Talk:Dhimmitude/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

Pronunciation

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

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)

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 --TruthSpreader^reply 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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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...

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'll second that. This term is now generally used as an epithet with abandon by certain media outlets today, but the failure to define, much less scrutinize it for cogency is rather glaring. I think the fact that it is used an an epithet should be mentioned. Unlike the comment below, I do not think it is used by solely "pro-GWOT" advocates, as there are plenty who support the principle of the war on terror that respect the right a Muslim to practice their faith in Western society. While some might define the term to mean a kind of contemporary cultural relativism, others use it to denote anyone who would praise a person who happens to be Muslim, or who argues that in the United States, legal statues for the Freedom of Religion should include Muslims. In all honesty, it parallels a general misunderstanding and misuse of other Islamic terms like taqiyya by certain media outlets as well.Jemiljan (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The use you note of applying it to someone who offers praise for a Muslim seems roughly equivalent to uncle tom, which seems apt. This may stem from a growing attitude that freedom of religion should extend only to groups that respect the freedom of religion of others. Islam is typically the target of such accusations. Frotz (talk) 06:56, 9 August 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)

Here, here! 38.112.4.154 (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll fourth it, as if I wasn't already familiar with the word, this article either 1) would not shed any light, or would 2) mislead me and possibly perpetuate myths about, and intolerance towards, Islam; the very word "dhimmitude" is loaded, a loanword that, when borrowed in to English, had its meaning completely changed, and is used solely by anti-Islamic bigots and/or/equal to right-wingers. 75.179.176.190 (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Biased point of view

Two of the three authors quoted (Yeor and Spencer) are anti-Islamic bigots, without the slightest trace of scholarly credentials. At the very least Yeor has been granted some de facto respect merely by speaking loudly enough for a long enough time. However, Spencer, along with his promoter Horowitz, are considered the two most vehemently bigoted American Islamophobes (according to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting); he has not even the merest coating of respectability, other than being shamelessly promoted by other Islamophobes, forming a circular cabal, whereby one is given the responsibility for producing pseudo-intellectual fodder for more public figures, and by them is given a false veneer of scholarship, thereby reinforcing the self-made image as "scholars" or "experts" and furthering the writing and publication of more non-factual, hate-filled rhetoric: this is analogous to me being an Administrator of Wikipedia, and altering facts to suit my side in an argument, and then using the "sources" of the people who have parroted what I myself have written to reference my very own words in order to legitimise them and keep them on Wikipedia. Furthermore, there is a definite lack of neutrality in which "Jihadwatch" - a hate site run by the self-same Robert Spencer, making the analogy of the Wiki Admin spot-on; it is from an interested and biased first-party with no independent verification, regardless of the point of view expressed therein. Bat Yeor's quotations are also questionable in an encyclopedic context, without a note as to her vested interests and vocal opinions on the subject; she is not a neutral third party. The references of the article must be upgraded from a smattering of notoriously Islamophobic ones, to ones from a third party with at least some semblance of neutrality (such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, as mentioned above, or at least quotations through nonbiased third parties, and not ipse dixitism such as Jihadwatch: I could just as easily say, "The Catholic Church is actually Shi'a" and be just as unbiased and "fair", and have as much credibility). The references given for this article are of exceptionally low quality; the references given for R Spencer are from Spencer himself, and therefore must be excised. Below I will list a set of references from no less than five different sources, on Robert Spencer alone (and plenty more can be found; this is essentially Google's first page, and many are secondary sources, except for FAIR, but it will be found, if you look, that they are well-referenced, unlike the current incarnation of this article. At the very least, the overtly-biased nature of some of the contributions must be pointed out within the article itself if those contributions are to remain: otherwise, some unwitting person, uneducated in the subject and using Wikipedia as a primary source (as many do, although it is bad form and discouraged) might see it as truth (and possibly perpetuate the perpetual cultural intolerance cum hatred that seems to so inflame this subject if careful checks and balances are not kept). Finally, the article reads as a slightly veiled "Enemy Within, Willing Dupes of Multiculturalism" conspiracy theory "Call to Arms" anti-Islamic polemic with vitriol substituted by faux scholarship, that I would expect to find in Pat Robertson's mouth (or, oppositely, in the mouths of those Muslims who say that 9/11/2001 is a "Conspiracy carried out by the Bush Administration at the behest of their Jewish Zionist puppet-masters"), not on Wikipedia. Bernard Lewis' quotation is nearer truth, and more importantly, comes from a recognised scholar/expert, and is independent, unbiased, and well-referenced, not a media-proclaimed "expert", proclaimed by the same people touting the opinion that is reinforced by the "expert". Shouldn't the prime claim to scholarship being the author of hate-filled supremacist rhetoric such as "The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran" and "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance" cast a somewhat more critical light on the man? The Wikipedia article on "Liberalism amongst American Jews" shouldn't be composed of quotations of Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, and Sean Hannity, and that's essentially what's being done here.

Links:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3648 http://smearcasting.com/smear_spencer.html http://spencerwatch.com/2010/08/11/robert-spencer-calls-nuke-the-muslims-crazy-lady-a-heroine/ http://smearcasting.com/case_islam.html http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/08/robert-spencer-loonwatch-one-half-of-the-leftist-mooslim-alliance/ http://www.islamophobiatoday.com/2011/03/14/christina-abraham-slams-anti-muslim-bigot-robert-spencer/ http://www.aljazeerah.info/News/2011/January/19%20n/Muslim-Basher%20and%20Islamophobe,%20Robert%20Spencer,%20Trains%20US%20Military%20Personnel%20in%20Kentucky.htm http://spencerwatch.com/about-robert-spencer/ http://spencerwatch.com/2010/08/11/is-robert-spencer-a-scholar-on-spencer%E2%80%99s-credentials-and-methodology/ http://spencerwatch.com/real-scholars-experts-on-islam/

Furthermore, http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/07/robert-spencer-rejected-by-academics-still-supports-geert-wilders/ - I think that (the article, not the link title) sums it all up. Guilt by association!75.179.176.190 (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

14:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

To my mind it looks like you're just coat-racking negative material against them, which violates the spirit of the biographies of living persons policy. Not to mention that most of your sources don't meet the reliable sources criteria. If these individuals are so untrustworthy, why are we mentioning them at all?--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Since "dhimmitude" as a concept occurs most prominently among conservatives, it's not surprising that quotes about it will come from these same people. If you don't like Robert Spencer you could certainly find lots of quotes from e.g. Daniel Pipes. Although he is certainly controversial, he is an academic. Benwing (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I would take a more nuanced view here. First off, the initial person (IP address 75.179.176.190) clearly fails to understand that the term in question is a neologism and used used primarily in contemporary political culture, especially anti-Islamic polemics, as Benwing mentioned. As such, I don't see there being a problem with the inclusion of Ye'or and Spencer, but insofar as they provide examples of usage. Clearly, Bernard Lewis is hardly in agreement with the views of the other two. I would advocate that this section be reformatted and expanded to reflect contemporary usage, definitions of the term by RS scholars, as well as criticism. While I agree that consensus was reached some time ago that Robert Spencer is not an RS source on the Qur'an, I guess I would be OK with his defining a term that he is given over to using with regularity

Regarding Cuchullain's point, I fail to understand how the WP:BLP policy applies here, considering this is not a BLP at all, but simply the discussion of a term. Finally, I agree with Benwing's suggestion that Pipes might be a more reliable source for a definition than Spencer, though his role as an academic has evolved something more of an "anacademic" in recent years, to coin a neologism myself.Jemiljan (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.155.60 (talk) 07:51, November 28, 2006 (UTC)

Article is about dhimmitude, not dhimmi

This article is about the neologism dhimmitude, not about the historical concept of dhimmi. If you have something to add to the historical concept of dhimmi, please to go to dhimmi. Not here.

This source for example is not discussing dhimmitude. So the sentence "In modern usage, dhimmitude refers to discrimination against non-Muslims, particularly in regions where a majority of the residents are Muslim" is not supported by the source.VR _talk 13:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Unifying second and third leading paragraphs

It seems to me that the second and third paragraphs in the lead say pretty much the same thing. I think they ought to be unified. In particular, the second (final) sentence in the third looks a little weird. The first sentence is "In modern usage, dhimmitude refers to discrimination against non-Muslims[1] particularly in regions where a majority of the residents are Muslim." and then the second "It also refers to discrimination of Jews and treating them like second class citizens." Is the second sentence really necessary? The cite that went along with it is just fine. -- Frotz(talk) 10:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem that this statement is disputed so I added bunch of scholarly references if you want to rephrase it differently I have no objection--Shrike (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the first sentence take care of that given that a set containing all Jews is a subset of a set containing all non-Muslims? -- Frotz(talk) 10:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The encyclopedia talk specifically about Jews but other sources talk in general for example from "Negating the Legacy of Jihad in Palestine"

Collectively, these ‘obligations’ formed the discriminatory system of dhimmitude imposed upon non-Muslims—Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists—subjugated by jihad.

--Shrike (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Is Bostom a reliable source?

Andrew Bostom is not a reliable source. Can you give the quote from "Anti-Semitism in the Arab World", Encyclopedia of Race and Racism? VR _talk 12:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Bostom was printed is scholary journal by scholarly press house--Shrike (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

From the encyclopedia

Manifestations of anti-Semitism erupted in the Arab world during the late twentieth century. However, discrimination against Jews has relegated them to second-class status under Arab hegemony (“dhimmitude”) since the successful uniting of the tribes in the Arabian peninsula by Muhammad (570–632) in the sixth century.

Thanks for the quote. I wanted to confirm it was the same one I found here.

A look at Bostom's article shows that it too contains the same Islam-bashing as is characteristic of other articles authored by Bostom. Bostom is a pretty questionable source, because of his articles contain a high level of Islamophobia.VR _talk 15:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem to cite a policy which advises cautious use of publications "widely acknowledged as extremist", something you have not proven about Bostom's writings. In addition, Wikipedia's policy on living persons applies to talk pages. Your unfounded description[5] of Bostom as having "strongly Islamophobic views" and of being "characteristic[ly]" "Islam-bashing" is seriously defamatory, and you should retract it. Shrigley (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have edited my comments to critique Bostom's works, not Bostom himself. A previous discussion showed a consensus against using Bostom as a source. We can go back to WP:RSN if you wish.VR _talk 15:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, RSN makes it clear that it offers second opinions, and that its answers are not official policy. Although some editors want official judgments that "this source is "un/acceptable for use all the time", RSN regulars will tell them that the reliability of the source depends on context and what claim it is being used to cite. Second, the relevant guideline is WP:SELFCITE, because we are citing Bostom not on Islamic history, which was the topic on the RSN discussion, but on his own use of the word "Dhimmitude". This is one of the permitted uses of "questionable sources" and non-experts. So, although Bostom is a topical expert and you haven't proven that his works are "extremist", it wouldn't matter for this article if they were. Shrigley (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Bostom's "topical expert[ise]" is related to biology/medicine. Whereas talking about historical status of non-Muslims in Muslim societies requires expertise in Islamic history, Jewish history etc.VR _talk 20:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I could be misunderstanding this policy, but isn't WP:SELFCITE applicable only to wikipedia users who are citing themselves in the articles? Are you Andrew Bostom?VR _talk 21:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I meant WP:SELFPUB, which is actually a policy, not a guideline (even stronger). The principle remains that this argument about whether Bostom is an expert or not is moot. He is being cited on his own usage of the word. Shrigley (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB says "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source". So you can't use it to make claims about Islamic history. Also, you gotta attribute (i.e. "Bostom says..."). Finally, they should primarily be used in their own articles. I have nor problem moving the citation to Andrew Bostom.VR _talk 00:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This a moot dispute there are plenty of scholars that tell a same thing for example [6] This scholarly article says the following:

In Islam, freedom of faith conceded to others applies only to Jews and Christians, but it is a limited freedom and

attached to the lower legal status of dhimmitude, or believers viewed as inferior to Muslims. By modern legal standards this is a violation of the human rights-based freedom of faith, rather than a variety of tolerance as commonly seen

--Shrike (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Saying the same thing as a another reliable source, doesn't make a source reliable. If you have other reliable sources, then use them instead of the unreliable one.

Note that your above link displays only the abstract and not the quote you have written here.VR _talk 20:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem I will use this source too.The quote is contained in full version of the article.--Shrike (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, I would like to cooperate with you. Saying you will use this source "too" is just unfair. I recognize that some of the sources you are using are reliable, and I support their inclusion. In return, I want you to refrain from using the unreliable sources.VR _talk 23:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Criticism in the lede

Criticsm of the term belongs in the lede, as the lede is to reflect the overall views of the subject. The Lewis views should not be removed from the lede, nor should they be misrepresented. Lewis clearly calls it the neologism a "myth", so we're essentially representing his views on wikipedia.VR _talk 15:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Lewis does not call Dhimmitude a "myth" in the way that you have treated Dhimmitude,[7][8] where "myth" means "completely baseless fantasy". His use of the word myth seems to be more academic and nuanced, where the word describes a narrative that is crafted to teach some contemporary moral. He definitely does not say that allegations of "Dhimmitude" are groundless, so our plucking of the word "myth" out of context is a distortion of Lewis's words. I attempted to include Lewis's criticism in the lead - which is what you wanted - while crafting a balance between brevity and misrepresentation. If we cannot maintain this balance, then it is better not to include him in the lead paragraph at all. Shrigley (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to propose wording that would call dhimmitude a "myth" in an academic way, I'm all ears. But please don't remove the word.

You're right that it doesn't belong in the first paragraph. Looking at Israel and the apartheid analogy, another ridiculous neologism, we should dedicate the first paragraph on explaining the neologism, and the second paragraph can discuss the criticism.VR _talk 20:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the word "myth" as it appears in the source. If you can find another way of using that, without white-washing what Lewis says, go right ahead. I've also moved the criticism out of the leading paragraph.VR _talk 23:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Protection needed?

This article has been the subject of a complaint at WP:AN3. Evidently some reverting is still going on. How would people feel about two weeks of full protection? If that seems too drastic, would the people who have reverted in the last 48 hours be willing to consider waiting for consensus on the talk page? I see that there was some discussion, but I don't see people waiting for support before they revert. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Much of the heat appears to have been quelled by the actions of Shrike bringing forth new reference material. I have a question going in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎ on a reliability question. Two weeks protection would be a bit too drastic. There doesn't appear to be too much rancor going on now that Altetendekrabbe seems to have cooled off. -- Frotz(talk) 02:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually its Frotz who made 5 reverts in a span of 24 hours to the article. The "heat" will be "quelled" when users learn to talk on this page instead of just revert all the time.VR _talk 04:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Low-quality source?

Is this source reliable? Maybe. The website is run by National Civic Council, a socially conservative political movement. It doesn't seem scholarly at all. But it is not questionable like Bostom.

Low-quality sources are acceptable, but I'm worried that once we allow them, the article could be flooded with references to dhimmitude from all over the internet.VR _talk 21:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

There shouldn't be much to fear from being flooded by a laundry list of references as long as we limit the list to the top five or so most meaningful ones and not introducing any new ones unless there's something profoundly new being said. -- Frotz(talk) 02:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Define "top" in "top five". Top is terms of quality of source?VR _talk 04:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Top five of "low quality" tempered with uniqueness of the content. Something not being scholarly shouldn't disqualify it. For instance, a source more interested in news, even if politically biased, can be a valid source because they more frequently talk about how a term is actually used by Joe Blow. -- Frotz(talk) 21:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no objective way of determining "uniqueness", nor does any wikipedia policy refer to it. On the other hand, we can judge the reliability of a source, and WP:V regards reliability as a good thing. Scholarly sources are usually not written by Joe Blows.VR _talk 15:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

How about some sort of measure of notability? Something important to remember is that the Joe Blows are the force behind the evolution of language, not scholars. That why Latin turned into the Romance languages while Latin proper stayed the domain of scholars. Suppose we give more weight to the people who's usage of the term has become the most popular. -- Frotz(talk) 02:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources coupling dhimmitude with discrimination

Some people want secondary sources that couple dhimmitude with discrimination. Here are some:

• [9]
• [10] This one is particularly interesting because it comes from an islamic perspective.
• [11]
• [12]
• [13] A book.
• [14]
• [15]

I will add these references to the article shortly.

-- Frotz(talk) 21:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand [16] this revert. These sources appear reliable for their use here: Mark Durie, for example, is a scholar of comparative theology. The Jewish Virtual Library, we might want to treat with more caution, because it is a tertiary source. However, Robert Spencer has a master's in religious studies and is a widely published author on Islam. It isn't clear what criteria Altetendekrabbe will accept for inclusion of the discrimination sidebar. Just because something is "controversial" does not mean that it should be removed.

Also, bear in mind that the core contention behind the term - that there was systemic discrimination against non-Muslims in Muslim lands - is not clearly refuted to the extent that it isn't controversial; in other words, "Dhimmitude" is not a fringe view. The criticism of this term seems to be that its use for modern-day policy debates is "Islamophobic", but this criticism does not address the issue of whether treatment of Dhimmis was discrimination. Finally, the threatening tone ("if you dare") is not helpful. I have restored the sidebar. Shrigley (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

none of these sources are reliable. you cannot use wikipedia to claim that spencer or durie are reliable. take it to rs/n if you don't believe me.-- altetendekrabbe  22:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe you that these authors may be considered reliable or unreliable depending on context, such as whether they are writing in their area of expertise. However, we are using them to source their own views and usage of the term, rather than to make authoritative statements about history (which in any case they would appear to be qualified to make). However, claims of discrimination are by their nature subjective: as there are people who deny Dhimmitude, there are people who deny that gay bashing exists (in fact, there is probably overlap between the two groups). Yet the article on gay bashing has the discrimination sidebar. Because you don't offer any policy-based rationale for removing the sidebar, substituting insults[17] ("blatant tag-teaming", "moronic sources") for any attempt to compromise, you are in no position to continue reverting, and I advise you to stop edit-warring immediately. Shrigley (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of the above sources are unreliable. If we are using them to source their own views, then we should use these sources in their own articles.

Note that I have offered a rationale for removing the sidebar. That is that dhimmitude is a controversial concept, not a fact.VR _talk 14:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It is important to remember that the word "dhimmitude" was coined to describe an otherwise unnamed or poorly-described phenomenon. I have a hard time believing that dhimmitude cannot be a fact when it's very clearly demonstrable that the aformentioned phenomenon does in fact exist. -- Frotz(talk) 22:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Mark Durie and his book "The Third Choice: Islam, dhimmitude and freedom" don't show any reliability. The author is a not a historian, nor employed to teach history or a similar subject at a university. Deror books isn't an academic publisher. If Frotz, or anyone else, wants to use Durie, the onus is on them to show the reliability of Durie.VR _talk 14:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I already provided scholarly source for this claim--Shrike (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The source you provided can stay. But Durie must go.VR _talk 12:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

A tag questioning Durie's reliability was removed without explanation. Can users please discuss their edits on the talk page?VR _talk 21:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup POV stuff commentary

With regard to this [18]. First, I think it's pretty obvious to any outside observer that Frotz, Estlandia and a few others are tag teaming. But no, I am not - I just noticed these articles and saw the nonsense that's going on. So don't make unsupported accusations. Second, the burden of proof is actually on those who want to *add* contentious material - especially if its based on dubious sources - hence, if the discussion is on going, then default should be "remove".VolunteerMarek 16:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you did not “just notice these articles” but found them whilst willfully stalking my edits [19], [20], with the aim of flaming a new edit war. You are following my edits to revert them or oppose me, today seen here [21] - [22]. Antagonizing me is all you're really up to in Islam-related articles. Hounding is a serious offense. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 16:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Give me a fucking break. You're very obviously tag-teaming with several other users and you have the chutzpah of accusing me stalking you? That really takes some gall. I noticed these articles because of the discussion on Malik Shabazz's talk page (which I have on my watchlist). Seriously, drop the nonsense, it's pretty transparent.

As to Anton Maegerle (where I simply asked a question on the talk page), you might remember a little conversation we had with regard to your recommendation of folks like Carl O. Nordling as "good reading" (for those following along, Nordling praised the work of Holocaust deniers like Robert_Faurisson - some of your new found teammates might want to look into that) [23]. Obviously I have had Maegerle on my watchlist since at least then if not earlier. Since you were apparently accusing me of using Maegerle as a source almost exactly a year ago, (though I can't remember where I supposedly did that) you damn well know that, so your protestations that I'm stalking your edits are plain ol' bad faithed bullshit.VolunteerMarek 17:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What dubious source we talking about.I didn't found in reference dubious sources--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Durie.VolunteerMarek 17:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Durie is not cited but rather WP:RS about his book.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not an RS but rather a (very hysterical) opinion piece. Opinion pieces are not RS. The last sentence in that section reads like a total copyvio though I don't have access to that source. At any rate, it uses Wikipedia voice to present a person's opinion as fact.VolunteerMarek 17:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The first source is a book review in respectable Journal so its WP:RS in general scholary sources don't need an attribution but we can add it if you insist on this.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same thing? What review in what respectable Journal? Or are you talking about Reviews in Religion & Theology, which would be a journal? Do you have access to this article? VolunteerMarek 18:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There are two sources about the book both came from scholars and yes I have access to them.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The first source is essentially a hysterical opinion piece. As far as the second source goes, could you email it to me? VolunteerMarek 18:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you come to such stange conclusion this book review written in Australian journal by academic[24] so its WP:RS.Email me and then I will send it to you.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek had zero edits to Dhimmi before reverting the changes exactly three hours after my edit. And of course he has no edits to Anton Maegerle so his all story ('had this in my watchlist long time ago') has obviously been made up. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 17:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What is made up? That I've used Maegerle before as a source? I don't know, that was what you said a year ago. And it was about a year ago that we discussed Maegerle on your talk page. Or is the part about you recommending Nordling's article in a Holocaust denial journal made up? No, that's pretty well documented as well.

Or am I making it up that I saw a discussion about the article Dhimmi on Malik's talk page? Hmmm. I guess I could make it up, but you know very well that I have Malik's page watchlisted as I've conversed with him many times in the past.

And let me ask you this - have you ever made edits to an article that previously you had zero edits on? Somehow I'm guessing the answer is "yes".

So what is it that I made up? Me thinks you're making up the fact that I made anything up, basically to draw attention away from your own tag teaming.VolunteerMarek 17:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Both of you please take it elsewere--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Pure nonsense. You had never ever edited the page on Anton Maegerle until today, no-one will count your previous supposed use of him as a source (whilst you where then (ZFI) merely reverting to the changes of a disturing sock puppeteering troll). You don't know who Maegerle is, you don't know much about dhimmi, you had zero previous edits to it until you took to revert my edits, you showed up here just to revert me in tandem with a disruptive user - that's what I call tag-teaming. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 17:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What is pure nonsense? That I've used Maegerle before as a source? I don't know, that was what you said a year ago. And it was about a year ago that we discussed Maegerle on your talk page. Or is the part about you recommending Nordling's article in a Holocaust denial journal made up? No, that's pretty well documented as well.

Or is it nonsense that I saw a discussion about the article Dhimmi on Malik's talk page? Hmmm. I guess it could be nonsense, but you know very well that I have Malik's page watchlisted as I've conversed with him many times in the past.

And let me ask you this - have you ever made edits to an article that previously you had zero edits on? Somehow I'm guessing the answer is "yes".

So what is it that is nonsense? Me thinks you're just calling stuff nonsense that isn't, basically to draw attention away from your own tag teaming.

And oh yeah, how exactly do you know that I "don't know much about dhimmi"? You can read my mind and see what's on my bookshelf or something? Please.

VolunteerMarek 17:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to let you derail what was so far a civil discussion on what to do about the POV objections. Therefore I'm splitting this chunk of text off into its own subsection. Please hold off editing until we have an actual agreement to make a change before you go off and possibly sabotage something. -- Frotz(talk) 18:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

step forwards

frotz removed durie [25] which is huge step forwards. before that shrike wisely removed kopel as well, introducing bassam tibi. i dunno anything about tibi but i'll fetch a copy of the article and review it later. now, for the perlmutter source. as far as i can see the poor guy is misrepresented. he mentions the word "dhimmitude" *only once* amongst a bunch of neologisms that he apparently is *critical* of. he does not treat the term "dhimmitude" at all, nor does he give any source of its origin. the fact is: "dhimmitude" is mentioned randomly in an article that is skeptical about how different groups use their minority status to achieve political goals and similar subjects. he concludes by stating,

in short, while the country was more and more accepting of minorities and immigrants, the conceptual bases of prejudice and discrimination and the ways of ending bigotry and socio-economic group disparities were also changing – in the name of multiculturalism and diversity – and giving rise to new forms of intergroup misunderstandings, conflicts, and, yes, prejudices, chiefly over affirmative action, proportional representation, and group conscious justice.

to use this particular perlmutter source here is quite misleading on several grounds. the most important being that perlmutter is not interested in discussing "dhimmitude" at all.-- altetendekrabbe  13:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on the quote you put up there, it's quite clear that Perlmutter was talking about discrimination. How about quoting the section where he mentions dhimmitude? So what if he thinks of the people who use the word "dhimmitude" as playing a trump similar to the race card? The fact is that there is a connection. I'd rather see the whole article instead of taking your word for it. -- Frotz(talk) 13:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

well, not quite. he *really* does not give a damn about "dhimmitude". he mentions it because it's a neologism. if it's controversial or not, neutral or not, mainstream or not, he frankly doesn't seem to care. he mentions it in a list of neologisms in one paragraph. that's all. these has nothing to do with the main topic of his paper. anyway, i'll send a copy to a neutral editor.-- altetendekrabbe  13:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I have obtained a copy of the text. Here is where he mentions dhimmitude:

New words were coined to describe the particular fears, ... dhimmitude (discrimination and repression of non-Muslims by Muslim societies), heightism (against short people), ...

The deleted portions of that paragraph contain nothing more than a list of other isms and phobias. Going over that and the article as a whole, I see no evidence that he regarded that list with skepticism or indifference. The phrase "dhimmitude (discrimination and repression of non-Muslims by Muslim societies)" is all I need. -- Frotz(talk) 14:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

have to disagree. see my comments above. you cannot use this paper here, or in an article about heightism or whatever. this is not what is treated by perlmutter.-- altetendekrabbe  14:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

just noted that sidney h. griffith has another definition of the term. the article has to distinguish between the bat ye'orian definition and other definitions. perlmutter clearly uses bat ye'or's definition. rather to use perlmutter which is quite misleading, it's better to use bat ye'or as a source in the lead. in addition, cohen's and lewis' harsh criticism target bat ye'or as well. -- altetendekrabbe  16:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional sources were already brought.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Tibi, Bassam (April 2008). "The Return of the Sacred to Politics as a Constitutional Law The Case of the Shari'atization of Politics in Islamic Civilization". Theoria.

• "Anti-Semitism in the Arab World". Encyclopedia of Race and Racism. Gale Group.

• Sidney H. Griffith (2010). The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691146284.

as i pointed out, griffith has another, more general definition, of "dhimmitude". one that does not relate directly to discrimination. now, can you please clearify how tibi defines "dhimmitude"?-- altetendekrabbe  19:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what your problem with Perlmutter is. He very clearly and succinctly defined dhimmitude as discrimination. -- Frotz(talk) 20:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

no, *he did not define anything*. he only uses bat ye'or's definition of the term, *and* he mentions it *randomly* in a list filled with several other neologisms. he does not discuss or treat the term (if it's controversial or not, mainstream or not, reliable or not and so on). it's quite dishonest to use perlmutter to define "dhimmitude". however, i found a book review by griffith. he discusses bat ye'or's use and definition of the term.-- altetendekrabbe  23:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

the text now distinguishes between the different definitions and uses of the term. bat ye'or's definition relates the term to discrimination, bernard lewis' to a myth, griffith's to the social conditions of dhimmis, and cohen's/fekete's/færseth's to islamophobia. if bat ye'or's definition warrants a discrimination bar then what about cohen's definition of the term? surely, if the discrimination-bar is warranted then the islamophobia-bar is justified as well. the npov is preserved either by removing the discrimination bar, or by adding the islamophobia-bar.-- altetendekrabbe  10:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A problem: Bachir Gemayel was the first person to define and use "dhimmitude". Bat Yeor expanded on this. Cohen, Fekete, and Faerseth did not make independent definitions, but instead criticized Bat Yeor's definition. Can you provide me with a copy of Cohen paper so I can see for myself? -- Frotz(talk) 00:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

it was bat ye'or who lectured gemayel about "dhimmitude", according to herself. regarding cohen: i didn't add him so i don't have that paper. i can try to trace it up. or, even better: ask the editor who inserted cohen into the text. on the other hand, there are planty of sources linking "dhimmitude" to bat ye'or's conspiracy theories. -- altetendekrabbe  00:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we stop badmouthing Bat Ye'or already? The way you use the word "conspiracy theory" implies that what she has to say is false. Why is that? -- Frotz(talk) 01:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(As far as I know) this is second time (with "The notion that Eurabia is false is nowhere near being universally accepted. The term "conspiracy theory" is a loaded term that implies falsehood and therefore is POV." in Talk:Eurabia) that you seem to imply that Bat Ye'or's eurabian thesis are not false. Could you explain yourself about that (but not here, rather in Talk:Eurabia)? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I already provided quote from relevant sources and that what the say.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

you are misrepresenting the sources, especially tibi and perlmutter. you removed griffith's definition of the term. suggest you revert yourself.-- altetendekrabbe  11:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

please show how?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Also I didn't removed anything Grifith its still present I only restored sourced information that you deleted--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

you removed *his definition of the term*! you removed content that is *relevant* to this article. the subject here is "dhimmitude" and not "dhimmi". again revert yourself.-- altetendekrabbe  12:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What line or wording you want me to add?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

my version clearly distinguishes between the different versions of the term. it does not misuse/misrepresent perlmutter and tibi (see the discussion above). it's not about a single line. revert back to my version.-- altetendekrabbe  12:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You deleted perlmutter and tibi and failed to prove that they were misrepresented.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

i have both tibi and perlmutter, and yes, they are misrepresented/misused. i found a better source, a book review by griffith which discusses bat ye'or's use and deinition of the term. you removed this much more relevant source which discusses the term thoroughly. why? instead you added perlmutter who only mentions the term *randomly* in a list filled with several other neologisms...once! he does not discuss or treat the term (if it's controversial or not, mainstream or not, reliable or not and so on). it's quite dishonest to use perlmutter to define "dhimmitude". now, a question: how does tibi define "dhimmitude"?-- altetendekrabbe  12:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't removed anything but again what lines are missing in the article?It was already explained to you that perlmutter describe it as discrimination that more then enough.Please look above I have brought tibi quote from the article.And how do you know its misrepresnted if you even didn't checked the source?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok I have restored this line.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

On going tag team edit warring

Ok, this is really becoming obnoxious and a problem. The same three users are still tag-team reverting:

Frotz

Estlandia

Shrike

You guys are even doing it in the exact same order every time. And on top of that this is just blind reverting, without discussion, and it includes reverting completely innocuous edits like correcting the tense of a verb ("claim" to "claimed"). It appears to be just reverting for reverting sake, or perhaps, as a bad faithed attempt to bait a user into breaking 3RR.

Since you were already warned by an administrator over this behavior (User:Future Perfect at Sunrise) at WP:3RR, this has reached a point where sanctions should be considered.

As to the content of the dispute, there really is no need to have two different definitions of the term.VolunteerMarek 11:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

they are also misrepresenting and/or misusing the sources, making the matter worse.-- altetendekrabbe  11:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You and user:altetendekrabbe trying to censor relevant information with your edits from the article.There are no consensus for your edit, information is supported by high quality sources.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

you *clearly* don't have a clue. why didn't you take a look at my version before you reverted it? what fucking relevant information did i sensor? (i also provided better a source (griffith), and i added his definition of the term as well.) this just proves that you're involved in blind reverts and tag-teaming.-- altetendekrabbe  11:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

When users are behaving badly and are gaming Wikipedia rules, it's pretty much impossible not to comment on editors. Your comment that "(you're) trying to censor relevant information" (whenever someone crises "censorship!" on a talk page, it's a pretty good bet they're POV-pushing and using "censorship!" as a cover) is itself a comment on editors. So either engage in discussion and drop that obstinate little template, or stop blind reverting and tag teaming.VolunteerMarek 12:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I comment on edits only if you want comment on editors there are relevant board to rise your concern but please be aware of WP:BOOMERANG--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually you don't. You just use that little template when you're called on your nonsense as a way of avoiding discussion. Not very good faithed of you.VolunteerMarek 22:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Biechler quotation removed

I've removed the following statement, which stood in the article with a defective reference for a long time:

The term was used in English as early as 1985 in a book review by Prof. James E. Biechler in the Journal of Ecumenical Studies, in which he praised Ye'or's work, commenting that "Perhaps the single most significant contribution of the author is her definition and development of the concept of 'dhimmitude'".<ref>James E. Biechler, review of The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam in Journal of Ecumenical Studies (Philadelphia). 1985?</ref>

This quotation is wrong. Biechler wrote those words, but apparently he didn't write them in 1985. They are from his 1998 review of Ye'or's 1996 book The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam, not from his review of her earlier book The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam (which, moreover, he reviewed in 1988, not in 1985).[26] Given the fact that the person who added the quotation evidently didn't look up the original review – or why else the question mark behind the reference? – I suppose he took it from the publisher's blurb on the back of a later reprint of the first book [27], which might explain the confusion.

I could have just fixed the reference, but since the whole point of the sentence seemed to be the statement about the early use in 1985, I thought it better to remove it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

there are other sources that are being misused as well.-- altetendekrabbe  21:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Likewise for the Perlmutter source, which altetendkrabbe sent to me (I asked him for it), and which, of course, I'll gladly sent to anyone else who wants it - the whole Perlmutter article is about something else (how prejudice has changed in the recent years) and "dhimmitude" is mentioned only once and in passing, in a context which does not support how the term is being used in this article. Perlmutter does not even indicate that he agrees with the usage. There really is no reason to have that source in the article.VolunteerMarek 22:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

i can provide tibi as well.-- altetendekrabbe  22:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think that Perlmutter would have said so if he disagreed with the definition? -- Frotz(talk) 22:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Perlmutter doesn't even discuss the term.VolunteerMarek 22:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

He described the term using the common definition. That's all that's needed. -- Frotz(talk) 22:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No he didn't. And that source is not even closely about the term. Again, if anyone wants to check I'll send them the source. It's just a trick you've guys (the tag-team team) been pulling here.VolunteerMarek 22:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I already have the source. Stop it with this constant seeing of bogeymen and conspiracies where there aren't any. -- Frotz(talk) 22:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe at this point I should go with Shrike's tactic:

"Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content."

But I won't. So. Since you already have the source, I know that you know that the source has nothing to do with dhimmitude. So why are you insisting on including it in the article?VolunteerMarek 22:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

i have removed perlmutter and the tertiary source, as per the comment below. i didn't remove the line where perlmutter and the tertiary source were used. hence, no content is removed. however, in my opinion, tibi is being misused as well. i have also moved griffith, who discusses the bat ye'or's definition thoroughly, into the lead. thus, i removed bar ye'or's (un-sourced) definition from the first line of the lead, making it clear that the neologism has several distinct meanings.-- altetendekrabbe  23:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm an editor whose involvement was solicited on the basis that I spend most of my time dealing with reliability and sourcing issues. One thing I can see from the above, is that some editor in the past did not actually read sources they cited, in particular they did not say where they got the material, ie: they didn't cite the book jacket or online amazon blurb. In relation to sources which mention the topic in passing and do not substantially discuss the topic, these sources should probably not be used. (Substantive can be small, a paragraph in an introduction to the theoretical terrain can be substantive, but using the word in passing isn't). While I'd be happy to look over sources, I'm not available until Monday my time for that due to a conference. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

exactly.-- altetendekrabbe  23:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

improvements

the latest edits of user frotz are indeed an improvement, so much so that i removed the npov-warning-tag. i have also removed the misrepresentation of tibi by quoting him (page 98), re-arranged the lead a little (two sentences changing place, and pointing out the original definition of the term). the sources and their correct representation are now in order. my question regarding the discrimination-bar remains: if we allow the bar due to bat ye'or's definition of the term, then what about other definitions and criticisms? we could easily add the islamophobia-bar, political myth-bar (if it exists), conspiracy-bar and so and so forth. it seems that the term has many more meanings not covered yet.-- altetendekrabbe  10:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not have a side-bar-o-rama going on here. Let's just stick with the discrimination one because that is the primary subject. I'm glad that we came to a friendly agreement for this article. I'm also glad you took my recent rearrangement so well. Thank you for the little tweaks and adjustments. -- Frotz(talk) 11:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

user shrike is now desperately trying to destroy the latest improvements by desperate edit warring. shrike's involvement on this article has been disruptive from the very beginning. misuse/misrepresentation of sources, sporadically tag-teaming with estlandia and so on. if this continues i'm afraid that an administrator action is needed.-- altetendekrabbe  10:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The crux Shrike's objection appears to be the inclusion of Anders Breivik's usage of the word. I agree with his view that it may be coatracking. At the very least, that paragraph should go in the criticism section and make mention of who was actually talking about Breivik's manifesto. -- Frotz(talk) 11:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, hold up, there's two separate issues here. One is Brevik's use of the term and the other is the side bar.

With regard to the first one, the source appears to be RS. So the question, as with other sources, is whether it just mentions Brevik's use in passing or does it actually use it in context.

With regard to the side bar. I think Altetendekrabbe is correct that the inclusion of the discrimination sidebar is somewhat gratuitous and pov, and that if we include that sidebar we should also include the "islamophobia" side bar and the "myths" sidebar (is there one?). The inclusion of the discrimination side bar is obvious pov because, in sources, the term is described as faulty, insulting, neologism reflecting anti-Muslim sentiment more often than it is described as a proper word reflecting discrimination towards non-Muslims. If anything the "islamophobia" side bar makes more sense then the "discrimination" one.VolunteerMarek 11:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward

I have collected most of the sources that is used in the article [28] anyone can view them. There are several points I want to make.

• Brevik - The Dhimmitude only mentioned in scarce.[29].Should it be used in the article.
• Perlmutter -The Dhimmitude only mentioned in scarce.[30].Should his definition be used in the article.
• Tibi - how the best to present what tibi wrote? [31]
• Encyclopedia of Race and Racism- I think their definition should be re-introduced [32] as they talk about dhimmitude quite specifically.
• Durie book - dhimmitude the main topic of and is discussed in two sources [33], [34] probably should be reintroduced in to the article as it relevant

Grifith have whole chapter about this [35] should be introduced in to the article. --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup POV stuff

In the interest of cleaning up this article and removing the {{npov}} tag, let's discuss what is still non-neutral about this article. -- Frotz(talk) 22:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

the sources used to justify the discrimination bar either fail wp:rs or are misrepresented. let start with mark durie. according to the conclusion at the rs/n you need to provide evidence that durie has "published elsewhere on this subject with academic publishers or in peer-reviewed journals, and that other scholars of the subject take his work seriously."[36] durie has no such academic publications on the subjects. hence, durie has to go before this discussion can proceed.-- altetendekrabbe  09:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I already provided scholarly sources--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

i will take care of your sources and how you used them later. first, durie has to go.-- altetendekrabbe  09:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's start from the top of the article. It looks like two journal articles, neither by Durie, are being used to justify the discrimination label. One of these is by Phillip Perlmutter and the other is by David Kopel in the George Mason Civil Rights Journal. I noticed on your talk page that you said you have obtained a copy of the Permutter article. Are you able to share its text with us? In any case, I will see if I can read them at the local university library. Durie doesn't appear until much later in the article. Given the two aforementioned articles are from traditional scholarly journals, I expect there will not be a problem in accepting them as reliable. -- Frotz(talk) 10:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

first, durie should be removed from the text. it failed at the rs/n. then i'll go through the kopel.-- altetendekrabbe  10:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

He is reliable on his own views.And his view is notable enough as it reported by WP:RS--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

How much of the article relies on Durie's writings? -- Frotz(talk) 10:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

he *failed* at rs/n. durie and others ruin wp:balance and wp:npov. if he stays the npov-tag stays as well.-- altetendekrabbe  11:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that, at least not yet. I just want to know how much of the article depends on what Durie wrote? Knowing that can tell us how much mucking about we'll have to do. I don't believe we need to rely upon him for the lead paragraph or for the notion that dhimmitude is a form of discrimination. Can you share with us Perlmutter's article? -- Frotz(talk) 11:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

perlmutter is misrepresented. he mentions the word "dhimmitude" *only once* amongst a bunch of neologisms that he apparently is *critical* of. he does not treat the term "dhimmitude" at all, nor does he give any source of its origin. the fact is: "dhimmitude" is mentioned RANDOMLY in a paragraph. to use perlmutter as source here is a product of either extreme editorial incompetence or outright misrepresentation in order to push a pov. i will send a copy to proper editors when i'll take the person who included and misrepresented perlmutter to an appropriate noticeboard. now, are you going to remove durie or not?-- altetendekrabbe  11:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I want to see for myself what Perlmutter and Kopel had to say. It looks like I'll have to wait until Monday to get to the library because it's closed Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays during the summer. I generally agree with you that Durie should be removed, but I do not agree with removing the connection between dhimmitude and discrimination. The connection is obvious. A scholar saying that would suffice. Something like a newspaper or news magazine article saying it would also suffice. -- Frotz(talk) 12:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone here claim that he not reliable to his own views?And we don't cite him anyhow but we cite the book review are you saying that book review is not correct?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I have added another book review from scholarly source.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

i've removed durie as he clearly fails wp:rs. deville's defence of durie does not belong in this article either, and constitutes wp:coatrack. i'm pretty sure there are zillions of others who either ignore or dismiss durie as a loon (his nonsensical allegations about "widespread capitulation to muslim demands" and so on are pretty idiotic). he is controversial and cannot in any sense provide a npov on the subject. clearly we have another case of cherry picking. now, i'll proceed with kopel if we agree that we're finished with the durie nonsense.-- altetendekrabbe  02:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted, you you removed two high quality sources just because you don't like it.If you think its cherry picking you are welcome to add additional material to solve this problem.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

well, then the npov-tag stays.-- altetendekrabbe  09:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content.

durie *failed* the rs/n. it is pretty obvious from the reviews *you* added that durie is infact a highly controversial author who sees "capitulation to muslim demands" everywhere.. -- altetendekrabbe  09:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Your accusation of Shrike engaging in coatracking is frivolous. The coatrack template at {{Coat rack}} defines that as "This article primarily may relate to a different subject, or to only one aspect rather than the subject as a whole.". In other words, it's a special case of not sticking to the subject. The subject here is very narrow: a neologism that describes discrimination against non-Muslims in the present day. We're not talking about historical dhimmi laws. That's for the dhimmi article. These coats you accuse Shrike of hanging are actually evidence to support the notion that 1) dhimmitude is a real phenomenon and 2) that the phenomenon is discrimination. I tried to reach out to you civilly. Rather than continuing to respond in kind, you spat venom again. I've almost lost patience with you. Now think carefully. Do you want to sit down, talk sensibly, and offer proof of your assertions? I'm not sure you are. -- Frotz(talk) 10:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No, what the quotes actually show - though out of context - is that some people in their anti-Muslim zeal came up with a derogatory "scare term" for political (and probably financial, scaring people sells books) reasons.VolunteerMarek 12:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"for political (and probably financial, scaring people sells books) reasons" (Volunteer Marek) You are wrong in implying that selling books is the only financial reasons for spreading derogatory or fearmonguering ideas. There are people and organisations that give money directly. See Fear, Inc. The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America, Center for American Progress, 2011-08-26, Chapter 1: Donors to the Islamophobia network. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

the term is highly controversial, closely related to conspiracy theories of bar ye'or, and moronic fantasies of many low-grade fringe "scholars". of course there is discrimination against non-muslims, no doubt about it. but the term "dhimmitude" is not what mainstream academia uses for this phenomena. renowned scholars of islam, like bernard lewis or mark choen and others, call this term "islamophobic" or a "myth" and so on. the present this term as a neutral term to describe "non-muslim discrimination" is a blatant violation of neutral point of view. firstly, durie has to go. if not, we can take this to an appropriate administrative venue. -- altetendekrabbe  12:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

To me, this is like having the noun "snowboard" for a millenia, then someone coming up with the verb "snowboarding" and having it challenged as pov, though it is describing what people have done for a millenia. Student7 (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It is. Except that the creator of the word "snowboarding" would also have one nephew killed by a snowboard, and is claiming that Winter Olympic Games are satanic. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. -- Frotz(talk) 22:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the english language is not my mother tongue and I have never snowboarded. It might be better to look at Bat Ye'or and Eurabia pages, which current versions are not so bad. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)