Talk:Timeline of antisemitism

Request for Comment: Is the imposition of the Dhimmi status and jizya upon Jews antisemitism?

Is the imposition of the Dhimmi status and jizya upon Jews antisemitism? (earlier discussion on talk page) patsw (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment based on the prior discussion it looks enough throat-clearing has been done and it's time to use reliable sources. If the practice is spoken of as antisemitic by a reliable source then it probably belongs. And likewise if there is a contrary view from a different reliable source - directly stated and not using synthesis to come to a conclusion, then that may additionally be stated. Wizmut (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Bad RfC. User:patsw, I didn't see any sources that back up the removed information. If you believe that dhimmi status and the imposition of jizya constitute antisemitism, please provide sources for that. A RfC would be needed only if this fails to resolve the dispute. Alaexis_¿question? 08:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

From Dario Fernandez-Morera's Some Overlooked Realities of Jewish Life under Islamic Rule in Medieval Spain

It is widely accepted that under Islam the Jewish community of Spain briefly enjoyed a “Golden Age.” However, it is far less widely understood that Muslim, Christian, and Jewish legal and historical sources indicate that favorable treatment violated medieval Islamic law and also that even under the best circumstances, Jews remained subject to the vicissitudes of their condition as dhimmis (“protected” non-Muslims). If there was brief good treatment, it was because of tactical needs of particular Muslim rulers, not legal considerations.
...
As the Maliki school of medieval Islamic law prescribed, Jews were forced to pay the Muslim rulers of al-Andalus the jizya, a yearly poll tax intended not only as the price of their being ahlu dhimma (people of “protection” or simply al dhimma or dhimmis), but also as a sign of their humiliation before Islam.

Rusi Jaspal's Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism: Representation, Cognition and Everyday Talk

dhimmi status ... meant that they were tolerated and protected as an official minority provided that they accepted a subordinate and inferior status to Muslims (Lazarus-Yafeh, 1999; Poliakov, 1974).

Jesse Weinberg's The End of Eden: Anti-Semitism in Iraq, 1917, 1951

Anti-Judaism, a contempt for Judaism on religious grounds, evolved in Iraq from sentiments about ahl al-dhimma, non-Muslims under Islamic rule.
...
When Jews supervised Muslims or failed to act like dhimmīs (protected non-Muslims), attacks on Jews increased to ‘correct’ the hierarchy.
...
Successive rulers imposed laws to distinguish dhimmī as lower subjects. Jews could not bear arms, serve in war, ride saddled horses, or worship in public, and paid a poll tax, the jizya.
...
Protection of dhimmīs, rather than an innocent plot of heroism, self-flattery or an example of tolerance, was in fact a myth to perpetuate inequality and create an unequal society, in which Muslims subjugated non-Muslims and ruled them. Rules that imposed prohibitions to make Jews low – discriminatory taxes, sumptuary laws, prohibitions against leadership roles and relegation to demeaning jobs that were socially scorned – stemmed from the same tropes Muslim heroics derived from: Jews were weak, incapable and beneath Muslims. Anti-Judaism was not a normal prejudice, just as Stillman contends. The prejudice was preserved in hallowed texts, the inequality was considered sacrosanct, and the stereotypes and taboos continued long after the initial purpose, to convince believers of Islam, had ceased.
...
These distinctions conveyed dhimmī status – incorporated and low. Jews were expected to behave as dhimmīs...

I think these sources are establishing, and I will include a description of dhimma to the article if there is not further objection. Zanahary (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The sources you have cited here are talking about how it affected Jews, neglecting to talk about how the Christians also had to face the exact same thing. It is not talking about any specifically anti-semitic rhetoric but rather specifically anti-dhimmi rhetoric. Jews happened to be dhimmis, and for the record most of what I removed did not even include any sources. PaddyMacConghaile (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, these sources all specifically highlight anti-Judaism within the dhimma system. Hence, it is relevant to the timeline of antisemitism (see especially the source identifying Iraqi anti-Jewish sentiment having its roots in the dhimma) Zanahary (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Unless I am misreading, none of those sources actually say that the imposition of dhimmī status is antisemitic. The first one doesn't mention antisemitism and simply says Jews remained subject to their condition as dhimmis (also obviously true of Christians). The second one has antisemitism in the title, but the quoted passage doesn't mention it. The third one says that anti-Judaism evolved from sentiments about dhmmi status, not that the latter was a form of anti-Judaism (let alone antisemitism). BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Humbled

When the people who are "humbled" by Muslims are Christian, it is anti-Christian. When the people who are "humbled" by Muslims are Jews, it is antisemitic. When the people who are "humbled" by Muslims are Hindus, it is anti-Hundu. Is that disputed? patsw (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not disputed, but you are talking about them like every one of them is an isolated case when in reality it did not matter whether they were Jews or Christians or Hindus, they would all be treated the same. You are essentially saying that every time a Muslim slips on a banana peel, that banana peel is Islamophobic. Come on now. It is a false analogy. PaddyMacConghaile (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Nice for an Irish person to explain that obvious anti-semitism is not anti-semitism. Your analogy is not an analogy. The analogy would be, if a Muslim in Ireland is attacked by a Catholic gang that shouts insults about Islam, but that gang also attacks Ukranian immigrants and shouts insults about Ukranians. Oppression of multiple groups does not mean any of those groups is not being targeted. Victoryodaiken (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your analogy point (especially because the jizya and dhimmitude of Jews has been studied as part of the history of anti-Jewish sentiment in the Muslim world—so original rhetorical derivations about banana peels really do not matter), but bringing up another editor’s ethnicity is inappropriate. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Establishing criteria for inclusion of events not themselves antisemitic

There’s been some debate, on talk and in the form of tagging and removal, on whether history that is not explicitly antisemitic, like the allowing of Jews to become citizens in the Roman Empire and the imposition of jizya as studied in some sources as an important element of anti-Jewish sentiment, should be included in this timeline.

I believe that these events are important to the history of antisemitism and belong on the timeline—just as a timeline of, say, the persecution of Christians should feature key dates relating to Christianity’s establishment, spread, and non-persecutory treatment by polities—because it’s contextualizing, and the presentation of the specific aspect this article is for is lacking without that context. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Antiquity prologue

I propose several modifications to the prologue to the Antiquity section, for these reasons:

(1) Second Temple Judaism is not the same as "modern Jewish Religion".

(2) Yahwism is the (relatively) recent term for the form of Judaism practiced during the First Temple period (and before). The use of this new term doesn't completely dissociate it from Judaism; many still consider it a form of Judaism, as reflected in the term "First Temple Judaism".

(3) I haven't found a good reference for the term proto-Judaism.

(4) The current wording could be misinterpreted as implying that Persia ruled over Israel.

(5) A better source is needed for the claim that the Israelites returned to Israel after the (Achaemenid) Persian Empire conquered the (Neo-)Babylonian Empire.

I propose the following replacement:

Note: Several of the following events took place earlier than the term "antisemitism" is generally applied. Some even took place when the Israelites and Judeans practiced an early, non-monotheistic form of Judaism known as Yahwism, First Temple Judaism, or First Temple Israelite religion. However, these events feature heavily in the history which is described in the Old Testament, which was foundational to the later establishment of Second Temple Judaism, following the return of the Israelites from Babylon after it was conquered by the Persian Empire.

References

Dotyoyo (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)