From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on June 27 2006. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep.

Dhimmi: Jews[edit]

In this section I have noticed a number of mistakes such as lack of citations and a lack of a complete picture. For example, one sentence states, "Accustomed to survival in adverse circumstances after many centuries of discrimination and persecution within the Roman Empire, both pre-Christian and Christian, Jews saw the Islamic conquests as just another change of rulers". The idea that Jews were "accustomed to survival" is very biased and does not take in the individual experience. In addition, I plan to add information from Norman Stillman's article "Myth, Countermyth, and Distortion" that presents information of Jewish status of dhimmi's being a bad aspect of living under Arab rule. This information will help develop the debate between Stillman and Cohen (who is already presented in this subsection) of the conditions of Jewish status dhimmi's living under Arab control. Specifically, I would like to present how they disagree and why these debates are significant in understanding Jewish dhimmi status. I believe that so far this subsection only presents Cohen's argument that live as a dhimmi was not so bad, not Stillman's view that Jews still faced a life of strict law and a fear of oppression. If anyone has any comments about these changes, feel free to let me know.

Stillman, Norman. "Myth, Countermyth, and Distortion." Tikkun (May, 1991). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwalker3 (talkcontribs) 07:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lwalker3: I don't see how you see that section as lacking citations, furthermore, I don't see why you frame this as a "debate between Stillman and Cohen" when the section cites María Rosa Menocal, Bernard Lewis, Hayim Hillel Ben-Sasson, Claude Cahen and Mark R. Cohen. 11:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
@Lwalker3: I have no objection to adding Stillman's view, but the added paragraph has many problems, both linguistic and logical. I'm familiar with other writings by Stillman, and I'm pretty sure those problems weren't in the original. Since this article isn't readily available online, please quote the relevant passages so we can help to paraphrase them correctly. You've also deleted sourced content. The tagged unsouced portion is fair game to be challenged and removed, but you should either paraphrase the rest to preserve the sourced content or justify its removal. Eperoton (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Religious discrimination[edit]

IP User:2601:282:4302:C8C0:88B4:CD07:A9E:DB1B removed the "religious discrimination" tag from this article, without bothering to leave an edit comment. Dhimitude is clearly an example of religious discrimination; it is a system of discriminatory laws applying only to non-muslims.

Accordingly I reverted the deletion, and it has been deleted again, and once more without an edit comment. Actually, it's hard to wedge a comment into that field, since most of the available space is occupied by this user's IPV6 address - but I can manage it.

So for the second time I've reverted the deletion. Please don't delete this tag again without attempting to discuss it here. MrDemeanour (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Heavy Bowdlerization[edit]

No mention is made of the heavy discrimination against non-dhimmi polytheists.

SStewartGallus (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete. Focuses on mildest most modern form of dhimmi which by all accounts is practices in Iran today. Ignores the early harsher form of dhimmi which ISIS/ISIL wishes to return. Also ignores a few negative if avoidable aspects of modern dhimmi system. These are important if not always flattering to Islam in the eyes of the West. Intellectually the modern system is discriminatory beyond mere separation of people by religion and lack of political power to permanent residents - but its usually livable to those who do not want to leave.

No mention that during the Jihad years, Muslims were discouraged for doing basic business with dhimmi quarter people -- to include selling basic foodstuffs. In many cases dhimmi quarters of different sects (e.g. Christians and Jews) were not allowed to trade with each other directly. Other times external trade was allowed but only under extremely heavy taxes (35%+). Also rights to own land was often restricted to the dhimmin quarter of a city. Thus in practice this was often merely a soft sell version of "convert or starve" in any but the largest captured cities. Originally only the largest cities had dhimmi quarter large enough to be self-sustaining. But gradually more exceptions were made for dhimmi merchants with special artisan skills which eroded prejudice in trade and undermined the economic pressure to convert to Islam.

It was not until the late 14th century, that things evolved to the only mildly discriminatory dhimmi system advertised above in most locations. However...this still usually meant that dhimmi citizen rights were only fully guaranteed within their own quarter or when engaged in legitimate business trip outside their quarter. Otherwise rights in practice wer somewhat variable especially after the strict curfew which applied in most cases to dhimmi citizen outside their quarter. Of course Islamic cities also applied curfew restriction on Islamic women and often even some restrictions on ordinary civilians. Still dhimmi citizen risked severe informal beatings were as Islamic citizens would get a hearing by a mullah which for males would likely be only a fine and at most a couple lashes (however, Islamic women found alone after dark might well be stoned as whores).

  • Note by all accounts the Iran practices this modern dhimmi system of the article.
    • Note also that ISIS/ISIL wants the early 10th century-13th century stuff I described above in its rawest "convert or starve" format. Such fundamentalist considers the "modern" dhimmi like anything after the 13th century or end of Jihad expansion to be decadent and corrupted by western Christianity. (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

If you have any good sources for the way ISIS treats or proposes to treat non-Muslims, please propose them here. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dhimmi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality tag: Comparison with Jews outside Muslim rule[edit]

I suppose this is a neutrality issue (does anyone have a better tag?). This article repeatedly compares the condition of Jews and Christians under Muslim rule with their conditions under the Catholics and Byzantines. What are such sentences are trying to prove and how often do we do this on Wiki? To give an example, do we ever say in any articles that the Nazis were better rulers for Poland than Russians and communists etc.? Swingoswingo (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Swingoswingo: Comparison of the conditions under Islamic rule versus the rule by Gentiles is the only way to understand dhimmitude because forms of inequality were prevalent at the time. The Dhimmi#Jews section cites sources that describe the relative levels of freedom. Jews were persecuted in Christendom so the fact that they were second-class citizens under Muslims is not really a big deal. This isn't Wikipedia's value judgement about the justice of it; this is explaining to the reader what the conditions were under various leaders in an era when all sorts of discrimination were common. Dhimmitude is only one system of legal discrimination. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Swingoswingo These aren't the questions we should be asking and trying to answer per WP policies. The relevant question is: do RSs make these comparisons when they discuss the topic? The answer is yes, as one can see from the citations. Per NPOV, we need to reflect how RSs cover the topic.
As for the discrimination sidebar, it doesn't meet it doesn't meet WP:BIDIRECTIONAL and its placement is WP:UNDUE here. The use of this term for pre-modern periods is controversial and most of the sources cited here don't use it. Eperoton (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)