Tasseront well acknowledges but I do not know if in this different view he gives his opinion also on the paying of the jizya. And the monks and jizya are the object of this section. That is all. --Domics (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: Yes, but we should be aware that depending on each narration there may be more than one opinion ascribed to a jurist. One of his students may report that he thought so about a juristic question, while another may report something completely different about that same question. 12:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

CounterTime, This could be true but I quoted from a RS. If you have a different RS or if you know passages that say differently from primary sources for example on the opinion by al-Thawri and AbÙ ‘Ubayd on the payment of the jizya by the monks you can write them. And that is all for Wikipedia. --Domics (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Payment of the jizya by new converts to Islam until 720?

I quote from Yousefi Najm, “Kharāj [land-tax],” Muhammad in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia of the Prophet of God,: "Throughout the Umayyad period until the reign of Caliph Umar b. Abd al-Aziz (r. 717–720), conversion to Islam did not relieve the non-Arab subject from jizya or kharaj. How-ever, new administrative reforms under Umar b. Abd al-Aziz removed the burden of jizya from the new converts while enforcing the land tax for areas classified as kharaj lands." [5]--Domics (talk) 07:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This is discussed under "Emergence of classical taxation system". Eperoton (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Eperoton, where is clearly written that conversion did not relieved from the payment of the jizya?--Domics (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Jizya and conversion to Islam

I came across a summary of the debate from a paper:

The (cor)relation between the payment of the poll-tax and conversion to Islam, has long been the subject of scholarly debate. At the beginning of the twentieth century scholars suggested that after the Muslim conquest the local populations converted en masse to evade the payment of the poll tax. This assumption has been challenged by subsequent research. Indeed Dennett's study dearly showed that the payment of the poll tax was not a sufficient reason to convert after the Muslim conquest and that other factors—such as the wish to retain social status—had greater influence. According to Inalcik the wish to evade payment of the jizya was an important incentive for conversion to Islam in the Balkans, but Anton Minkov has recently argued that taxation was only one of a number of motivations.

(Tramontana, Felicita (2013). "The Poll Tax and the Decline of the Christian Presence in the Palestinian Countryside in the 17th Century". Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. 56 (4–5). Brill Academic Publishers: 631–652. doi:10.1163/15685209-12341337. Retrieved 2016-02-03. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help))

I think it would be interesting to include this discussion somewhere in the article, so whoever has the skills to paraphrase and expand this a bit, please feel free to do so. Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Great little summary. I've made an attempt to fit it in. Eperoton (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that at the end Tramonana does identify a "link" between Jyzia and conversion. At the end of the article we read "The link between the conversion of the Christian community of Dayr Abān and the payment of the poll tax is also consistent with the conversion to Islam of entire communities attested in Christian sources, and with the conversion of Samaritans in the first centuries of Muslim rule in the area."--Domics (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

A statement about one village isn't general enough to use in the article, and the rest doesn't seem like a positive statement. I think our current discussion conveys an understanding that there was a link, at least in some regions and periods, and that scholars are disputing about its relative influence compared to other factors. Eperoton (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Eperoton, in what sense "... is also consistent with the conversion to Islam of entire communities attested in Christian sources, and with the conversion of Samaritans in the first centuries of Muslim rule" is not a positive statement?--Domics (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

From the passage you quoted, it looks like she's saying that such an influence would explain those other cases of conversion rather than making a statement about existence or relative impact of that influence. Eperoton (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

ok, I see your point. It would be interesting to add in the article that according to Tramontana despite women were exempted from the jizya, "... widows who owned the land of their deceased husbands were liable." --Domics (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This could be a footnote in the section about exemptions, though we need to make sure that it's a general statement and not a reference to some localized phenomenon. Eperoton (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

sure, she writes this when she lists exempted people "according to the sharia"and without any geographical reference.--Domics (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: Well that violates the majority of sources which all spoke of a consensus on that women were unanimously exempted, I don't have to restate them here. 11:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

I'm reluctant to rely solely on a passing statement from a paper not focused on jurisprudence, given the complexity on the subject. I think that falls under WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Does she cite some specialist work for this? Eperoton (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Tramontana is not writing against the consensus. She writes that women according to the sharia are exempt but she adds also this correction. I thought that it was Tramontana's article a 'specialist work' on poll tax. But if you do not think so, OK. --Domics (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Associated Taxes, unnecessary section?

Is the section titled "Associated Taxes" really necessary? For me, it is more convenient to put it in the dhimmi article. Moreover, it is poorly sourced. It states for instance, "fai, ghanima and ushur. Fai (sometimes spelled fay) was non-Muslim property seized by a Muslim official;", however fai is actually simply jizya plus kharaj. What do you think? 22:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: That has escaped my attention. The whole section is a pile of poorly sourced synthesis. The first sentence garbles the relationship between jizya and kharaj that we explain elsewhere. I've skimmed the EI2 articles on fay and ghanima and neither term is referred to as a tax there. Ushr seems appropriate to discuss in the article on kharaj, but it's not clear how it's "associated" with the poll tax. Plus, the section repeatedly sources specific statements with references to whole books or unreasonably broad page ranges. I say the current section should be deleted per WP:TNT and it's not clear that a section of this title makes sense here at all. I need to run now, so I'll reply to your question about the lead later. Eperoton (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Return of jizya

I heard that Khalid ibn al-Walid once returned the jizya because he could not guarantee the safety of the subjects.

I think this would be an interesting point to mention in the article, along with any fiqh rulings that it may have inspired. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi: A similar (but different) scenario is given in the #Rationale section (see the quote), but it involves Abu 'Ubaydah. I think we can mention Khalid ibn al-Walid there as another example, without providing a full quote of the narrative, perhaps with something along these lines: "A similar incident involving Khalid ibn al-Walid was reported." What do you think?

21:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Thanks for bringing up Abu 'Ubaydah's story. It seems it was a confusion on my part on who returned the jizya. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi: Here's what I had in mind about Khalid: “Again, in the treaty made by Ḵẖālid with some towns in the neighborhood of Hīrah, he writes: "If we protect you, then jizyah is due to us; but if we do not, then it is not due.”" (The Preaching of Islam, p. 61)

11:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

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)

@Reeves.ca: We got a problem here, the user RLoutfy doesn't want to collaborate and just reverted my edit. So I'll ping him @RLoutfy: so that he could read this exchange and understand the issues with that section. 11:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Here's an idea: try not remove any content and make small organizational changes. For example, we can divide this section into two sub-headings to show the contrasting definitions: Since it's an article about an islamic topic, we gather some islamic definitions first then we follow with some western scholars' definitions. Would you be able to make these changes incrementally? Again - this is just an structural review, not a content review. Once things are organized, then we can review each citation. If you can't get to it, I'll go over it this weekend if I have the time. Thanks, Reeves.ca (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

An excellent strategy, Reeves.ca. Using the talk page as a working page for reassessing the structure of an article before rewriting sections is precisely the function of any article talk page. Thoughts on what is relevant to the content are the secondary concern when editors who don't see eye to eye are trying to work out how to approach the subject matter in order that it is both clear and flows well for the reader (and the reader takes precedence over any POV quarrels). Tearing work up and starting again without an overview as to presentation is a energy sinkhole; sets up further antagonism; loses hard work and sources in a tangle when trying to go through the article's history in order to evaluate the material. Rather than counterproductive eradication of pre-existing content in one fell swoop, it would be the most productive method for developing the article. No one is going to move forward unless discussion takes place first. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Eperoton: I would like to know what do you think about the issue outlined here? 08:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: I think this section (including "disambiguation") mixes up two different topics which are already treated in other sections: origin/early history and rationale (there's almost nothing there on etymology proper). I am planning to rewrite the sections on early history in the coming days, incorporating some of the relevant passages. Perhaps some of the other items should be incorporated into the rationale section. So, hopefully we'll be able to get rid of this confused section before too long. Eperoton (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Reeves.ca: I think that now, after months of work, that section can be now safely considered to have been 'cleaned-up'. 15:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: I've been busy volunteering with local refugee relief groups, so I haven't had much time online - but I appreciate what you guys have done here; it's definitely an improvement. Well done everyone.

Ameliorating this paragraph in the lede

This is an invitation to discuss (so as to build consensus) to ameliorate the following paragraph in the lede, any suggestions, additions (be it text or refs) are welcome. 19:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Historically, the Jizya tax has been rationalized in Islam as a fee for protection provided by the Muslim ruler to non-Muslims, for the permission to practice a non-Muslim faith with some communal autonomy in a Muslim state, and as material proof of the non-Muslims' submission to the Muslim state and its laws. Jizya has also been rationalized by some as a symbol of the humiliation of the non-Muslims in a Muslim state for not converting to Islam.

---

@Eperoton: Do you have any suggestions? 22:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: I don't have a good sense at the moment about relative prominence of the different interpretations, though I'm frankly concerned about this edit. I'd like to look at some sources before making a contribution on this point. Eperoton (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: If you find RSs that mention the other minority position of jurists, then I don't see any problem with adding that there, merging it with the paragraph mentioning the view of al-Razi.

10:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Ok, give me a few days to catch up on the sources. Eperoton (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Sure. 12:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

meanwhile let's start correcting "their continued stay in a Muslim land is a crome"! --Domics (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

‘Minor’ detail

@Eperoton: Ira Lapidus seems to be talking about taxation in general, and this includes kharaj, so should the statement "Payment of taxes, which for peasants often reached half of the value of their produce [this is kharaj], was not only an economic burden" be changed? --CounterTime (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@CounterTime: Right, he's referring to taxation in general using a general word for taxes. It's a different perspective. Where most other authors discuss the history of taxation in the early Islamic period in terms of ethnico-religious groups (Arab-Muslims vs. others), he's analyzing it in terms of socio-economic classes (elites, peasants, etc) regardless of their religion. He's highlighting the continuity that persisted in their relations as it related to taxation.Eperoton (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: I see, but shouldn't we add something that mentions the fact that it is related to kharaj? 10:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: I've tweaked the phrasing to clarify. Eperoton (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Neat job as usual. 18:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Khalid b. aI-Walid and the jizya as means to spare the blood

as I read in the 'rationale' section that "In a treaty made by Khalid with some towns in the neighborhood of Hirah, he writes: "If we protect you, then jizya is due to us; but if we do not, then it is not due"" I think that we could add a previous treaty by the same Khalid where it is written that jizya is due in exchange for life. I quote: ": Khalid went on his way toward Iraq, until he stopped at certain towns... Their people made peace with him. The man who made peace with him on their behalf was Ibn Saluba… Khalid accepted the jizyah from them and wrote a document for them, which read: "In the name of God, the All-Compassionate, the Merciful. From Khalid b. aI-Walid to Ibn Saluba al-Sawadi, whose residence is on the bank of the Euphrates: You are safe by the guarantee of God (for he had spared his blood by paying the jizyah) and you have paid one thousand dirhams for yourself and for those having to pay the land tax and head tax and those who are in your two towns,Baniqya and Barusma. I have accepted it from you, and those of the Muslims who are with me are satisfied with this amount from you. You have the solemn guarantee (dhimmah) of God, the guarantee of Muhammad, and the guarantee of the Muslims regarding that. Witnessed by Hisham b. al Walid." (in Tabari 2017)--Domics (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: The treaty doesn't even state that, the "(for he had spared his blood by paying the jizyah)" is the addition of the translator, namely, Khalid Yahya Blankinship.

13:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

your personal opinion is very interesting but this is what I read in a published translation. Since I can read the same passage in Caetani, Annales II, 2, p.928 ("dacché fu impedito di versare il sangue suo (ossia di ibn Saluba) con il pagamento della gizyah" ), since this passage is quoted also in Bravman, "The Spiritual Background of Early Islam: Studies in Ancient Arab Concepts", BRILL, pag. 204 (where you can find also the transliteration from Tabari)[6], as far as WP rules are concerned yours is a personal opinion. --Domics (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: That's not my personal opinion the text was between two parentheses, plus it's WP:PRIMARY to make such additions directly from Tabari's Tarikh without relying on secondary RSs. By the way Eperoton told me that he was working on the last paragraph of the Rationale section, you may add that Bravman ref amongst them.

12:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

CounterTime, before claiming that a translator have added a whole sentence you should have read his Translator's Foreword where you could read "In all other instances in which I have added something to the text to make it more understandable, I have put the addition in brackets [ ]. Words enclosed in ordinary parentheses ( ) are part of the original text.". And this not a peculiarity by Khalid Yahya Blankinship; This is what every translator does. --Domics (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: Sorry, I was mistaken. But as I said earlier, feel free to add the non-Primary source (the Bravman ref) amongst those who state that jizya is in exchange for life or for not embracing Islam. 11:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

We report Bravman's interpretation of the Quranic usage in the Origins section. It's quite complex and it took me several attempts before I could summarize it. It's not clear to me which section it belongs to. As CounterTime mentioned, I have some "late homework" related to the Rationale section which I'm going to lay out for dicussion soon. Eperoton (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

is it historically true?

I became aware of this and I do not understand how this is historically true: "Moreover, it has been reported that during the life-time of the Prophet, Jizyah was realised at the rate of one dinar from every adult, free or slave, male or female."[7]
Any idea?--Domics (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: Firstly, from a traditionalist point of view, this narration has no isnad and contradicts other more authentic narrations. Secondly, this has already been discussed by the article (as added by @Eperoton:) in the History\Origins: "In 632 jizya in the form of a poll tax was first mentioned in a document reportedly sent by Muhammad to Yemen.^[128] W. Montgomery Watt has argued that this document was tampered with by early Muslim historians to reflect a later practice, while Norman Stillman holds it to be authentic.^[128]" And thirdly, my final observation, is that if one were to add such a narration then it would be in violation of WP:UNDUE, I guess that Eperoton—being more knowledgeable than me on WP policies—can shed some further light on that.

13:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Yep, I think we've got it covered. Stillman thinks it unlikely that the document would be modified to reflect a form of poll tax different from the classical exemptions, and I haven't looked up Watt's argument. However, this report doesn't seem to have had an impact that would merit devoting more space to it than we already do. Eperoton (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean that in the document discussed by Watt and Stillman is it written that during the time of the Prophet Jizyah was taken from every adult, free or slave, male or female? --Domics (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: No, it means that it was reported in a narration that the Prophet required jizya to be taken from all those categories. However there are much more authentic narrations that state the opposite, see the Kuwait encyclopedia of fiqh article. 13:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

so in what sense did you write that "this has already been discussed by the article" pointing to the Watt-Stillman diatribe?--Domics (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It's about the same primary source. As I wrote above, I think including additional details about it in the text would be devoting more space to it than RSs do, but we can put those details into a footnote. Eperoton (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I could understand Wikipedia's needs of brevity but to read about a dispute on the authenticity of a document without knowing the content of this document and what is disputed it is a little singular. And obviously by reading the article I could never understand that that passage was referring to what Al-Daudi writes! Historically we have a document that describes ways of gathering the jizya. According to Stillman the document is authentic; according to Watt those ways "reflect a later practice". --Domics (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: "without knowing the content" it was already outlined by the expression "in the form of a poll tax" (by definition, a poll tax is levied on every individual (poll = head) regardless of gender, age, or ability to pay.)

11:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

I disagree with the definition above, but the point is that prior to the classical era the term "jizya" was applied to several different forms of taxation, as we explain. We go into the details of each one to the degree that they are discussed in RSs, which in turn reflect their historical significance. This document is significant in the context of taxation because it ascribes the notion of jizya in the form of a poll tax to Muhammad, and that apparently had influence on later juridical writings. Sources such as the EI2 article on jizya don't mention its liability terms, apparently because their authenticity is disputed and/or because they didn't have impact on later practice. Before I rewrote these sections, they largely consisted of a few details gleaned from primary sources and amplified far beyond the level of attention given to them in RSs. This is what we want to avoid. Eperoton (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

" the expression "in the form of a poll tax" (by definition, a poll tax is levied on every individual (poll = head) regardless of gender, age, or ability to pay." If we would apply this definition every time we read in the article 'poll tax' we would arrive at quite curious results as I quote: "In the classical manual of Shafi'i fiqh Reliance of the Traveller it is stated that, '[t]he minimum non-Muslim poll tax is one dinar...'"... Is this manual stating tha the tax he is describing was levied on every individual? . @Eperoton. OK I understand that before the revelation of Sura 9:29 there was a collective tax and after an individual tax. This document could be the first to describe this new form of taxation. BUT is the disagreement between Watt and Stillman on the existence of an individual tax dated at the time of the Prophet or on the liability terms of the tax?--Domics (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: No, the problem is with translating the word jizya to 'poll tax' which has a different connotation, as discussed by Abdel-Haleem.

13:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

So at the end, having poll-tax many meanings you agree with me that by reading the article I could not understand that that passage was referring to this discussion.--Domics (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: Abdel-Haleem's remark isn't en force in all corners of the article, if everyone here is up with replacing every instance of "poll-tax" with jizya then I'm up to that. What do you think? 11:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

We can not change anything; We quote the sources. In this case, what interests me is that if we are writing about a document in which the jizya/poll tax is appied to men and women, (and now I read even slaves) this should be specified as this is the object of contention between the two scholars. I quote from Stillman: "W. Montgomery Watt has questioned the authenticity of these instructions, suspecting that they had been altered by Muslim historians to "reflect the practice of a period later than Muhammad's lifetime." However, since this universal poll tax of one dinar on all adults of both sexes was not the practice in later Islamic times, it seems highly unlikely that such a document, which differs considerably from eventual Islamic law, would be attributed to none other than the Prophet himself. It has been preserved in the Sira and other early sources precisely because of its authenticity."--Domics (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: I don't see how the current wording does not reflect the Stillman ref, as I explained earlier. 12:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

As I wrote earlier, I see no problem in fleshing out the details of the authenticity disputes into a footnote, but I think it would be undue to expound in the main body of article on its liability details, which of all the RSs I've seen so far, are discussed only by Stillman and that in passing. Here's Watt's take: "for various reasons -- the chief being the existence of a much shorter version -- it is likely that these instructions have been greatly altered and expanded in the course of transmission, and now reflect the practice of a later period than Muhammad's lifetime." (Muhammad at Medina, p. 128) Caetani argues against its authenticity in Annali dell'Islam II/i on pp. 317 and 319. Eperoton (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton, Watt judges the document as interpoled with 'the practice of a later period'; He does not say that in the document there are false things. In this Stillman is right: In a later period we can not find these liability terms of the poll-tax! Don't you think interesting that Caetani specifies as interpolations only the passages on rites and prayers but he says nothing about the possible 'strangeness' of the liability terms of the poll-tax as motivation for the inauthenticity? --Domics (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: I think we're getting off-track here. If you'd like to flesh out the authenticity debate in a footnote, I can help to make sure we present the arguments correctly. Putting the liability terms in the main text gives them undue weight based on the RSs I've seen, and this issue is orthogonal to the authenticity debate. Eperoton (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton, I would only to know how by reading "In 632 jizya in the form of a poll tax was first mentioned in a document reportedly sent by Muhammad to Yemen", I could have understood that this was referring to what Al Daudi writes ("Moreover, it has been reported that during the life-time of the Prophet, Jizyah was realised at the rate of one dinar from every adult, free or slave, male or female."). If you think that 'poll tax' means a tax levied on every adult (male, female, free and slave), that's OK and this discussion could have been closed earlier. --Domics (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding your specific concern. As we note, the early history of jizya is very complex. We can't provide a compherensive analysis of the primary sources, and certainly not in the main article text. The set of instructions reportedly given by Muhammad have generated a mildly notable scholarly debate, which we can cover in a footnote, but I don't see the relevance of the quote you're referring to, which comes from a 10th century Maghrebi text of no particular notability. Eperoton (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton, I have not asked to add anything. I only asked if what reported by Al Daudi was historically true. The answer should have been simply that Al Daudi is referring to the letter sent by Muhammad to Yemen and not "this has already been discussed" because nowhere in the article I can read of a discussion about a jzya " realised at the rate of one dinar from every adult, free or slave, male or female". So the discussion would be ended. For the rest I think that it suffices to add in a note the text of the document related to the poll tax and to quote Watt and Stillman's opinion. --Domics (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Domics: Ah, I see where we got confused. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to the article (WP:NOTFORUM), so we've interpreted your comment as a proposal to add the information you were referring to to the article. I think the details we've unearthed in the process of this discussion are interesting, though, and worth putting into a footnote, which I'll do a bit later. Eperoton (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)