Talk:Dhimmitude

Uncredited Quote

"Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the legal superstructure that global jihadists are laboring to restore everywhere in the Islamic world, and wish ultimately to impose on the entire human race." i'm pretty sure I've read this as a quote of someone else. I'm not sure, just noting BelalHaniffa 04:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I found this and some other passages in several places (e.g. here [1]). So I removed them. This article should be about the political neologism anyways, and not an in-depth essay about tax rates, the historical application of dhimma, or world domination stuff etc. Azate 13:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

How does one pronounce dhimmitude? Can we have some sort of indication within the article? --Hyphen5 03:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited Misleading bernard lewis Quote

The full Bernard Lewis quote has been provided to correct the partial misleading quote.

Intro - Lewis quote

The intro per WP:Lead should touch the main points in this article. --Aminz 22:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The definition in the intro is this: "[Dhimmitude] is a characterization of non-Muslims as submitting to Muslim authority or intimidation." The definition Lewis used it this: "subservience and persecution and ill treatment." As you can plainly see, Lewis was not saying that "non-Muslims submitting to Muslim authority or intimidation" does not exist. Saying otherwise is either a poor understanding of the English involved or a bad-faith effort to push personal POV. Arrow740 10:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other definition is also added. WP:Lead says: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any." --Aminz 07:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Lewis's opinion is just one among many others; pushing it into the lead is tantamount to giving it undue weight. Finallly, Aminz, please stop this obsession with Lewis. You keep inserting his quotes into the lead of each and every article you edit. Beit Or 07:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is also Mark Cohen's view. I am sure I can find more. The way to go is not to remove Lewis et al but to add more views. Even if it was only Lewis's view, it had a place in intro. --Aminz 07:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is your opinion that whatever everything positive about Islam Lewis ever said belongs in the intro of respective articles. However, this opinion of yours contradicts both WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. Beit Or 07:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are concerned specifically with the concept of Dhimmitude here and quotes on this topic are relevant. Please find other sources and add them as well. Removing Lewis's view isn't the best way of achieving NPOV, if you believe there are really respected scholars who agree with Bat Ye'or. Honestly, I haven't seen any real source. --Aminz 07:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a neologism rather than about a certain concept. Lewis's view was never removed; it's right there in the article. Beit Or 07:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has a meaningful reference. Per WP:Lead, negative or positive views should both be included in the intro. It is important to mention that for some scholars like Lewis this concept is a myth. --Aminz 18:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the article is not about a "concept", but about a neologism. The intro does not discuss any "positive" views, only this word's origin and usage. Beit Or 18:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism are important for the phenomenon, concept, whatever they refer to. As you said, the usage of the word is important and as far as I know it is used to refer to the alleged untollerant status of non-Muslims. It is used by Bat Ye'or in relation with her theories. Lewis's quotation is also providing information about the usage of term "dhimmitude". --Aminz 21:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THe Lewis quote is good now where it is. not in the intro! Saying only he thinks its a myth is misrepresenting because hes saying also Islam as land of tolerance is a myth. SO putting the whole quote there is fine its not very long BUT if youre gonna paraphrase it try Lewis thinks the truth lies somewhere between these two extremes NOT 'Lewis calls dhimmitude a myth' which sound like hes endorsed the other myth.Opiner 18:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, we can add this is one the two myths and explain both ones. That's fine. --Aminz 21:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will be problematic for you to represent the Lewis quote accurately in the intro, because he says that the "myth" is partly true. Arrow740 23:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He says there is some truth in every myth which is true, isn't it? --Aminz 00:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not examined them all. Arrow740 00:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. This is Lewis's POV. We can mention this as well that both myths have also some elements of truth --Aminz 06:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you read the title of the article, after all? Beit Or 07:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dhimmitude. What comes to my mind is that this term is invented by Bat Ye'or (though she says someone else first invented it) to refer to her idea of treatment of non-muslims. --Aminz 07:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Now please read the rest of the article to find out that the term was coined by Bachir Gemayel. After you do so, please confine your edits to the discussion of this neologism rather than to miscellaneous unrelated "myths". Beit Or 07:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Bat Ye'or says someone else invented the word but she really gave its meaning to this term. WP:Lead says that the lead should touch all important points in the article. --Aminz 07:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aminz. I thought were agreeing BUT now the reverting again! To the same mispresent I thought youre agreeing isn't fair. Its already being in the article in a fair form. why do you keep adding the misrepresent to the introduction?Opiner 07:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you present what Lewis says fairly please just to give me an idea of what a *fair* presentation is. --Aminz 07:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opiner, WP:Lead says: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any."--Aminz 03:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Youre not doing that on Historical Persecution by Jews and youre making up that whole article yourself!Opiner 03:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That article is just started and you are welcome to edit it. Please discuss that on the relevant talk page. There are notable controversies over Dhimmitude and the intro should touch them. The definitions given in the intro differ from that of Lewis, so they should be included. --Aminz 03:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the intro to express the disagreement between Lewis and others as a disagreement about the meaning of the neologism 'dhimmitude' instead of about how dhimmis were actually treated. As I said on my talk page, I think Lewis is more correct about the actual state of dhimmis, but Spencer and Ye'or are more correct about what is meant when people say dhimmitude - inequality rather than persecution. - Merzbow 05:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Should the following edit be added to the intro [2].

The argument for its addition is that WP:Lead says: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any."

Support --Aminz 03:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --TruthSpreader^reply 03:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frotz661 04:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --However, I add that this is only on the condition that the fellow quoted is an authority of some sort -and it would be good (but not 100% necessary) to also get a quote from someone with an opposing (or somewhat different) view than his -to offer variety; Lastly, my support is only provisional on the condition that all assertions are true and correct to the best of the editors' ability. (I lay down and require several conditions for my support, but I trust that they are not unreasonable; Since I don't know all the facts of the case, I can not say whether the quote is both from a "notable" or "renown" expert in his field -and true, but the format looks OK to me so far.)GordonWatts 04:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support with rewrite --I'll try to condense Lewis' position and add the opposing view also. - Merzbow 04:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. The term's definition by Lewis can be included but mentioning his view on it being a myth is out of place. If his definition is a minority view than this must be made clear as well.Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. The gist of it is that the usage of the term varies. That should be in the lead section. (As it used to be : The word dhimmitude is a neologism, imported from the French language, and derived from the Arabic language word dhimmi. The term has at least two distinct but related meanings describing a certain position of a non-Muslim in relation to the Islamic world.). The body of the article then elaborates on this. It's totally futile to try to compress an already very compact quote (Lewis'), which is provided in full two sections below the intro. Azate 12:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reject per Azate. The suggested edit would assign undue weight to a view of one scholar. Beit Or 21:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Using Bat Yeor's definition only is giving undue weight. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 01:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. Aminz says 'WP:LEAD' BUT adding only one view you agree with I think isnt 'capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article' is it? IF someone wants to make it follow a policy GREAT. Maybe someone rewriting it is good.Opiner 03:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Lewis is alone in using the word in the way he does. This article is about the neologism, not the concept of dhimmi. His passing incorrect reference to the word does not belong in the introduction. Arrow740 05:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Cohen also points out to the myth. Please see the other two references. Also, please note that Bernard Lewis is the most authorative source that this article is using. --Aminz 05:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the neologism, not the concept of dhimmi. His passing incorrect reference to the word does not belong in the introduction. You need to understand that Islam is the only religion that mandates that minorities be treated poorly, and this is a sign that it should be ended. Arrow740 06:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can't just note that Lewis and Spencer/Ye'or disagree over the meaning of the term dhimmitude. We also need to note how their differing definitions lead them to either dismiss or accept the utility of the term as a whole. Lewis defines the term narrowly, but then immediately proceeds to deride the narrow definition as referring to a state he considered to be a myth. Leaving out his derision of the term while including just his definition would be misrepresenting Lewis. Spencer/Ye'or define the term more broadly, and then do directly promote the term's applicability to the modern day; it's equally important to note this as well. I believe I was successful in condensing and representing the necessary points made by both sides in the intro. - Merzbow 01:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you weren't very successful at communicating the crucial point, or maybe even at understanging it: Lewis' understanding of "myth" is: "half-right, half wrong", as becomes clear from the full quote. This is correct, but uncommon. Normal usage understands "myth" as "totally fictional". So, when you put it the way you did, the casual reader is bound to understand that Lewis thinks that dhimma is totally fictional, which is clearly not what he means to say, and does too, in the next sentence. You also get "broad" and "narrow" the wrong way: Lewis' definition is broad in scope. It encompasses the institution of dhimma as sets of laws, as religious tradition, and as reality on the ground for those under dhimma. Bat Yeor's definition is narrower in that dhimmitude is meant to mean only the situation of those under dhimma. She also differs from Lewis' in applying the term not only historically, but as a present phenomenon (so does Gemayel). Spencer's definition is narrower still: He uses it exclusively for present-day machinations. Azate 09:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, no. Lewis' definition is as narrow as possible since he defines it to be a caricatured historical state he didn't believe ever existed, as he quite clearly says. His VERY point is that the term 'dhimmitude' is not useful because of that. Spencer's is broader, not narrower - please read his quote, he does NOT define it exclusively for the modern day: "Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims". That is as general as you can get. Ye'or is somewhat in-between the two. - Merzbow 20:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The regulation was developed as the Islamic regulations of Dhimmis and it was progressive in its time. Many of these regulations are not Islamic per say. They were copied from other sources. Many of the Dhimmi regulations has now been abolished. --Aminz 06:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is Quranic. Read chapter 9, and leave Islam. Arrow740 09:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally believe that 9:29 initially refers to a particular group Jews (who believed Ezra is the Son of God) and Christians who were accused of oath-breaking and aggression as its next verse is suggesting. The early Muslims had to figure out the regulations of Dhimmi through ambigious references from the literature. Of course, Muhammad did take jizya from people of the book and this was one reference to jizya. Claude Cahen asserts that the necessity for a humiliating procedure which later rigorists claimed to find in this verse (sagharoon) was a wrong interpretation.

And Arrow740, many early Muslims including Ghazali (i think) did believe in textually veracity of the Bible. So, do I. As such, I agree with those Christian dogmas which I feel are explicitly mentioned in the Bible without leaving Islam, even though that may mean adopting a non-mainstream view. --Aminz 09:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But youre saying on the other article that Polytheism is the most tolerant which is true. SO how is Islam progressive on this compared to polytheism?Opiner

Right. Polytheism is a more tolerant than Monotheism. Please read this passage from Mark Cohen explaining the reason Monotheist religions are not tolerant. [3] . After making that general comment he says that: "Thus it is not surprising that the Medieval Islam should have persecuted non-Muslims just as Medieval Christianity persecuted Jews (and also Muslims) and as Judaism should have persecuted pagan Idumeans, forcibly converting them to Judaism. When all is said and done, however, the historical evidence indicates that the Jews of Islam, especially during the formative and classical centuries, experienced much less persecution than did the Jews of Christendom..." --Aminz 06:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So? History is not the problem today, the problem is what the texts say and the religions proclaim. Christianity proclaims the Golden Rule and "Love your neighbor." Christian injustices were not justified by their texts. Islam says "Attack him in the manner he attacked you" (hence the murders committed by Palestinian Muslims not Palestinian Christians) and "oppress Jews and Christians" and "really screw pagans over." Like 350,000 Hindus were forced from Kashmir at gunpoint in 1990, while they suffered rapes and murders justified by the Quran. Arrow740 09:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow740, religous conversation would only be fruitful when both parties are factual and respectful to each other. Please provide WP:RS sources for the controversial claims and I would be more than happy to discuss it with you. --Aminz 09:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, We should not forget that monotheism has also played its significant role in human history. For example much of the ethical progress of humanity is due to the monotheistic religions. For example, back to 2000 years ago, "Charity in the Jewish and Christian sense was unknown to the pagan world. Pagans did not notice the very poor at all except when they became politically threatening. Assistance was almost always confined to citizens. Slaves and outsiders were ignored when in distress; except in special circumstances, their problems were not the concern of the ordinary man. In Rome the very poor either starved or left the city. Begging was a hazardous occupation; in the eyes of a moralist like Seneca, it was in order but neither necessary nor important to be kind to the poor and the miserable. Free men preferred to surround themselves with their fellow-citizens and to direct their gifts to those whose social and political standing mattered. Both in the city of Rome and in Egyptian township of Oxyrhynchyus free corn was given not to the povetry-stricken but to the privileged among the plebs."--Aminz 06:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ethical progress comes from Christianity. Muslims ethics are an improvement on pagan Arab ethics but are still far below modern standards. We can't forget Buddhism and Jainism - which predate Christianity - either. Arrow740 09:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus's teaching are wonderful in a personal level, but frankly they are not implementable as laws for the society. Jesus taught that You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles.

These teachings to be honest with you can not be implemented as "laws". Muhammad was a lawgiver and he had to emphasize on the social justice. Of course Jesus's sayings are to be implemented at the level of individuals. --Aminz 10:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aminz, you've run around probably a dozen of articles with more or less the same quotes from Lewis and Cohen. It might be high time you stopped. Beit Or 21:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the POV of only those two. More could be found. --Aminz 23:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not state what dhimmi means nowadays?

Dhimmi is a non muslim subjecting to the idears of a muslim. Dhimmitude is the behaviour of a non muslim subjecting to the idears of muslims.