Jump to content

Talk:Dhimmi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jayjg (talk | contribs) at 18:23, 10 February 2005 (→Pact of Umar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Miscellaneous

Would be grateful if anyone could write out the word in Arabic. 212.235.40.42 19:47, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contributer Mustafaa did that.

When the dhimmi concept was introduced in the 8th it was clearly very tolerant by the standards of the time. Christians and Jews were allowed to live in peace within the Muslim society. An excellent example is the Muslim state of Cordoba in Southern Spain where Christians and Jews prospered. Maimonides, by some considered the greatest Jewish philospher and Talmudic sage, lived here. As late as the 16th century, some argue that religious tolerance was the greatest in Europe within the Ottoman Empire.

That is incorrect. The Hellenistic Empire, Rome, The Ancient East (up until the Muslim invasion) have been all truly religiously tolerant, as they have not differentiated between the followers of one rite or another. This very nice tradition was broken by the Muslims, who essentially made a "convert or die" deal for most of the native population (pagans), and "convert or live like a dog" deal for Jews and Christians. Maimonides left a number of quotes, where he mentions the limitations he suffered from the Arabs, and the predominant anti-Jewish feelings. 1001 Nights are full of description how this or that (positive) hero steals holy books from Christians or Jews. As to the 16th century, they were still burning people in Europe. It's not too hard to be more tolerant than that.
The Muslims did not break this tradition. It was mainly caused by monotheistic religions, which by their very own nature are exclusive. The polytheistic (Pagan) religions before them assimilated gods from other faiths, or found equivalent ones. For example a Hittite goddesses from Syria were adopted by Ancient Egyptians. Jupiter was the equivalent of Zeus, ...etc. When Christianity spread, all this was reversed, and intolerance set in. The Jews attempted to annihilate Cannanites, Philistines and others because of religion (and land too!) Hypatia, for example, was dragged in the streets of Alexandria to her death by a Christian crowd, after many pagan temples were destroyed. To blame it on the Muslims or Arabs shows obvious bias, and lack of objectivity. As of "living like a dog", Christians and Jews continued to live for 14 century under Muslim rule, and their descendants exist up to today. They were neither assimilated, nor were under severe restrictions, otherwise, they would have either perished, or fled. -- Khalid B
Since when have the Roman or Greek empires been part of the 8th century??? Martin
Maybe the Eastern Roman Empire?

However, by the standards that have evolved in the Western world since the Enlightment, the dhimmi concept cannot be said to be fully tolerant. In the contemporary Western world, most would say that only complete religious freedom is acceptable. The dhimmi concept does not quite reach that target.

That's a gross underestimation. The Dhimmi concept is in effect, religious segregation of a very severe kind (akin to what the blacks had to face in the 1930s, on a racist ground). It is the definition of a failure to reach religious tolerance.
I'd like to hear your replies to this criticism. These paragraph need serious re-wording, before they can be put back in. --Uri


from people of the Book

Where people of the Book live in an Islamic nation under Sharia law, they are forbidden from being considerd free and equal citizens. By Islamic law they can only liv if they submit to living as a dhimmi (second class protected citizen). Once they giv up equal rights, they are then given a number of rights by the Islamic community, such as the right to freely practice their faith in private. The people of the book had their own courts and jugdes but they could also choose to go to a Muslim qadi. The communities had local representatives, a role which was most often played by the bishop or patriarch. These were responsible for the tenure of the conditions of the contract - peace, obedience and order - between the Muslim ruler and the community. (Hourani, 1991) Dhimmis are also given additional responsibility and burdens, such as the payment of a special tax called jizyah ("skull tax"), but they are exempt from the zakat, the alms tax every Muslims has to pay. If Jews or Christians refuse to accept dhimmi status, the Quran holds that Muslims may declare war on them. Dhimmis were exempt from doing military service. "In the middle of the 19th century the 'protected minorities' were filled with dismay when it was suggested that they should share a common Ottoman nationality with the Muslims, since this would have meant liability for military service." (Gibb, 1968)

"By Islamic law they can only live if they submit to living as a dhimmi (second class protected citizen)" - is a completely cockeyed way of looking at it. What it amounts to is: people of the book, conquered by Muslims, were termed dhimmis, and the new government wasn't allowed to kill them unless they fought it, nor to suppress their religion. Same deal as with any other conquest, apart from the provisos preventing the conquerors from getting unduly nasty - and dhimmitude is not a "choice", but a legal classification. Oh, and "jizyah" does not translate as "skull tax"; it comes from the root jzy, meaning "portion". This source is obviously unreliable. - Mustafaa 07:44, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I read somewhere that dhimmi status was extended to Hindus under the Mughals?? -- Davidme

I don't know whether it was, but considering the treatment meted out to the Hindus by the Islamic invaders, I doubt it made much difference
Yes, dhimmi status was extended to Hindus under the Mughals. Akbar abolished the Jizyah tax (among other things), and Aurangazb reinstated it later. There were often alliances between Hindu and Muslim segments of society against the Sikh state and later against the British colonial authorities. In the Indian Mutiny both allied against Britian, and it was even declared as Jihad by some, with Bahadur the last Mughal emperor as the (nominal) head of this rebellion -- Khalid B

In the handful of Muslim countries which officially practice Sharia, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran,
Does Iran's Shiite Jafari system come under the "Sharia" tag?

Yes, it does. But they have their own separate interpretation of Islamic law -- Khalid B

Marked muslims in Spain

Also, dhimmis were sometimes forced to wear distinct clothing, such as forcing all Jews to wear a yellow badge, a practice that was also done to Muslims under Christian rule in Spain.

Do you mean that Moriscos or Mudejars wore a yellow badge? When? I knew that they wore characteristic clothes, but my understanding is that they simply maintained their clothes, different from those of Christians. -- Error 01:12, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, they did not wear it because they wanted to. There was an institutionalized dress code enforced, mainly by the Catholic Church and the Spanish monarchy. It was put into effect, and there were fines imposed if Mudejars wore dresses that they were not allowed to. Now, it could have been lax at time, and enforced at others, but it was there. Check "The Royal Treasure: Muslim Communities Under the Crown of Aragon in the Fourteenth Century" by John Boswell. p 32-33, 113, 330-333, and 399.
Some forms of oppression were designed to be obvious. The IV Lateran Council of 1215 had demanded. that all Christian monarchs force Muslims and Jews within their dominions to wear distinctive clothing, so they could be easily identified, and these demands were repeated by Honorius III and Gregory IX.(7) Spanish monarchs acceded to these without protest, and even added to them. Between the early thirteenth century, when the laws were enacted, and the mid- fourteenth, there were certain modifications in the efforts to make the Muslims distinctive. Originally Muslims and Jews had had to wear a distinctive outer garment like a cleric's cape, round and gathered, with a hood, and not striped, green, or bright red. They could not wear rings of gold or precious stones, and had to grow their beards long and cut their hair round rather than in Christian fashion. In the documents of the reign of Peter the Ceremonious there is no reference to distinctive clothing, though the allusions to the laws regarding hair and beard styles are numerous and varied. It appears, indeed, that either the laws were no longer enforced or that the wearing of the specified clothing had become so customary that infractions did not occur. At least two considerations give greater weight to the former possibility: (1) there is no reason to suppose the clothing would have become a part of Mudéjar life when the hair styles did not, and the many violations of the rules about the latter make it quite clear that they were not an accepted part of Muslim life; (2) of the Muslims emigrating from Valencia whose clothing was assessed as part of their departure fee, only a few are described as wearing either of the two articles of clothing supposedly required of Mudéjares. The penalty for being found abroad in violation of the distinctive appearance code varied extravagantly. From l347 on, all Muslims from royal jurisdictions could only be fined -- a maximum of one gold doublet -- for such infractions, while other Muslims found guilty of the same offense were sold into slavery. Conscientious nobles -- or those simply afraid of defecting vassals -- often applied to the king to have the privilege enjoyed by royal Mudéjares extended to their vassals. Sometimes the privilege was granted as a favor to the noble; others the Saracens themselves paid for it.
Also, note that the practice was not limited to Spain, but was more general than that, for example, Pope Innocent III in 1215 issued a decree as part of the Fourth Council of the Lateran that Muslims and Jews shall wear a special dress to distinguish them from Christians. Since Spain had the most Muslim minority, it was applied there more often. -- Khalid B
Thank you for the detailed explanation. -- Error 01:34, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You are welcome, Error. My pleasure indeed. It refreshes my memory to dig up info I read a long time ago. As you see, half truths are often repeated so much that they become accepted as facts, while they are not true. For example, differentiation in dress was not limited to Muslim lands, but practiced on Christian ones too, and condoned by the Church. It was a different time, differet standards, and we often fail to put things into their correct historical or social context. -- Khalid B
Funny, I was reading about Moriscoes and found that, in the 16th century, they were forbidden to wear their traditional dressing. -- Error 00:33, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No contradiction there. You may be confusing Mudejars (up to the conquest of Granada in 1492) and Moriscos (about 1500 on) (however note that treatment varied depending on where they were, and who ruled the area, ...etc. This is not a hard and fast rule). When they were Mudejars, they were still Muslims, allowed their own mosques, dress, butchers, marriage, language, ...etc. with many restrictions (marked dress, prohibited to call for prayer, carry arms, ...etc). When they were forcefully convered (started in the late 15th century), they were forced to confirm to everything Christian and not have any distinction. So the Arab dress, Arabic language, ...etc. were forbidden, not to mention Islam itself of course. In the mean time, there was another sort of discrimination that emerged. There was a big distinction between "old Christians" and "new Christians" (nuevo cristiano, converso, morisco, marrano), even in the church records that had births, baptisms, marraiges, and deaths by the 1550. When the time came for expulsion (1610), the new Christians were expelled, and were easy to indentify because of those records. They have been "identifiable" up to that time. So it all depended on the time period, the location and their status then. Makes sense? KB 14:49, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)

The references in the article are almost all anti-Muslim with bias showing all over. Bat Y'eor is an anonymous person taking a Jewish pseudonym, and her work has been shown to be strongly biased. Encyclopedia Judaica would hardly be a neutral source on Islam. Khalid Duran's book has been shown to be less than neutral, and also being funded by Jewish organizations with an axe to grind.

I added a reference from a respected contemporary Muslim scholar, Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Too bad the english translation of the book is not longer online after his site go reorganized.

I also added some quotes from it on whether a Muslim can be executed if he kills a dhimmi, showing the previous quotes to be one sided half truths intended to sway opinions in a certain direction. -- Khalid B

Disputed sources and references

The neutrality of the links and references below are disputed

In other words, anyone who speaks out openly about this discriminatory Muslim practice can not be trusted? Nonsense. These well-referenced and academic sources are only "disputed" by those who are embarassed by the existence of this heinous discrimination. Similarly, we can find some white people in the USA who who "dispute" sources about how black people were (are are treated) in parts of the USA. But that doesn't mean that the sources are wrong. It is a natural reaction to distrust critical academic sources which point out truths that are hard to accept. But here on Wikipedia we are obligated to do so, even if these truths make us feel umconfortable. RK
We find the same hard-to-accept truths in our discussions of Judaism and Christianity. I myself was accused of anti-Semitism, merely because I publicly wrote about the discriminatory way that some ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups treated their fellow Jews. My critics ignored the fact that my statements were provably true, and referenced from multiple academic sources, including sources from Orthodox Jews. The simple fact is that many people become uncomfortable with criticism of others within their own group, and thus we all have a knee-jerk reaction to say "This is a distortion" or "This is not NPOV". I used to feel (and say) the exact same thing myself. But I have come to realize that such analyses, when backed by reliable sources, are very often fair, accurate, and NPOV. RK 15:00, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
The accusation being made against these sources is not accuracy or inaccuracy (although that would certainly bear looking into.) It's neutrality. Citing "Bat Ye'or" on dhimmitude is like citing Lenin on the evils of Tsarism; both may well be right - and probably are most of the time - but their known agenda inherently renders them suspect, and there are perfectly good scholars out there with much less of a political agenda who should be cited instead. Failing that, what should be cited here are the original sources - the major works of Islamic law. Mustafaa 19:26, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Just to add to Mustafaa's point: If the sources were a mix of Muslim and Non-Muslim, or biased and neutral ones, at least there would be some balance. But to have ALL THE SOURCES by people KNOWN to have an axe to grind with Islam and Muslims is single sided. When the sources are mainly anti-Muslim (Enc Judaica, Bat Ye'or [a pseudonym], anti Muslim web sites) or sponsored by anti-Muslims (e.g. Khaled Durran's history is less than agreable), there is something wrong here. And non of them are academic sources that stood up to fair peer review. I do not mind presenting a few sources that tell the other side, but for heaven's sake, some balance is required. I know it is difficult, specially on religious or political points in a wiki environment, but we should try. KB 14:49, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)

Apr. 23

I re-added the italicized portions here: "Christians and Jews who submitted to their rulers were allowed to live in peace within the Muslim society." Mustafaa deleted it arguing: " 'who submitted' is redundant; what state anywhere permits people to fight it?" I think this objection is irrelevant. Every state required submission on the part of conquered peoples, but this can't really be described as "peaceful" without a caveat. It's natural for people to not want to be conquered and to resist, so there has to be a threat of violence to keep them in line. The fact that this was true in other countries (the sentence immediately preceding in the article states that Muslim countries were relatively tolerant), does not make it any less true as regards dhimmis. - Nat Krause 07:11, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That assumes a situation where the dhimmis were conquered peoples; that was certainly true in many cases, but not all. For instance, the Sephardi Jews who took refuge in the Ottoman Empire were never conquered by the Ottomans; but the threat of violence if they were to rebel was still there, just as it was against any other rebels, Muslim or dhimmi. That's why I think it's superfluous: people who have not "submitted to their rulers" were (and are) subject to the threat of violence irrespective of their religion, in practically all countries. - Mustafaa 07:18, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, I think that, in regard to accuracy, it does not require that assumption. It's true that people who do not submit to their rulers are always subject to the threat of violence; therefore, it's never really correct to say without qualification that the people of a state live peacefully. In a lot of situations, this is kind of a theoretical point, because the people of a state tend to have a nationalistic loyalty to their government, so the threat is arguably unnecessary. The question here is relevance. In that regard, I am making the assumption you mention. I think this is reasonable because, while dhimmi status may have been applied to some immigrants, the mass of them in Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, India, Europe, etc., were indeed descendents of conquered peoples -- the concept of dhimmi was originally invented to deal with these sort of conquered peoples. They were in a different position than, say, a Frenchman in France or a white American in the early US. In the old days it was very common, as the article makes clear, for people to conquer each other, but it is also common for conquered people to want to resist their rulers. - Nat Krause 15:44, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Nationalism is in many ways a rather anachronistic construct for the medieval Middle East; even so great a medieval sociologist as Ibn Khaldun, though he accurately described tribalism - the prototype of nationalism - for Bedouin tribes, regarded any analogous phenomenon as an impossibility for city dwellers (of any religion.) And, while in the original case it was indeed Muslims who were the conquerors and not the conquered, that situation did not last long at all - for most of medieval Middle Eastern history (that is, most of the history of the dhimmi concept), the political scene consisted of various groups of Muslims (and non-Muslims - Crusaders, Mongols, etc.) conquering other Muslims. And rebellion certainly didn't take long to become a major part of Islamic history - see Kharijites, Shiites, Abbasids, etc... So the upshot is: for most of Islamic history, the possibility of rebellion - and its complement, the threat of violence - was as real with regard to the Muslim population as to the non-Muslim one. - Mustafaa 06:30, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Nat, I think that Mustafaa has a point that the wording is too harsh. Perhaps something along the lines of "who resided in, and acknowledged the soverignty of, Muslim rulers". How about that? - KB 23:58, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)
Mustafaa, I'm not sure I follow you. To say that the threat of violence "was as real with regard to the Muslim population as to the non-Muslim one" is irrelevant with regard to describing the condition of the latter. Given that Muslim vs. Muslim as well as Muslim vs. non-Muslim (and non vs. non) rebellion and fighting were a major part of history, if any thing this would emphasize the inaccuracy of saying that any of the subjects lived "in peace" without qualification. As for Kbahey's suggestion, since, in my opinion, the current wording is neither inaccurate nor misleading, I don't see the problem with it, but your version is pretty much "six of one, half-dozen the other". I'm not sure whether "sovereignty" is a relevant concept for pre-modern political structures, though. - Nat Krause 05:54, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
How about ""Christians and Jews were allowed to live in peace within the Muslim society, on the condition (also required of Muslim subjects) of submission to their rulers." That highlights the point that this is even-handed - the medieval person wasn't a citizen, he was a subject... - Mustafaa 06:20, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. - Nat Krause 11:02, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dhimmi's well-to-do?

One of the sentences apparently recently deleted by an anon, and then restored, stated "in reality, the average dhimmi in a Muslim state was more well-to-do than an average Muslim, a disparity that continues till today in many Muslim countries." What is the source for this claim? Jayjg 17:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some issues to which I am not sure

Some of the information in this article appears to be incorrect but I can't get the references right now. I'll ask some body on net or at home to provide. Questions are

  1. Some of the conditions here are not related to dhimmi law, but to pact of ommar which should be excluded in this context.
  2. Some of these things are 'optional' in dhimmi law. Current text suggests that islam orders to put them but islamic goverment don't act on some of these.

I think these two need explanations.

Further I had personally heard a hadith a lot of time but was not able to find 'web reference' so I didn't go to put it. Now I have finally found the web references.

Who hurts a dhimi he hurts me, and who hurts me he hurts Allah [1]


Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: (Whoever hurts a dhimi (a Jew or a Christian) he hurts me and who hurts me he hurts Allah)

[2]

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: (Whoever kills an innocent dhimi (covenanted person) will not smell the scent of Paradise).

Problem is that a lot of islamic law is not online so I often know the book references but it is difficult to find equivalent web references.

Zain 22:05, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A dhimma is a treaty between Muslim conquerors and non-Muslim conquered. The Pact of Umar was the most famous of these, and the model for all others. Jayjg | (Talk) 00:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well answer is no. look up net for details.

Zain 21:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, your response doesn't make sense. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:48, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pact of Umar

IMHO, we need an article on Pact of Umar: [3], [4] and this article needs a section/link to it.

  • We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
  • We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
  • We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.
  • We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.
  • We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
  • We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
  • We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear.
  • We shall not adopt their kunyas.(the use of their epithets)
  • We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.
  • We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
  • We shall not sell fermented drinks.
  • We shall clip the fronts of our heads.
  • We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the belts round our waists.
  • We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices in our churches in any manner offending the honor of the Muslims.
  • We shall not parade carrying our palm branches [on Palm Sunday] or hold in public our Ba'ooth [Easter Monday's prayer]
  • We shall not raise our voices at the burial of our dead.
  • We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.
  • We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.
  • We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.
  • we shall not strike a Muslim.
  • We shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims
  • Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact.

Any good reason why this article doesn't list these obligations? Also, Umar II is totally silent on this. Why? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 17:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like you have some work to do. ;-) Jayjg (talk) 18:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dhimmi&oldid=10177115"