Talk:Dhimmitude

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page


Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 18 April 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.
— Anthony 20:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] Pronunciation

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

[edit] Edited Misleading bernard lewis Quote

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

[edit] Intro - Lewis quote

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
Right, we can add this is one the two myths and explain both ones. That's fine. --Aminz 21:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
He says there is some truth in every myth which is true, isn't it? --Aminz 00:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I have not examined them all. Arrow740 00:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
Why don't you read the title of the article, after all? Beit Or 07:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

As a reader actually unfamiliar with the term, I read the entire article looking for a definition of the term and found none in the article. I understand from the discussion pages that the definition of the term is in dispute, but the introduction seems to consist of the etymology of the word and an explanation that the word is difficult to define. That's weak. It wasn't until I read the discussion page, and found Arrow740's quotation of an older version of the intro that I found a usable definition, "[Dhimmitude] is a characterization of non-Muslims as submitting to Muslim authority or intimidation." I would suggest that the maintainers of this article put a little bit of the energy they've put previously into wrangling, into actually providing a clear, coherent definition for readers unfamiliar with the subject matter. 24.143.148.251 20:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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." Please also have a look at the discussion below.

  • Support --Aminz 03:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --TruthSpreaderreply 03:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Frotz661 04:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Support with rewrite --I'll try to condense Lewis' position and add the opposing view also. - Merzbow 04:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Reject per Azate. The suggested edit would assign undue weight to a view of one scholar. Beit Or 21:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Using Bat Yeor's definition only is giving undue weight. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 01:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • support per Kirbytime and Aminz. --Striver - talk 11:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I think there are enough already, so its time the edit should be included in the intro.Bless sins 15:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
Bat Ye'or's usage of the term is negative. This can be easily noticed from her writings. The meaning of every word is formed by the context the word is used. To my mind, Lewis, correctly, connects the word to the story of persecution and rejects it altogether. --Aminz 11:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the term is useful if one applies it to the modern day only (as Spencer emphasizes) because the unequal status granted to non-Muslims by Islamic law is offensive to modern morality. As Lewis argues if one tries to apply the term to the past status of dhimmis the negative connotation of 'dhimmitude' really makes no sense since the 'tolerated' status of religious minorities in Islamic lands was frequently better than how they would have been (and were) treated in Christian countries. - Merzbow 00:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

It is Quranic. Read chapter 9, and leave Islam. Arrow740 09:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
Arrow740, Also, please note that wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Aminz 11:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I went too far that time, sorry. Arrow740 23:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)
"Attack them in the manner they attack you" is not reconcilable with "turn the other cheek," sorry. The fact that Muslims murder hundreds of innocent people in the Middle East all the time and Christian Arabs don't should count for something. And it's too damn bad Muhammad tried to a lawgiver because we're stuck with Sharia now. Sharia is an inferior system of government and must be ended. Aurangzeb destroyed tens of thousands of Hindu temples when he imposed it on India. If Muhammad hadn't come around, millions of people would have led fuller, happier, longer lives. So don't talk to me about Muhammad the lawgiver. Arrow740 06:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

[edit] 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.

[edit] "Anti Dhimmitude" - has John Howard actually used this term?

"Notable authors to have have employed the term include Oriana Fallaci, Australian prime minister John Howard, Bat Ye'or and Ayaan Hirsi Ali."

Has John Howard actually used the term "anti-dhimmitude" in his writings or speeches? I can't find any reference to this anywhere. 217.34.39.123 12:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Myth revisited

"..the relevant literature is extensive and includes a fair number of sophisticated case studies... for this reason, the old debate as to whether non-Muslims were generally oppressed under Muslim rule, "second-class" citizens suffering from Islamic fanaticism and oriental despotism, or whether, on the contrary, tolerance was the distinguishing feature of Islam...need not detain us long: neither the "black myth" nor the "white" one does any justice to the complexity of the historical experience, which, unsurprisingly, was characterised by various shades of grey. (Footnote) For the "black myth" see particularly Bat Yeor(1985) and Martin Gilbert (1975). Both have had a marked influence on Western perceptions of the status of Jews in Islam and and are frequently quoted as evidence of deep-rooted Islamic fanatacism, anti-Judaism, and indeed anti-Semitism." Anti-Semitism in the Muslim World: A Critical Review' Krämer, Gudrun; Die Welt des Islams, Volume 46, Number 3, 2006 , pp. 243-276(34). I'm not sure if this can be used in the section on reactions, but it deals with the question of 'myths' directly. Hornplease 20:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pact of Umar

Can someone give sources that suggest this is relevant to this topic?Bless sins (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Read this and the Pact of Umar article. -- Karl Meier (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

Here are three quotes I've removed for lacking any context or assertion of importance. Spencer's is the most objectionable, since he's an author, not a scholar. I've placed them on the talk page for anyone who wants to add them use them appropriately:

Bat Yeor's definition:

"As for the concept of dhimmitude, it represents a behavior dictated by fear (terrorism), pacifism when aggressed, rather than resistance, servility because of cowardice and vulnerability. The origin of this concept is to be found in the condition of the Infidel people who submit to the Islamic rule without fighting in order to avoid the onslaught of jihad. By their peaceful surrender to the Islamic army, they obtained the security for their life, belongings and religion, but they had to accept a condition of inferiority, spoliation and humiliation. As they were forbidden to possess weapons and give testimony against a Muslim, they were put in a position of vulnerability and humility."John W. Whitehead: Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, 5 September 2005

Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, states that

"If we look at the considerable literature available about the position of Jews in the Islamic world, we find two well-established myths. One is the story of a golden age of equality, of mutual respect and cooperation, especially but not exclusively in Moorish Spain; the other is of “dhimmi”-tude, of subservience and persecution and ill treatment. Both are myths. Like many myths, both contain significant elements of truth, and the historic truth is in its usual place, somewhere in the middle between the extremes."Bernard Lewis, 'The New Anti-Semitism', The American Scholar Journal - Volume 75 No. 1 Winter 2006 pp. 25-36.

Robert Spencer author of the The Myth of Islamic Tolerance defines dhimmitude as:

Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, “protected” or “guilty” 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 through violence to restore everywhere in the Islamic world, and wish ultimately to impose on the entire human race. Spencer, Robert: Billboard

--Cúchullain t/c 02:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to delete these quotes. The term Dhimmitude itself is extremely controversial and it is necessary to see how commentators define it. There is no need to whitewash this away. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 21:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

These quotes need to be integrated into the text instead of left as quotes. Also, what is the importance of such quotes.Bless sins (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gemayel

1) Did Gemayel hold that speech in French? Otherwise, it would be not him, but his translator who coined the term. 2) Since his assassination appears to be unrelated to the speech (looks like intra-Christian clan-warfare), the fact that he was assassinated shortly after the speech, and the détour about his killer can be safely omitted, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.211.211.214 (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second class

It is one thing to say that some commentators consider dhimmi to be second class citizens. It is another thing entirely to say that the Arabic root word "dhimmi" denotes "second class". From my research into Arabic dictionaries, I have not found a single citation to support this claim. Perhaps dhimmi connotes "second class" to some people. Since there aren't any sources in the lead to begin with, I don't see how unsources, disputed content can simply be re-added. But let's work things out here on talk and not edit war. Let's start with: how can our readers verify this claim?-Andrew c [talk] 02:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a case of "some commentators" consider dhimmi second class citizens, it's an observation that it is so. You don't need a dictionary definition to come to such a conclusion. While "dhimmi" means "protected" according to dictionaries, you need to consider how the word is actually used. Througout history, people described as "dhimmi" were indeed second class citizens. Copious examples of this can be found by googling for "dhimmi" and "second class". Please point to an example of dhimmi not being on equal footing with Muslims. Frotz (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the alterations. We still need sources for WP:V. The phrase "second class" isn't found anywhere in the dhimmi article, and judging from the lead of that article, I'm a little concerned about the characterization. I've also found Muslim sources which dispute the "second class" claim, but your phrasing "in practice" may help alleviate my concerns there (but that also depends on the source). Please don't get me wrong. I know there are a large number of western sources who have described "dhimmi" as "second class", but I'm not sure if that is the only POV, nor the most defining aspect of dhimmi. I just want to make sure that we are staying neutral, and that we attribute our claims.-Andrew c [talk] 23:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
(part of my comment at Talk:Dhimmi) The term "second-class citizens" is inaccurate as it applies a modern concept to pre-modern times. In modern times, people living in a certain country are considered equal. The countries feel appropriate to discriminate between their citizens and the citizens of the neighboring countries in terms of providing welfare, rights,etc. Back then, the divisions were universally made based on faith. The sensitivity that we today have about equal rights of the minorities didn't exist back, not because people today are more smart but because the conception of the relations was essentially different.
Another problem is the term "Dhimma" which has nothing to do with "Dhimmi" to best of my knowledge. I have made some changes to the article accordingly. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Those changes you made are much more eloquent and encyclopedic than any sort of wrangling with "second-class". Thanks. Frotz (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about your dictionaries, but this is what I found:
1) DHIMMA, the term used to designate the sort of indefinitely renewed contract through which the Muslim community accords hospitality and protection to members of other revealed religions, on condition of their acknowledging the domination of Islam. [...] The measures for Islamization of the state introduced by Abd al-Malik already included, as it turned out, an indirect threat to the dhimmi s; it is, however, to Umar b. Abd al-Aziz that tradition, doubtless partially based on truth, attributes the first discriminatory provisions concerning them. The only other Umayyad of note in this connexion is Yazid II, on a special matter which will be referred to later; thereafter one must come down to Harun al-Rashid, and more especially to al-Mutawakkil, to encounter a policy really hostile to the dhimmi s. But always, through the centuries, the evolution of ideas has shown two aspects at once different and interdependent. On the one hand are the doctrinaires, found mainly among the fukaha and the kadi s, who have interpreted the regulations concerning dhimma in a restrictive way, developing a programme which, if not one of persecution, is at least vexatious and repressive. From time to time a sovereign, either through Islamic zeal or through the need for popularity amongst them, ordains measures to the doctrinaires' satisfaction; sometimes, also, there are outbursts of popular anger against the dhimmi s, which in some cases arose from the places occupied by dhimmi s in the higher ranks of administration, especially that of finance. [...] It cannot be denied that from the last three or four centuries of the Middle Ages there was a general hardening against dhimmi s in Muslim countries, helped materially and morally by the change in numerical proportions. Care was in general taken that nothing in their everyday social comportment might tend to conceal the evidence of their inferiority vis-à-vis Muslims; an attempt was made to embarrass the dhimmi 's trade by regulations, always temporary, against the sale of wine; there was a growing repugnance on the part of certain Muslims to associate with non-Muslims, and their religious buildings were destroyed on various pre-texts; there was a partial exclusion of dhimmi s even from the administrative offices themselves. From this period date also treatises specially written against the dhimmi s (no longer merely religious polemics), to say nothing of chapters inserted in works of fikh. [...] In the West the Almoravids, and even more the Almohads, had adopted, earlier than the East, an intolerant policy, which is partly explained by the suspicions entertained of their Christian subjects of complicity with the Spaniards of the northern kingdoms who were already intent on the Reconquista, although the Jews suffered no less, whence for example the emigration of Maimonides to the East; dhimmi s ceased to be employed in the administration, the distinctive badges reappeared, etc. In the Maghrib there started to appear for the Jews, henceforth the only dhimmi s, special quarters (mallah, hara) which remind one of the European ghetto, and they were authorized to live in certain towns only.[...]
Encyclopedia of Islam, Article "DHIMMA"

2) Protected status which Jews had in Islamic society, being classified as People of the Book. This status entailed the payment of a special tax and the prohibition on missionarizing among Moslems. Jews had to wear distinctive dress and were granted limited rights as second-class citizens, which entailed some discrimination against employing them in government service. The killing of a Jew involved a smaller payment of blood money than the killing of a Moslem. Although their protected status enabled Jews to flourish in the Moslem world, their position was not always secure and they were sometimes forcibly converted to Islam, particularly under Shiite rule. According to a Moslem tradition, Mohammed himself will appear on Judgment Day to accuse those who harm Jews or Christians.
Dictionary of Jewish Lore & Legend, Article "dhimma"

3) Dhimmis under Islam are conquered People of the Book, i.e. with a scriptured religion (viz Jews, Christians and Parsees). They were allowed to keep their places of worship but might not build new ones. They paid a ground rent for any land which they occupied (kharaj) and the men able to bear arms paid jizya, a capitation tax, as well. They were also subject to conditions: the necessary were enforced by outlawry, the desirable less rigorously. The necessary were that they must not revile Islam, attempt to harm, convert or marry a Moslem, assist an enemy or harbour spies: the desirable, that they respect their conquerors by wearing distinctive clothing, by not building houses higher than Moslem houses or mounting horses; that they should not draw attention to their religion, or do in public what is forbidden by Islam but permitted by their religion, namely keeping pigs and drinking wine. A dhimmi could escape this social, religious and fiscal inferiority by converting to Islam and vast numbers did. They were still a social problem in all Moslem areas where power had passed to the British.
Companion to British History, Article "dhimmis" Azate (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the literal meaning of the term dhimma Azate? --Be happy!! (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The ususal translations are "covenant" or "system/pact/treaty of protection/tutelage", or similar. There is no "literal meaning", just as there is no literal meaning for "banana". It's a technical term, if you will. Azate (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. But I am going to remove the second class thing. Please see my comment above. If one can today call foreigner living in another country "second-class citizens" (they are not citizen by definition), then one can apply similar terms to "non believers" living under a government of believers in pre-modern societies(and this will be true when "believer" is replaced by Muslim, Christian, etc etc). But applying such metaphors that are generated in a modern context are deceptive when applied to pre-modern period, as I remember at one place Lewis clarifies this. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I already removed "second class citizen" myself. Ther were no citizens in the present sense then, neither first- nor second class. Also, for your (and everybody else's benefit), you can read the 2 articles DHIMMA from the EI2 here:[4] Azate (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I have read (at least partially) the second article before but not the first. Does EoI have two articles on this? I thought it has only one...Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 05:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW, a technical issue: because of the copyright issues, please blank the page. The information will still be visible in the history. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] since everybody appears to be here...

I'd like to get rid of "Overall, this term refers to the alleged oppression suffered by dhimmis.", bcause the meanings of the term are explained only a couple of inches below; and I'd like to get rid of the "anti-dhimmitude" section, because it's kinda lame. Azate (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I too dislike the addition of "alleged". It runs afoul of WP:AWW. Frotz (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The reason I added alleged was that not everybody agrees with this perspective. One for example is bernard lewis.

"If we look at the considerable literature available about the position of Jews in the Islamic world, we find two well-established myths. One is the story of a golden age of equality, of mutual respect and cooperation, especially but not exclusively in Moorish Spain; the other is of “dhimmi”-tude, of subservience and persecution and ill treatment. Both are myths. Like many myths, both contain significant elements of truth, and the historic truth is in its usual place, somewhere in the middle between the extremes."Bernard Lewis, 'The New Anti-Semitism', The American Scholar Journal - Volume 75 No. 1 Winter 2006 pp. 25-36.

--Be happy!! (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
With "alleged" or without: The sentence is wrong either way. It fails 2 of the 3 uses of the term. I deleted it. And since I was at it, I deleted the Anti-dhimmitude section, too. It was obvious, and delivered no extra value (because it was devoid of content). Azate (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The above quote is much more relevant to Dhimmitude than the one that was in the article. In general, wikipedia is not a collection of opinions. We report the facts and the readers draw their own conclusions. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Defining dhimmitude

Would someone please explain to me why it's a bad idea to define specifically what "dhimmitude" is? Specifically, I re-added the detail along with some edits to make the paragraph flow better. Frotz (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Listen. This footnote you want to re-add constantly DOES NOT define "dhimmitude"! It is part of the "Dhimma" article in EI2". Also Your addition:While this literally means "the state of being protected" is nonsense. You know what literally means, no? Neither dhimmitude nor dhimma does literally mean anything in English. It's a terminus technicus, which needs to be translated non-literally. Azate (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Please understand that when you add the suffix "tude" to a noun foo, that creates a new word with the meaning of "the state of being foo". Please also understand the concept of loanwords. When he coined the word "dhimmitude, Bachir Gemayel took the effective meaning of "dhimmi", that is of "persecution, at least vexatious and repressive", made it French, and applied "tude" to it. This created a new word with the meaning of "the state of being under persecution and repression". That is exactly why I add the "dhimma" reference from EI2. The EI2 describes what it means to be a dhimmi. "Dhimmitude" is a word that means "status of being a dhimmi". Therefore, the EI2 reference is proper. Your dismissal of these terms as jargon strikes me as disingenuous at best. Frotz (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No. Your interpretation covers only one of three current ones. Read the article, the 3 definitions are right there. The EI2 ref (which I introduced, btw.) is proper a propos "dhimma", eveything beyond that is impermissible extrapolation. And, no, "-tude" covers way more ground than only "the state of being foo" (that would be "-ness"): e.g. attitude, latitude. Also note: It's called dhimmitude and not dhimmatude for a reason. Don't mix concepts. Azate (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, "-tude" does cover more ground, but I was addressing how it was being used by Gemayel. Let's look at the three stated definitions one by one.
  • Interview with Bat Yeor: Here "dhimmis" are defined as "non-Muslim subjugated people in Muslim lands". Gemayel's refusal "to live in any dhimmitude" clearly matches this definition.
  • Bernard Lewis on the New Antisemitism: This article also uses "dhimmi" and dhimmitude" to refer to ill-treatment of non-Muslims. The fact the article calls it a myth is beside the point.
  • Dhimmi-watch: Again "dhimmi" is used to describe someone a non-Muslim subjegated. The comparison to "Quisling" seems apt, but I feel uncle tom is more appropriate.
So, here are the three definitions. What are these two others that don't match my interpretation? Frotz (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
They are right in the article!! 1) Yeor, Lewis (maybe Gemayel): Dhimmitude as the experience of dhimmis in a system of dhimma. 2) The French, (maybe Gemayel): Dhimmitude = dhimma 3) The dhimmi-watch definition, (and yes, maybe Gemayel): The behaviour of people (in the west) as if they were dhimmis in a dhimma system, even though they aren't.
The position of Gemayel is vague: Lebanon has no dhimma system, neither legally, nor practically. When G. made that speech, Christians were calling the shots in Lebanon, and had been doing so for a long, long time. He is not speaking about the (his) present, but rather warning about the future. So he fits all 3 categories: He warns about #3 behaviour, because it may lead to a #2 situation in which they would then experience #1. Azate (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
There is only a single, broad definition: subjugation of non-Muslims in a Muslim land. It is exceedingly clear in all three categories that none are concerned with any formal dhimma system. Instead they focus on the societal attitude that non-Muslims ought to be treated poorly. The fact that a system of dhimma exists or does not exist is irrelevant. I must object when you state that Lebanon has no practical dhimma system. That country is now dominated by radicals who terrorise the non-Muslims who didn't flee. That sounds a lot like what Gemayel was talking about. To better understand my assertion of #3, please read uncle tom. Frotz (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

<--- (indent) Tosh! Yeor and Lewis are writing about historical dhimma systems. And you obviously don't know the first thing about today's Lebanon. ("dominated by radicals who terrorise the non-Muslims who didn't flee"). This is patent nonsense. Azate (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If Yeor and Lewis are writing about historical dhimma systems, then why are they mentioned in this article? Why did Yeor use the specific word "dhimmitude"? Again, Gemayel was not talking about dhimma systems, but societal attitudes. All three of these sources are concerned with societal attitudes. Do you dispute this? Lebanon once had a majority of Christians before the Lebanese Civil War. Last time I checked, there is now a majority of Muslims there. I suppose Hezbolla is just a chess club? Frotz (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Q: "If Yeor and Lewis are writing about historical dhimma systems, then why are they mentioned in this article? Why did Yeor use the specific word 'dhimmitude'" A: Because Yeor makes a distinction between dhimma and dhimmitude. As shee sees it, the former encompasses the historical, legal framework for interaction between a ruling muslim class and (mostly christian and jweish) subjects, the latter is the experience and attitude of the (mostly christian an jewish) subjects only and does not even require a formal 'dhimma' framework in place. Yeor writes about both cases. I'm at the loss about what Hezbollah has to do with anything: When Gemayel made that speech, Hezbollah hadn't even been founded yet. This article is about the neologism, and how different people use it in different ways. That all these 3 different ways are all somewhat "concerned with societal attitudes" is pretty banal. What, precisely, do you propose to change in the article's wording? Azate (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
My intended change in the article's wording is 1) to make it flow better and 2) to state that "dhimmitude" refers overall to the poor treatment of non-Muslims in a Muslim state whether by legal sanction, societal attitude, or any other means. My reference to Hezbollah is about who is terrorizing non-Muslims in Lebanon. Frotz (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This is WRONG. When, say, the progressive mayor of Sidney, Australia, is accused of dhimmitude for proposing to introduce women-only beaches for the benefit of local Muslims -- how is he "poorly treated by Muslims in a Muslim state"? Before trying to "make it [the article] flow better" you really should understand what the article is about. (Btw., Read up about Lebanon. Hizbollah and the Christian majority party are in a coalition, and nobody is "terrorizing non-Muslims" there. Hizbollah is terrorizing Israel, with the Christians' tacit approval.) Azate (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Right. In relationship with the mayor of Sydney, that would be meaning number two: acquiessing to demands of Muslims that everyone should change for the benefit of Muslims. So, we have the following:
  • Ill treatment and/or repression by Muslims against non-Muslims.
  • Submission to demands from Muslims to alter the whole of a society or other group for the sole benefit of Muslims.
I'm interested in concrete definitions. What else do we need there? About Hezbollah's terrorizing, who was it who drove Christians out of Lebanon? Can you provide references for Hezbollah acting with the tacit approval of Christians? And please don't use the word "progressive". It has become a much-muddled weasel word and I'd rather not go there. Frotz (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Better. You now got 2 out of 3. the 3rd definition is the first one in the article: It's a subset of dhimma."As for the concept of dhimmitude, it represents a behavior dictated by fear (terrorism), pacifism when aggressed, rather than resistance, servility because of cowardice and vulnerability. The origin of this concept is to be found in the condition of the Infidel people who submit to the Islamic rule without fighting in order to avoid the onslaught of jihad." John W. Whitehead: Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, 5 September 2005. THIS is the definition that Prof. James E. Biechler in the Journal of Ecumenical Studies, means when he calls it "Perhaps the single most significant contribution of the author is her definition and development of the concept of 'dhimmitude'". James E. Biechler, review of The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam in Journal of Ecumenical Studies (Philadelphia). 1985. And you still need reading up about Lebanon...

[edit] What does "Dhimmitude mean?

I just read this article for the first time, because I read the term "dhimmitude" in an article and didn't know what it meant. However, after reading the Wikipedia article, I still don't know what it means. The article is so full of vagueness, weasel words, circumlocutions, and avoidance of being offensive, that it says little. I learned more about what the word means by reading this talk page, which contains a discussion of all the things people deliberately want excluded from the wiki page. So basically, I think this is a poorly worded article, and someone should include a section on why the word is controversial, how people really use it on the street, how its been misquoted, etc. Because right now, the article is really not useful. I'd do the changes myself but since I've only just learned what the word means, I'm not qualified.QuizzicalBee (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Those circumlocutions are precisely what I've been trying to get rid of this past month or so. Frotz (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to second this criticism of the article-- I also just came across this word and wasn't familiar with it, and after reading this article, I have no greater insight into its use in context. What gives? The word is clearly an important political term (I read it in whats generally a pro-GWOT center-right blog, so I assume it's bound to piss off some people-- however, it's still important), but all I get from the article is a poorly organized history of its usage, mostly in languages other than English! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.248.27 (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)