Talk:Jizya

This article needs a paragraph to portray secular view of jizya

The entire article is a depiction of Islamic thought on jizya. It's too cumbersome to undo years of history whitewashing. Hence I propose addition of a new paragraph titled "Secular view of Jizya". Any objections to creating this new sub section may be recorded here. PastaMonk 03:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

It isn't really. It makes no discussion about Jizya versus the system of taxation that existed prior to Islam, which was very oppressive and a major reason so many provinces defected from the Roman Empire with minimal resistence. It also doesn't discuss why Muslims were exempt from the tax - they were required to perform many activities we now associate with state functions, like caring for the poor, education, and so on. Reading the article, one would assume the Roman Empire and Persian Empire were places of pristine economic liberation, which was far from the case. Then there is the issue of usury, which was the real tool of oppression of citizens of pre-Islamic Rome and Persia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1FE0:4000:7024:A559:5C20:9A59 (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

How much, in %?

It's amazing how a huge article on taxation fails to indicate anything on percentage of produce or profit levied. Did a search within the article for percent: one hit, with no figure attached. Search for %: no hit, none.

Materials circulate accusing Muslim empires, especially the Ottomans, of knowingly pushing non-Muslims into total bankruptcy by the scientifically calculated amount of jizya tax required, so that conversion would remain the only escape. How can one check on Wikipedia if this is correct or propaganda, if editors shy away from concrete figures in a taxation article? Anyone with a brain will draw their own conclusions. It's either hiding inconvenient data, or self-inflicted damage by silence and/or censorship, self-imposed or otherwise.

Verified data is the only truth there is. Arminden (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Apologia

@Jelllman You said in your edit that "this whole section reads a bit too much like apologia". If you have sources offering a more critical perspective, you may tag the section with Template:POV section NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

It's more that the section seems to interchangeably use (and at times extensively quote) various primary sources and some secondary modern scholars, and the choices seem quite.. goal-oriented. I would think the section should focus on summarizing opinions by modern academics. But maybe that's just me, and either way I'm not going to dive into it right now. Maybe if I write an assignment about Jizya/Dhimmis at some point lol. Jelllman (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2026 (UTC)