Talk:Islam and slavery/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ Religion

1.2.3 Religion

Disrespecting my religion or treating it like a human invention of some kind, is religious discrimination, inaccurate, or wrong. And what about beliefs I feel are wrong, or against my religion, or outdated, or non-scientific?

NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources.

Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They might prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which might be from a non-historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) Their point of view must be mentioned, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z.


Truthspreaders edits

Truthspreader, you don't like to read and/or understand edit summaries, so I'll repeat my concerns for you here.

1) A professor of law is not a reliable source for Quranic exegesis. 2) There is no need to mention that the Old and New Testaments accept slavery more than once in the same paragraph. 3) The OR was a personal interpretation of a Quranic verse that made no sense. 4) The exact Quranic verse, as is mentioned in other articles such as Islam, says that masters may not force slaves into prostitution against their will. The "against their will" is a condition, hence the word conditionally. "Force not your maids into prostitution if they desire chastity." See here. As you can hopefully see, this is not an unconditional condemnation.

Please, before doing mass reversions of edits that were made in good faith, try to understand the reasons for edits. Thank you. Arrow740 03:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see my above response, plus please don't use Qur'an as secondary source. Because asserting directly from Qur'an is purely Original research. TruthSpreaderreply 03:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what I removed from the article. Please don't blindly revert, edit-warring doesn't do anyone any good. Arrow740 03:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Please undo your reversion. Arrow740 03:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me see again! TruthSpreaderreply 03:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you accept that that ayaat does not condemn making slaves prostitutes; it condemns making them prostitutes against their will, i.e. forcing them into prostitution. I did not say that the Quran conditionally allows prostitution. I said that it conditionally condemns it. Arrow740 03:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding that ayat, (as I read in tafsir) it is talking about forced prostitution, as it is not warranting prostituion at all, but giving hope to slaves who were living in such deplorable situation. As the other ayat of Qur'an actually asks for death punishment of prostitutes, until it was over ruled by 24:2.
Secondly Azizah Y. al-Hibri is president of Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights. TruthSpreaderreply 03:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it is pretty clear that a lawyer, publishing in law journals, is not a reliable source for analysis of the Quran or Islamic history! Let's address the issue of the sentence in question: "Female slaves were at times prostituted for the benefit of their masters in accordance with Near Eastern customs, the practice of which is condemned in the Qur'an 24:33." Now, we agree that the sentence is not accurate? What do you suggest instead? Arrow740 03:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I also have a problem with this sentence: "Some Islamic scholars assert that sexual relations with concubines were only permitted because slavery couldn't be eradicated immediately being an essential component of social and economic infra-structure, as Qur'an presents marriage as the only legal way of satisfying one's sexual desires.[1][2]" Now, it's fine for Ghamidi to assert that, though I need this to be verified. However, we know this to be false, because sex with ma malakat aymanukum is also legal, both accordng to the Quran, Muhammad's practice, Islamic law throughout the ages. So Ghamidi's view is an extreme minority view. Shouldn't we remove it? Arrow740 03:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Again! Wikipedia is not based on truth, it is based on verifiability. Secondly, this is the same verse which I quoted on Muhammad's slaves from another source that Qur'an now doesn't give permission to have sexual relations with slaves, but only for those who had had slaves at that time. This is exactly what the "Sexuality in Islam" thesis was suggesting as well. Although, many people didn't act upon it (which I agree).
Regarding Ghamidi, I think this can be referenced to other sources as well. And also, this comment is not taking too much space at all. TruthSpreaderreply 03:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The Quran says you can have sex with ma malakat aymanukum and Ghamidi doesn't change that. Alright, can we compromise and take out the lawyer and leave Ghamidi? If we leave Ghamidi then we should add "arguing that the verses allowing sex with concubines only applied to Muhammad and his contemporaries, though this is a minority view." After all it is contradicted by Ibn Kathir, Ibn Taimiyya, etc. In general, verifiability is more important, however as editors if we see something we know to be false, we should remove it. Arrow740 04:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Well! it is already stated as "some" scholars assert that. Secondly, when we quote Lewis, Watt, Esposito or scholarly journals, they don't need to reflect what Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Kathir say or what Muslims have done, but rather interpretation of Qur'an on their basis and they mainly comment on early Muslim society (being scholars of Islamic text and history, not the reproduction of Medievel Islamlic scholars). TruthSpreaderreply 04:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The thesis is not notable. It should not be used in the body of the article. However I am willing to compromise and have it be in "further reading" or something like that. Also I am going to put the "conditionally condemns" back in unless you have a better suggestion. Arrow740 04:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding PhD thesis, it is scholarly publication. You don't wonder why Ibn Warraq couldn't get his PhD. TruthSpreaderreply 04:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think he ever tried to get one. Did he? Arrow740 04:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So is "conditionally condemns" or "condemns forced prostitution" OK? Also include the extreme minority Ghamidi but exclude the lawyer is fair? I suppose that for now I have no objection to allowing the thesis as long as the author is never mentioned by name, and Ghamidi is one we're really quoting. The Ghamidi quote needs to be longer, as I said, and it should be noted that this is a minority view. Arrow740 04:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Qur'an prohibits extramarital relations (and prostitution is worst kind of it). Qur'an is simply saying to those prostitutes who are being forced that they don't need to worry about God's wrath. There is no question of legality at all. It is condemned in any case (as suggested by the cited source). Secondly, the Lawyer you are talking about again and again, her many publications are related to Islam, she is definitely related to Islamic jurisprudence (which also comes under category of Law in Law schools, as Law schools do study religious laws in some cases). Regarding Ghamidi view, there must be other scholars who would support this assertion. Normally, Ghamidi has very close correlation in his writing to Islahi, which might also be used as a source, but I need to search for that. TruthSpreaderreply 04:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
"Qur'an prohibits extramarital relations" no that's false. Ever since Muhammad affluent Muslim men have been having sex with slaves. You know it, the Quran permits it. It's OK in Islam. I think you also know that your argument that the lawyer is a reliable source is not convincing. You have repeatedly refused to address the issue of 24:33. Please respond to my comments or I will just institute the changes. Arrow740 05:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

if, as the article claims, al-Hibri truly specialises in Islamic law and jurisprudence, then she does indeed become qualified to make comments on the primary sources and their legal implications. ITAQALLAH 08:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Should we not apply the same logic to Spencer and Bat Ye'or, who specialize in jihad, dhimma, and Islamic history? It is a matter of qualification. Arrow740 08:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
indeed it is. discussion continued at Talk:Dhimmi#al-Hibri. ITAQALLAH 08:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The block of quotes

So, I think that all these quotes from the Quran and hadith should be removed. They are all selected to promote a particular POV; this section is unacceptable. There are two options; I will find the quotes about slavery from the Quran and hadith which cast Islam in a bad light and put them here, removing half of the pro-Islam quotes, or we can remove the quotes altogether. The latter option seems to be a more encyclopedic choice and would produce a more stable article. Arrow740 05:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

use all of the quotes you can find, if POV is your concern. for now, i will restore the quotes. ITAQALLAH 01:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
On what pretext? Arrow740 01:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
on the pretext that what the primary texts say about slavery is highly relevant. the article achieved GA status with them in. i see no justification for removal. ITAQALLAH 01:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

the Schimmel cite as follows has been tagged:

Annemarie Schimmel, a contemporary scholar on Islamic civilization, asserts that because the status of slave under Islam could only be obtained through either being a prisoner of war (this was soon restricted only to infidels captured in a holy war)[1] or born from slave parents, slavery would be theoretically abolished with the expansion of Islam

exactly what clarification is needed? ITAQALLAH 01:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Because Islam expanded and slavery didn't end, duh. In fact the more Muhammad expanded it the more people he enslaved. Arrow740 01:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
"Only children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners can become slaves, never a freeborn Muslim; therefore slavery is theoretically doomed to disappear with the expansion of Islam." ITAQALLAH 01:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
With the total takeover of Islam. What a terrible quote. Arrow740 01:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
How was this "Only children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners can become slaves, never a freeborn Muslim; therefore slavery is theoretically doomed to disappear with the expansion of Islam." enforced. Perhaps a biometric ID card system? Can you find any legal cases were slaves were freed after proving they should not be slaves (as opposed to non-muslim's who deserve to be slaves). Notice i did not mention the world domination. Hypnosadist 07:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand Schimmel's logic here; are slaves not allowed to reproduce?Proabivouac 07:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
the child is born free unless both parents are slaves. ITAQALLAH 10:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
So thats a yes to slaves can be breed Forever meaning slavery would Never end. It had not stopped in 1200 years and it would not have stopped in the next 1200 years world domination or no world domination.Hypnosadist 12:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The elimination of slavery is, then, premised upon male slaveowners impregnating their female slaves, while male slaves are left without mates. Depending on the slave, that might make sexual, but not economic, sense.Proabivouac 13:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
i thought i answered this (seemingly not though), but (all) slaves have the right of marriage. that includes male slaves. as far as i know, if a female slave is married, then the master is not permitted to copulate with her. ITAQALLAH 10:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
There is, then, no reason to believe that slavery would be eliminated per, "Only children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners can become slaves, never a freeborn Muslim." Only if the mating rights of slaves were somehow curtailed or discouraged would Schimmel's assertion make sense.Proabivouac 11:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah's reverts

Blocks of quotes are not encyclopedic. You have placed a block of quotes into an article that is entirely biased and unencyclopedic. Where were you when I first posted to this talk page about it? Is it only today that you thought to wikistalk me?

As regards your other bad-faith reversion, there is no claim of "exageration" as you put it. Also CNN and the BBC produced hard evidence of slavery, such as first hand accounts, and a little boy whose finger was cut off.

The title of the subsection "Existence of slavery disputed" is also highly misleading, as Nasr is not denying that it exists, just that it's not really that bad to be enslaved in that manner. "Sudan insists that the whole matter is no more than the traditional tribal feuding over resources," this is not a denial either.

Maybe you should read the article before editing it? Arrow740 01:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

wikistalk? ridiculous. this article has been on my watchlist since before you even came to wikipedia. i was planning on responding for a few days now. the existence is indeed disputed, you need to read Nasr's quote again. please refer to my above response concerning the quotes: i invite you to find as many negative ones as you can and insert them. ITAQALLAH 01:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Please explain to me how Nasr is denying the existence of slavery? In fact no one does, and the CNN and BBC reports present hard facts. Do YOU deny it? Could anyone? You assume that you are in a good position to push POV with these quotes, though you're not. In any case your response does not reflect well on you. Arrow740 01:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Nasr is simply stating that the 'slavery' alleged to exist is little more than the 'slavery' that exist in Western and Chinese sweatshops. it's an analogy, slavery doesn't exist in the latter areas, through which he qualifies that such alleged slavery is not actually slavery at all. accusing editors of POV-pushing is uncivil. i suggest you refrain from it. ITAQALLAH 02:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
He isn't saying slavery doesn't exist. This is obvious to a thoughtful native speaker of english. Arrow740 05:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyone who seeks to deny the existence or minimise the extent of slavery in the Sudan deserves a gold medal for being a [WP:Dick]. It's not hard to find the reports, the UN and interested human rights organisations are in no doubt, and we can see the suffering. They know and we know its good old-fashioned slavery and human subjugation ... see the link under 'Modern Slavery' below.DavidYork71 11:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Slavery in Islamic texts

I have removed this recently-added section, at it is only a long list of Qur'anic and hadith quotes. I also do not understand why, should there be an occasion where a Qur'anic quote is appropriate, we should prefer an unknown translator in preference to three very well-known ones whose translation are to be found in the accompanying links.Proabivouac 02:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

you removed it as original research. in the light of (WP:OR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary_sources), could you please explain on what basis it is original research? we should stick to one translation, preferably Y. Ali for Qur'anic quotes as that is most prominent. ITAQALLAH 02:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
per [1], in what way was it OR? not every usage of primary source material amounts to original research. ITAQALLAH 02:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
That's probably not the right word for it, but it's the one generally used in this situation. However, it's generally agreed that such sections are unencyclopedic. There are no secondary sources to accompany their presentation, and frankly they look terrible, especially with the hideous quote devices which are out of control in this space. I'd say the same for the news reports - can't we use something a little less dramatic? Perhaps a List of Qur'anic verses related to slavery is the way to go, included as a link. Lists are not expected to be encyclopedic. That way the information could be available without marring the article. It would certainly be encyclopedic to include any of them as an accompaniment to a sourced discussion of notable/historical fiqh of these verses, but in this case the verse would only be an accompaniment to the texts. This article could use more of that.
Having said all that, I do not necessarily think that any reference to primary sources is original research, and you are correct to observe that the policy doesn't say that. I should have said that the long list was horribly unencyclopedic. It is typical for editors to call it OR, but I think that's just laziness (as it was in my case). I wish there were some agreement everyone could come to the proper use of Qur'an and hadith. What I see now is many editors switching stances on this depending on the issue.
In any event, we should not be using anonymous translations - I agree that Yusuf Ali is to be preferred. What do you think of the list idea?Proabivouac 03:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternative to quranic quotes

Couldn't we just list the surah and ayat of the quotes in the text? e.g.

The Qur'an urges
  • kindness towards slaves (4:36, 9:60, 24:33, 40:13)
  • freeing slaves for the expiation of sins (4:92, 5:92, 18:3)
  • and the recognizing of concubinage (4:3, 23:6, 33:50-52) [3]

--BoogaLouie 23:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no objections I'm going to do it. --BoogaLouie 22:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

How about having muslims admit that the above naturally means that islam supports and legalises slavery. PS and "kindness towards slaves (4:36, 9:60, 24:33, 40:13)" have never been enforced.Hypnosadist 05:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Muslims have the right to interpret their religion as they please. Our job is not to interpret the Qur'an but to report the important interpretations of it over time. Now Muslims predominately believe that the Qur'an calls for a progressive ban of slavery--Muslims throughout history have not always believed that and, as you know, many Muslims have owned slaves. The Qur'an does not "naturally mean" anything. It is given meaning through interpretation. So, let us report those. Religion evolves and what you or I think the Qur'an means is... meaningless. gren グレン 22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
"Now Muslims predominately believe that the Qur'an calls for a progressive ban of slavery." Sure pal. Arrow740 22:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd disagree here. Even scholarly sources also point to this fact. Freeing of slaves, asking for treating slaves good, and then at the end giving slaves the right to make contract with their masters! What does that show? A scholarly paper was simply rejected on the basis that it was published in a Law Journal. Althoug, it was a peer-reviewed journal, I don't know who gave us (wikipedians) to weigh opinion when the publishing source is a scholarly one. And also the author was well-versed in Islamic-jurisprudence. TruthSpreaderreply 23:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Well-versed is not a qualification. I'm going to add quotes to the effect that slavery is divinely ordained and eternal in Islam when I have time. Arrow740 23:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Would you like to share your source? Because all the sources which I've read so far they say that Islam took slavery as granted, rather than it was ordained Divinely. And it also mitigated slavery as well. And then you have other (yet scholarly) opinions which say that the ultimatly it was prohibited to take more slaves at the end of prophet's life. TruthSpreaderreply 01:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Avicenna said "there must be masters and slaves." I can give you 10 people saying that it is lawful to enslave any non-believers in jihad. Lewis says, "The manumission of slaves, though recommended as a meritorious act, is not required, and the institution of slavery not only is recognized buy is elaborately regulated by Sharia law...From a Muslim point of view, to forbid what God permits is almost as great an offense as to permit what God forbids - and slavery was authorized and regulated by the holy law...The emergence of the holy men and the holy places as the last-ditch defenders of slavery against reform is only an apparent paradox. They were upholding an institution sanctiied by scripture, law, and tradition and one which in their eyes was necessary to the maintenance of the social structure of Muslim life." (p 78). "In Islam, concubinage was sanctioned by the law and indeed by the Quran itself." I have others. Arrow740 03:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
This argument is already there in article. You can add a bit more from what you stated above. But I believe that it is really, ridiculous to actually discard some scholarly source and only including those ones with which you are happy. I think both views should be there in the article (especially when both are scholarly). Also, the comment from PhD thesis was also removed very mercilessly, when it had direct relation to article with title "Sexuality in Islam" by Heba G. Kotb M.D. TruthSpreaderreply 03:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The article already presents a sanitized view of slavery in Islam. The lawyer added no new insight here as the POV she expresses is already expressed by others. This unqualified, biased source should not be included on these grounds. Arrow740 06:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Where is she being quoted? Is it from a law journal or from a book? Arrow740 07:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It is a POV, but it is a scholarly POV. It is a scholarly Jounral, which you can see here. Plus, I've explained earlier couple of times, PhD thesis are peer-reviewed as well. TruthSpreaderreply 07:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Though if not published, unnotable. Arrow740 07:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you can find her spouting her theories in a book, a more reliable source than a journal for a different field. Arrow740 07:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Unpublished? who said that? Journals are published mate! TruthSpreaderreply 07:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

<reset> I was referring to the thesis. Arrow740 07:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Theses are endorsed by Universities. And they are also used in scholarly papers to refer for scholarly findings. I wish you'd be a PhD student to know it. *sigh* TruthSpreaderreply 07:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You wish that do you? The standard for being published in a journal is different than for a thesis. Not all theses are notable, a random thesis you found online is certainly not. Arrow740 07:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I do wish that! The thesis was supervised by William Granzig. I don't see any reason for its being unscholarly. Otherwise it couldn't pass through strict scruitining of external examiners and University Syndicate board (as a badly and unscholarly thesis would bring bad name to the University). And the thesis itself has attracted alot of media attention in Muslim world [2] TruthSpreaderreply 08:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Without any insult to Professor William Granzig, the thesis is not a notable source. And Maurice Bucaille's "book" is the second best selling book in the Muslim world so the standards don't seem to be very high over there. Also please desist your wikistalking. Arrow740 08:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It is not only the notability of the source, but also scholarliness of the source also matters. And I don't think that Professor William Granzig will forgive you for this insult ;). TruthSpreaderreply 08:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and TruthSpreader, I'm surprised you didn't know that there are a fair number of Muslim scholars talked of it as a divine system, albeit, one with a way out of slavery. You should read "A Quest for Honour": Slavery, Islam, and the Contributions of Martin Klein to African History" E. Ann McDougall. Canadian Journal of African Studies, Vol. 34, No. 3. (2000), pp. 546-564. It was very interesting about the processes of late slavery in Africa. We can't pretend that Muslims didn't think that slavery was divinely allowed. It differs in different places and we should make that clear. You have many views. The view that Islam progressively sought to end slavery (which is MSA Islam seems to argue a bunch). The view that slavery is okay because Islamic slavery allowed for equality and whatnot. The modernists like Sayyid Ahmad Khan who opposed it and argued that the Qur'an opposed it and such. I think this book would be interesting since it seems to talk about the different camps. I think it's clear that many Muslims have felt pressure from Western abolition in how they speak about slavery. It worries me that TruthSpreader seems to want to sanitize the issue and Arrow wants to make slavery an eternal to Islam. If you can get a copy of the article from the Canadian Journal of African Studies I would recommend reading it. Its tone is very well done where it speaks of the complexity of slavery and Islam while not speaking positively or negatively about Islam's impact on it. If we could emulate that tone this could be a good article. gren グレン 04:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Gren! Your comments are indeed useful. I have access to this journal. If you can quote the name of a few related articles in that journal, that'll great. Cheers! TruthSpreaderreply 05:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Syed Ahmed Khan shows an interesting 19th century view of slavery. :O And he is the article of the day. gren グレン 03:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Slavery isn't that bad

According to this POV article. KittyHawker 20:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I know, though the justifications say so much don't they!Hypnosadist 21:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. If you think something ridiculous, you can not remove it. Because that's your POV.
  2. The source as quoted here says that Mukatabat was a right given to slaves to buy their freedom. The scholars might be divided on the interpretation of the verse but you need another source to show the dividing.
  3. Ghamidi is a reliable source.
  4. The quote from Nasr is referenced.

--Aminz 02:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

We are under no obligation to include silly justifications for immoral practices. Arrow740 02:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It is silly in your eyes. Note that your edits can be interpreted as disruption. --Aminz 06:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
No, yours can, because you revert without explanation. Arrow740 06:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You can see my explanation above. KittyHawker virtually didn't reason anything. --Aminz 06:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You like ignoring edit summaries and claiming that no reasons were given. Please stop that. Also you've had 5 4 reverts here. You are the disruptive one. Arrow740 06:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course, Ghamidi is a perfectly legitimate source for interpreting the Qur'an (as opposed to, say, history). However, I'm not clear he's all that notable within a history of over a millenium of jurisprudence; certainly not enough to be our main source here. Reading this article, I'd like to see a discussion of how attitudes over this whole time period. I don't have the knowledge to do it myself, but I hope someone does.Proabivouac 06:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
unfortunately, many of User:KittyHawker's edits were unacceptably tendentious and poorly justified. ITAQALLAH 14:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mukatabat section

Folks, we can't just appoint Ghamidi, who is not particularly representative of historical Islamic jurisprudence, as the official interpreter of the Qur'an here. Whoever added this material (I have my ideas) has a serious biased editting problem. Message: Wikipedia is not a a soapbox for our own personal views, however strongly held, about Islam.Proabivouac 06:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to Mukatabat article. That's true. Ghamidi is one scholar. But I don't think his views are dissent on this matter. Just based on my personal experience. --Aminz 06:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I see that. I moved the tags along with it. I'd have to see more sources here, but my initial reaction is that the notion of a gradually-unfolding, increasingly socially-progressive revelation sound far too Ghamidi-ish for me to accept without proof that other scholars believe this exactly.Proabivouac 06:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Ghamidi represents a very minority view, not just today but especially when you concider the 1200 of islamically sanctioned slave ownership.Hypnosadist 14:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

GA delisted

I have delisted this article from good articles due to long-standing neutrality disputes, excessive use of quotes, and persistent edit warring. Feel free to nominate the article for GA status again once the problems are resolved. Beit Or 10:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Good!Hypnosadist 13:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda and western demonization of Islam

The title of this section is biassed and says nothing about "the west" just christians.Hypnosadist 14:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if balanced by a section about 'turd-polishing' efforts from other sources re the representing of enslavement under Islam how does it the understanding understanding of either of the key issues viz:
a) describing the extent of slavery toleration under Islam
b) relating the history of Islam-sponsored slavery
c)the extent of support (if any) from Islam for the Abolitionist Movement.

I'm moving it to a place where it will find some relevance like Islamaphobia.
DavidYork71 00:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It has found it's place under 'Islam slavery as a cause of Islamophobia' at the aforementioned page. DavidYork71 00:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

  • al-Nasr's first quote is so vague that it conveys no historical information,
  • al-Nasr's second quote does not question the existence of slavery,
  • Schimmel's quote is vague and is so far from the intended meaning (once everyone is Muslim there won't be any more people enslaved in war) that is cannot remain,
  • al-Hibri is a lawyer with no training in Islamic studies or history and publishes in law journals,
  • rationalizations for extramarital sex with slaves is so unscholarly that we are under no obligation to include it,
  • "sex with concubines was only permitted because..." is similarly devoid of content, it is a rationalization and neither exegesis nor history,
  • I think we all know that mukataba is a contract, not a right. That doesn't even make sense. You should be saying mukataba is a contract that slaves had a right to (and you would be wrong). Arrow740 04:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible for someone to share the Schimmel passage upon which the deleted material was based?Proabivouac 08:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, we discussed Hibri before. She is specialized in Islamic jurispundence and teaches course on that in University of Richmond. She is also a former professor of philosophy. In any case, she is reliable source. 2. Why Schimmel's quote is so far from the intended meaning? and why is it vague. To me it very clear. The slaves were generally imported into Muslim lands due to the restrictions imposed on a free person becoming a slave 3. Mukataba according to some scholars is a right(per EoI quote and Ghamidi agrees with that). 4. Both of Nasr's quotes are not vague and they are quite relevant. --Aminz 08:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

  • "She is specialized in Islamic jurispundence and teaches course on that in University of Richmond. She is also a former professor of philosophy. In any case, she is reliable source." Yes, for philosophy and law, and whatever she publishes in peer-reviewed journals, as long as the journals are journals of whatever we're using her for. She wants to be an expert on Islamic jurisprudence but that's not quite enough. We know that students teach classes every day, so please stop bringing that up.
  • "Why Schimmel's quote is so far from the intended meaning? and why is it vague. To me it very clear." She can only be saying, once everyone is Muslim, there will be no one left to enslave. However, what we are quoting is basically, "theoretically, slavery should end." Do you see the problem? A statement about a hypothetical situation is being presented as an apology.
  • "Mukataba according to some scholars is a right(per EoI quote and Ghamidi agrees with that)." Obviously you didn't read what I wrote. It is a contract. How can a contract be a right? Maybe you can think of some other contracts that are also rights. Anyway, the "if you find good in them" means it's not obligatory as Lewis and Gordon point out.
  • "Both of Nasr's quotes are not vague and they are quite relevant." The "many pious Muslims" one is vague. In fact there was no opposition between being a pious Muslim and owning slaves, and I will quote to that effect soon. Besides, "many" means at least three. Please admit that that is vauge. Please. The other quote is not vauge but was being completely mischaracterized. It was not a denial of slavery as it was presented, just saying that slavery wasn't that bad. Do you see the difference? Arrow740 08:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
1. al-Hibri guest-edited a special volume on Islam for the Journal of Law and Religion. She wrote a book named:"Sex, Marriage and Family in World Religions Columbia University Press". She os the professor (not TA) on the "Islamic Jurisprudence" at the university. Without qualifications she couldn't have done that. She is certainly a reliable source. 2. She says that the slavery naturally dies within the Islamic state, so the slavery theoretically ends with expansion of Islam. 3. It is obligation according to some, EoI says. 4. I will provide more details of the other views. As Gren pointed out Seyed Ahmad Khan is one example. It is not vague. "Many" doesn't mean at least 3. No. If we say many americans voted for Bush it doesn't mean at least 3 voted. And it appears to me that you only want to find a reason to remove the sourced material. I changed the heading of the section. --Aminz 08:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

1. If you want to quote from those books that would be a different story. And yes, students are the lecturers all the time. We both know that she has no degrees in the area. 2. False, Islam expanded and slavery didn't end. We're under no obligation to include false statements. 3. No, please try to understand. It is a contract. What you are probably trying to say is, the slaves had the right to the contract. Is that what you are trying to say? Anyway, views don't change the facts as reported by Lewis. 4. Yes it does. Many means three. This material is not history. Historians don't talk that way. Do you accept that? Arrow740 09:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, would someone be willing to share the relevant Schimmel passage in full?Proabivouac 09:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess Itaqallah added it, so he might have access to the source. I don't. --Aminz 09:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, it is unfortunate that you have abandoned the talk and resorted to disruptive edit-warring. I'm willing to offer a compromise. Both the flawed Nasr quotes can stay with the title on that section changed. As for the rest my position is as above.Arrow740 10:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I have not abandoned talk page. You have not provided any new argument. --Aminz 10:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I would be happy if some other people read my arguments and what you wrote and gave an opinion on the acceptability of the material in question. Arrow740 10:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Proabivouac, i believe i quoted the passage above. "We're under no obligation to include false statements." and you're in no position to judge what is or isn't false, Arrow. as for "disruptive edit-warring," you have been doing so simultaneously over numerous articles, including this one. thus, such wikilawyering is needless. as for Hibri, we have already shown several times why she is competent in the field of Islamic law and jurisprudence, and her resume provides ample proof. ITAQALLAH 15:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Arguments why Azizah Y. al-Hibri is a reliable source

  • She is specialized in Islamic jurispundence and teaches course on that in University of Richmond. She is also a former professor of philosophy. (Her area of speciality is "Comparative legal theory (especially Islamic-American in areas of human rights, and constitutional, contractual, and family law), Human rights (especially Muslim women's rights), Islamic jurisprudence,..."
  • She guest-edited a special volume on Islam for the Journal of Law and Religion.
  • She has written a lot on Islam, e.g. the book "Sex, Marriage and Family in World Religions Columbia University Press"; "The Nature of the Islamic Marriage: Sacramental, Covenantal, or Contractual,"
  • In her website she putted the source we want to use "An Islamic Perspective on Domestic Violence," 27 Fordham International Law Journal 195 (December 2003)." as a featured publication of her.
  • She has been a visiting scholar at "Harvard Divinity School and Center for the Study of World Religions"

--Aminz 10:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrow's response

  • No arguments here that pertain to WP:RS. She says it's an "area of interest" by the way.
  • Same
  • She published book on sex, marriage and family in world religion with a university press, OK, how does that pertain? I'm not sure what you were trying to convey with the next phrase.
  • "Fordham International Law Journal" she even admits: "Dr. al-Hibri publishes mostly in law journals and other legal publications."
  • Probably to learn.

No qualifications like degrees or anything like that, so we'd have to go with the publisher, if it's a RS for the material use it, otherwise don't. That is in keeping with WP:RS. Arrow740 10:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC) She dabbles (and basically admits as much) and to a small degree she's been indulged (they let her teach a couple classes, the law journal published her article talking about hadith, etc). That's it. Arrow740 10:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


  • Okay, now let's ask for comment. --Aminz 11:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
There are of course other issues above besides her. Arrow740 11:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • the Fordham International law journal is an entirely appropriate publisher for this subject. since when wasn't Islamic law a sub-category of law? it doesn't specialise in "Western" law, it deals with all types of foreign and international legal systems, and evidently that includes Islamic law. furthermore, that she teaches at recognised institutions and has received prestigious awards (i.e. the Fulbright Award (which is a scholarship) from the University of Qatar's Sharia school) on the subjects, and has her work on Islamic law published by numerous reputed presses, merely points further towards her obvious pedigree. attempts to dismiss these points remain unconvincing and ineffective. ITAQALLAH 16:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Please explain why she is any way qualified to speak about Islam and slavery and whether there is anyone out there who shares her views. Beit Or 21:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
she is qualified to speak on Islamic jurisprudence, and in this case on what Islamic jurisprudence says about slavery. ITAQALLAH 22:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Her hypothetical assertion based on flawed logic has no place here. "a contemporary scholar on Islamic civilization, asserts that because the status of slave under Islam could only be obtained through either being a prisoner of war (this was soon restricted only to infidels captured in a holy war) or born from slave parents, slavery would be theoretically abolished with the expansion of Islam" is just wrong. Slave breading like in Rome and America after the end of the trans-atlantic supply just becomes the order of the day. Not to mention the problem proving you are not owned or muslim on muslim jihad. Also its a cheap attempt to make it the slaves fault for being slaves! why i hear you ask? because if they were muslims the poor slave owner wouldn't be forced to wage jihad on them and enslave them. It's just plain insulting! Hypnosadist 23:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I quote from [3]:

The Fordham International Law Journal, published five times annually, provides a forum for student and professional articles concerning issues in international law. The Journal is managed by a board of student editors and is staffed by students who demonstrate interest and ability through the Unified Writing Competition. Membership on the Journal staff contributes significantly to a student's legal education, in particular the development of legal research and writing skills. The Journal has the distinction of being the only international law journal in the library of the European Court of Justice. In addition, the Journal maintains subscribers throughout Europe, Asia, and Latin America, and is available on LEXIS and WESTLAW.

It's a student publication from a university that isn't particularly prestigious. This is a joke. I should have known something like this was going on. Arrow740 00:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that this issue has been decided I would appreciate input on the other things we're disputing, aside from the Nasr and Sikainga which I've agreed to compromise on. Arrow740 00:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

i don't see any issue that has "been decided", except by your self. the journal is maintained by students and overseen by academics[4], the scholars who contribute to the journal are not necessarily students themselves. regardless, the journal is regarded as academic and prestigious. ans as we already know, al-Hibri is more than qualified enough to speak on the issue. ITAQALLAH 00:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
As I elucidated above, according to usual definitions of qualifications (not that you pay particular attention to standard definitions of words) she doesn't seem to have any. Arrow740 01:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
her resume suggests otherwise. in both instances you cite, you were incorrect. ITAQALLAH 01:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
We need an outside opinion. The summer school in Bahrain or wherever seems to be her only training in an Islam-related area. I wonder if she presented herself in Arabia the way she looks in the picture. Arrow740 01:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
we already had one the last time we discussed the issue, namely Merzbow's. ITAQALLAH 01:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Merzbow is a Saudi Agent (just kidding). Seriously, I guess I'll file an RfC or something. It is better to have something conclusive. Arrow740 01:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the situation for law journal is unique in that the most prestigious of them are, in fact, run by students. The FILJ page claims that "According to a study made by Washington and Lee University, Fordham International Law Journal was the number 5 most cited international and comparative law journal in the world." And the Harvard Law Review is also student-run; I'm not even a lawyer and I've heard of this famous and prestigious journal many times. It would be interesting to get an opinion by a lawyer to either back this up or not. In fact, I believe well-known user Newyorkbrad (talk • contribs) is a lawyer, I'll drop him a note. - Merzbow 02:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
What are these students supposed to know about Islam? Arrow740 02:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad has agreed with me that notable law journals are, in fact, student run. We can speculate about what they may and may not know about Islam, but the reliability of the publication has been conclusively established now. - Merzbow 03:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Very well. Now, are we to take it to be a reliable source for any subject the board cares to publish about? Arrow740 03:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course not, if they publish an editorial on wine criticism it certainly won't be notable. But I think the subject of Islamic jurisprudence is close enough. I don't think law review journals are restricted to publishing only about American legal topics. - Merzbow 05:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Islamic jurisprudence is fundamentally different from secular law because the source documents are religious. These student editors were in no position to evaluate al-Hibri's paper. Arrow740 19:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The article says that verses 4:36, 9:60, 24:33, and 40:13 advise Muslims to treat their slaves well. This statement is sourced to Bernard Lewis. Why do we need Al-Hibri to rehash the same point? Beit Or 19:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

is bad. Maybe my attempt at compromise will help... but in any case please don't change it if you are going to go back and forth edit warring. It's not a great solution but it beats back and forth editing until I have to block someone for 3RR or protect the page. Now, onward discussioning. gren グレン 10:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Gren, Islam accepted slavery and so did all religions. I am afraid this association is related to part of what Mark Leopold, senior associate member at St Antony's College at Oxford University warns of: "The easy association of slavery with Islam throughout much of the earlier literature (found especially but by no means exclusively in Christian missionary writings) is one aspect of much wider, and perhaps currently more dangerous than every Western demonization of Muslim faith and its believers." --Aminz 10:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Gren, also please take a look at [5] where Beit Or is removing well-sourced material. --Aminz 10:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Please stick to the subject of "islam and slavery" instead of starting the article by pointing to Judaism, Christianity, and other, unnamed religions. Beit Or 10:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
This sentence is descriptive. Why should we single out Islam as a religion approving slavery when all religions do? The section is certainly focused on slavery in Islam. I can not see anyhting about regulation of say Judaism regarding slavery. --Aminz 10:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
First, the claim that all religions endorse slavery is POV. Secondly, this article is about Islam and slavery, so please stick to subject. Thirdly, I continue to be amazed by your approach to writing Wikipedia: you assess material for inclusion on the basis of whether it's good or bad for the image of Islam. Beit Or 11:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Lewis says: "In 1842 the British Consul General in Morocco, as part of his government's worldwide endeavor to bring about the abolition of slavery or at least the curtailment of the slave trade, made representations to the sultan of that country asking him what measures, if any, he had taken to accomplish this desirable objective. The sultan replied, in a letter expressing evident astonishment, that "the traffic in slaves is a matter on which all sects and nations have agreed from the time of the sons of Adam . . . up to this day." The sultan continued that he was "not aware of its being prohibited by the laws of any sect, and no one need ask this question, the same being manifest to both high and low and requires no more demonstration than the light of day. The sultan was only slightly out of date concerning the enactment of laws to abolish or limit the slave trade, and he was sadly right in his general historic perspective."--Aminz 11:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Islam-related articles are often written from the defensive position... which is bad, and neutrality should solve the issue of demonization. You'll note that Christianity and slavery does not use a comparison to other religions... but, it's also poorly written making the struggle between Abolitionists and slavers into an anachronistic struggle. If we put things in social context: the state of the economy, modes of production, societal organization, it helps to explain things. However, people love to write these articles in the form of Islam is bad because it had lots of slavery and Christianity is good because it abolished it. I'm not fully sure how to make people write in more academic styles rather than using history to justify the goodness or badness of something/someone. gren グレン 10:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Why is adding "like all other religions" bad? I am fine with adding the same thing to all other articles. But as I showed above, this is more necessary in the case of Islam, because some people might have this misconception: That Islam approved slavery and Christianity didn't. Only Christins did that. --Aminz 10:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
You've totally missed the point, even though Gren has put it very well. An encyclopedia article must dispassionately discuss its subject matter, not fight some alleged misconceptions. Beit Or 11:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
"like other religions" is only 3 words. Why should we remove it. It is not a section. It is descriptive and informative. --Aminz 11:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It immediately distracts readers from the purpose of the article which is to answer to the question 'Just how far does Islam tolerate and/or promote slavery?', and to provide relevant historical examples of Islam-sponsored slavery (or an Islamic side to the abolitionist movement, though I'm not aware that there was one until the 20th century). The equivalent question with respect to other philosophies/religions is addresseed on other dedicated wiki articles, so the place to refer inquisitive readers is with links to slavery, slavery and buddhism, under the == See also == heading near the end.
Even to say 'Islam is -a- religion which ..(condones forms of slavery practice)' is to be needlessly indirect. Go to the point and put it thus:

"Islam condones (etc with respect to slavery, including circumstances of persons being born into slavery, ownership, right of concubinage, right to determine the identity of the marriage partner, prerogative to sell and trade) ... and this means in practice (authority to direct livelihood and actions, rights to discipline, master's inheritance, slaves inheritance, return of seized and runaway slaves, etc)... however there were certain admonitions against mistreatment of well-behaved slaves etc ... and the status of slaves approximated to that of freemen (in respect of x,y and z but not a,b, and c) ... while 'believing' slaves had an advantage over other slaves in respect of (acceptability as marriage partners, acceptability of their manumission as expiation for manslaughter) ... finally, slave status could be upgraded to that of mawali by the fulfilment of the mukataba, an umm walad could not be sold and would acquire free status upon her master's death, and there was otherwise a chance for slaves to be freed at the master's discretion or as an act of (in one case necessary, in other cases sufficient) expiation for certain sins of the master as per Quran."

Let's hear a !HOI! from all who have a consensus with that! DavidYork71 04:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I would be much more comfortable adding something like "Muslims inherited a slaving system not only from their Arabian heritage but from former Byzantine and Sassanid lands which they conquered." You'd need to find proper citations but I have learned this, etc. Islam was not this great unique thing where everything produced in the early 600s came straight from the mouth of God and was given to the Islamic lands. They conquered and used systems already in place for the most part until over time they began to make their own history rather than inheriting it. Early Islam ruled over a majority of non-Muslims. Context like that is fine and if you can find good works on how Islam took over the Persian and Byzantine slaving systems that would be of great interest. Also, the slaving systems differed I am sure from Africa (especially when Colonial slave routes made it much more hardcore) to Central Asia (which wasn't a major part of the slave system to my knowledge). That would be informative and it would show that slaving isn't uniquely Islamic in a way that's not being apologetic but instead explaining historical processes. gren グレン 11:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
That's a good suggestion. And I agree with your general statements about development of Shariah. I think in the process of "making their own history rather than inheriting it", the forged hadith justifying previously enforced laws were also important. --Aminz 11:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't agree with you more, Gren. However, it is inappropriate to use the existence of slavery in non-Muslim societies to deflect possible criticism of Islam. This is a tu quoque fallacy and not related to the subject of the article. Interestingly, this defense is also illogical from the Muslim standpoint: Islam is supposed to be the perfect, God-sanctioned way of life. If, in at least some aspects, it is bad, but no worse than others, then how can it be perfect? Beit Or 11:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think Shariah is meant to be perfect. It is ever changing at least among shias. So, I don't think Shias believed it has ever been perfect. Among Sunnis, only the doctorine of Ijma stopped possible new interpretations. --Aminz 11:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
That Islam inherited slavery from other societies is related to this article. --Aminz 11:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to deflect criticism from Islam. I am trying to explain Islam and slavery. The institutions of slavery arose out of an historical context. You can blame Islam or not... it doesn't matter. Our writing shouldn't blame Islam. Slavery is a neutral subject. Muhammad owned slaves. Muhammad ate bread. Two statements and you can think what you will of them. We explain them, contextualize them and don't suggest that they are good or bad. That's neutrality. Muslims can think Islam is perfect. Others can think it's Satanic. I'm happy with just trying to explain it. And although it makes you sound very sophisticated to bring up logical fallacies my point is not to deal with moral judgment about Islam. Tu quoque implies that I am trying to justify Islam's use of slavery. It doesn't need any justification. It needs to be explained how it developed and why it developed. It borrowed institutions from many other places because the Arabs were not equipped to run an empire so they took ideas from wherever they could. Ideas about slavery are just one of those facets. If you think that all "Islamic ideas" came straight from God then you're more of a Muslim than I thought. :O And it's not like you're sullying a perfect Islam. Those Muslims who think slavery is an aberration just said that those who interpreted earlier were wrong. You seem to want to prove that "Islam isn't perfect". The problem is when we write about Islam we don't mean a faith as much as we mean a large historical view. On Wikipedia we do not declare certain beliefs "un-Islamic" whereas a Muslim has the prerogative to do so. Oh well, I think you missed my point earlier. gren グレン 11:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Hah, my post sounded rather... I can't think of the right word... but, sometimes it's not the best thing to list the fallacies you believe someone is committing. You know? gren グレン 11:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it was a misunderstanding, Gren. My point about deflecting criticism etc. pertained to Aminz's version of the first sentence of the article, not to your comment. Beit Or 11:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, well my advice about fallacies still stands. In any case, in looking to source my claim most of the talk is regionally about the influence of colonialism in challenging the systems of slavery in various ways. Most of the don't seem to universalize it since they are only discussing their particular areas. It does need to be sourced, but I want to know: are you disagreeing with it? gren グレン 11:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I've understood your comment. What am I disagreeing with? Beit Or 12:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
You added unsourced to the intro I added. Do you believe it to be false? (It needs to be source either way, but this is important as well). gren グレン 12:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The claim that the legality of slavery is disputed among modern Muslim scholars is a strong one and needs good sourcing. For example, who are these scholars? Beit Or 12:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it's wrong to bring other religions into discussion here. "like Judaism, Christianity and other world religions" is defensive writing. - Merzbow 21:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologetics

It is strange that Aminz views stating the facts about Islam and slavery in a neutral manner makes this article critical of Islam. When stating the facts seems like criticism, that becomes time for critical thinking.

The slavery in the Arab World in the 19th century has been documented by Dr. Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje, an Arabist and a scholar of Indonesian affairs, who had visited Mecca during his journey in the Hijaz. He states in his book Mohammedanism that "Slaves in the Arab world are generally not that different from servants and workers in Europe” and that their masters “handled them with a genial humanity that made their lot no worse - perhaps better, as more secure - than that of a factory worker in nineteenth-century Europe." [4]

This does not belong in the lead paragraph. Perhaps another place can be found for a summary of this, perhaps not. This article is not a place to put everything that one could use to rationalize divine sanction of the evil institution.

Also regarding 4:92, replacing "Muslim" with "believer" removes argument that original research is being conducted. Arrow740 19:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find the quote in the source. The source instead says:"There is perhaps no nation where the captives, the slaves, the very toilers in the galleys are better provided for or treated with more kindness than among the Muhammedans." In general case, due to the negative bias of 19th century scholar regarding Islam, we should only use recent sources. --Aminz 22:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The quote could be even back up with the views of Jewish/Zionist scholars like Stillman and Lewis.[6] --Aminz 22:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)misplaced
Though Muslims use the word Zionist to avoid claims of antisemitism the word Jewish is still the prefereable term for those people. Arrow740 23:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, I'm really surprised by your choice of language here. It makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist. What has "Zionism" to do with Islam and slavery anyhow? Pretty much nothing.Proabivouac 00:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to add this to the "Islam and Antisemitism" article and mistakenly added it here. Sorry. --Aminz 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, please address my question. --Aminz 00:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong article again, Aminz? Arrow740 00:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I repeat my comment:"I couldn't find the quote in the source. The source instead says:"There is perhaps no nation where the captives, the slaves, the very toilers in the galleys are better provided for or treated with more kindness than among the Muhammedans." In general case, due to the negative bias of 19th century scholar regarding Islam, we should only use recent sources." --Aminz 00:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
So what do you want from me? Arrow740 00:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
There are two problems. 1. The source for "Slaves in the Arab world are generally not that different from servants and workers in Europe" 2. Usage of a 19th century scholar. --Aminz 00:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
1. I took out that paragraph from the intro that someone else had put in. I don't have the book. Is it available online? 2. I hear your opinion on this. Arrow740 00:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you please check the presented source http://www.al-islam.org/slavery/3.htm#n21 It says quite the opposite thing: "There is perhaps no nation where the captives, the slaves, the very toilers in the galleys are better provided for or treated with more kindness than among the Muhammedans." --Aminz 00:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright, so let's keep it out of the article until it is verified. Maybe someone can get the book with the Hurgronye quote. Arrow740 00:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
So please keep it out. --Aminz 00:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I am the one who removed it. Arrow740 00:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I am refering to this edit. [7]--Aminz 01:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Me too. I did two things in that edit. Arrow740 02:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference for forced marriage of slaves

Malik ibn Anas, vol. 2, page 155 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidYork71 (talk • contribs).

please stop inserting original research. ITAQALLAH 17:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't removed sourced material without discussion. Arrow740 17:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
being sourced doesn't save it from being original research. besides, i have discussed it. ITAQALLAH 17:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
If it is sourced and topical it is not OR. What are your specific issues regarding this article? Arrow740 18:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
this edit is OR. ITAQALLAH 18:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I suppose you're right, you can revert back to the bot. Arrow740 18:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Additions

Can someone please summerize these and add to the article whenever he is free:

Sikainga states:

"The Quran admonishes the owner to treat the slaves well, and provide them with medical care when required as well as with adequate upkeep. If the owner fails to meet these obligations, the qadi (Muslim judge) can compel him/her to fulfil them or else either to sell or emancipate the slave. The owner is forbidden to overwork the slave, and if s/he does so to the point of cruelty, s/he is liable to incur a penalty that is, however, discretionary and not prescribed by law."
"Islam encouraged manumission (Arabic ‘itq) and provided several procedures to facilitate it. The first method is mukataba, or a contract of manumission between the owner and the slave, whereby the latter would pay the former a fixed sum of money. The second is tadbir, by which the owner would declare that a slave would be freed after the owner’s death. A third method is a verbal proclamation by the owner that a slave is free. Fourth, a slave could be freed as a kafara or penance for accidental homicide, breaking an oath, or other offenses."

--Aminz 08:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Slavery in the Qur'an

Arrow, I think Sikainga's point was a general description of the Qur'anic conception of slavery. I think we should start a new paragraph for that cause it is different from other verses dealing with specific verses. In his article, Sikainga starts with this and then goes into specific details later. Would you please let me know why you moved it to the end of the article [8]. Thanks --Aminz 23:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The section seems to belie Sikainga. Arrow740 00:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

How? --Aminz 01:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Most of the verses there are of a legal nature. His comment should probably be removed altogether since it is incorrect. Arrow740 02:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, he says that verses are mainly of ethical nature and it is attributed to him. BTW, in the article, he has an stress on that poiny putting it as "It is important to note that ..."--Aminz 02:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
But the verses discussed in this article are mostly of a legal nature. Arrow740 02:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, Arrow, the "see also" for "Slavery in the Qur'an" is "Slavery in the Bible" and not in religion. --Aminz 01:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to draw the reader's attention to the Bible there. Arrow740 02:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It is seealso. "Slavery in the Qur'an", "Slavery in the Bible" belong to the same category--Aminz 02:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll defer to you until I see what it's like in other articles. It seems like defensive writing to me. Arrow740 02:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The quranic verses need to be fixed using the {{quran-usc}} template.--Sefringle 02:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

When using this word, Wikipedians should take care to explain what is meant by this term in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Wikipedia articles should not use it to mean "strongly-held belief", "opposition to science", or "religious conservatism", as it is often used in the popular press. As religion is a controversial topic, Wikipedia editors should be prepared to see some of these articles edited due to what may seem minor quibbles.


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hypnosadist (talk • contribs) 09:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Prose

The article says "While one scholar agrees Islam improved the slavery, all agree it didn't abolish it" is criticism and judgmental as if Islam had to abolish it. We should not put is "while... all". We simply report the facts. We should simply say that Islam recognized slavery and improved status of slaves. --Aminz 07:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

DavidYork, please explain your edits one by one, achieve consensus and move on. --Aminz 07:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Aminz had undone edits of mine (indiscriminate reversion)and what's been lost is:
1. lead reference to the section 'Modern day slavery'
2. referenced paragraph about birth into slavery
WP:LEAD speaks of an introduction that is a 'concise overview' and a 'very brief overview of the article' and which 'briefly summarizes the most important points covered in the article' with 'a sentence, clause, or at least a word devoted to each of the main headlines'. It is to be only 1-2 paragraphs in an article less than 15000 chars. What you've put there now is =5= paragraphs, and also not concise. You'll see it also raises points not raised in the body of the article, like about Byzantium and the rules of birth into slavery.
I've previously put my proposals for the plan of editing this article. See further up the page.
I'm asking myself if -I- am known for excising relevant referenced material with indiscriminate reverts
I would see the main points of the articles, and to be breifly covered in the introduction, as these

Islam condones circumstances of slavery including birth into slavery. There are (two) means of enslavement. There are several means of manumission. Civil rights, including marriage rights of slaves, are comprehensively regulated. The Arab slave trade, regulated by Islam, was a major enterprise. Abolition of slavery now applies to all muslim countries However abolitionism is unislamic (all scholars concur) And modern-day islamic slavery is documented in Arabia and North Africa.

Further development on each point is restricted to the article body.
You've said my referencing a scholars conclusion that Islam confounds abolitionism is 'criticism and judgement' of Islam. So would I also take it that referring to the Holocaust in an article about Fascism is also against some wiki policy because some reader terms it as a criticism. If you detect an unbalanced judgement, then i'd invite you to balance with referenced comment from scholars about why al these things like, say, .. birth into slavery, masters controlling the marriage of slaves, masters dictating the terms of or refusing to grant mukataba, rights of concubinage, prerogatives of ownership and disciplining, resiling from abolitionism .. are good.

DavidYork71 08:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

DV71, here is a diff showing your edits: [9]
1. Starting from the beginning: you changed:"The major juristic schools of Islam have historically accepted the institution of slavery" to "All mainline Islamic madh'habs provide certain permissions for the practice of slavery" it doesn't improve anything and it doesn't seem better at all.
2. You removed " However, the Islamic dispensation enormously improved the position of the Arabian slave through the reforms of a humanitarian tendency both at the time of Muhammad and the later early caliphs." to "While at least one historian has concluded that 'the Islamic dispensation enormously improved the position of the Arabian slave through the reforms of a humanitarian tendency both at the time of Muhammad and the later early caliphs'"
Encyclopedia of Islam also says the same thing so does other scholars. Putting it as "WHILE ..." is loading the sentence with further meanings. It is not NPOV way of putting it.
3. You added "all scholarship concurs that neither from the Qur'an nor from the hadith may we infer any intention to effect the abolition of slavery"
It is repetitive. We already mentioned that "The major juristic schools of Islam have historically accepted the institution of slavery". What's the point of putting this in contrast with others?
Let's address these points and we can move on further. --Aminz 09:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • DavidYork71, please stop editing in contravention to wikipedia policy. namely WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:MOS, and so on. please stop inserting biased commentary, masking it as sourced. ITAQALLAH 12:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


Revisions of Lead

I have put some work into revision of the to live more up to the purposes of WP:LEAD. See below in full then further comment.

Islamic permissions for slavery practise are found in all of the mainlinemadh'habs (or schools of Islamic thought and jurisprudence).

The personal example of the conduct of Muhammad' also encompasses all of practices of slave ownership, slave emancipation, slave trafficking, slave concubinage and the approval for the enslavement of entire tribes through military enterprises.

Islamic fiqh deals comprehensively with the regulation of slavery and slave relations. It covers the means by which persons become enslaved, the means by which slaves may attain their emancipation, the masters rights of ownership and discipline and concubinage, matters relating to inheritance, restrictions and negations upon the prerogative of slave to choose their marriage partner(s), rights and obligations and disabilities of mawali, economic rights of slaves party to mukataba, and the obligations of the master with respect to his or her slave(s).

The Islamic (or 'Oriental' or 'Arab') slave trade is a term that describes the practice of slavery and slave trafficking - enjoying either the acceptance or promotion of the Islamic state - across East Africa and West Asia commencing from the Eighth through until the early 20th century. Those enslaved came from a most diverse variety of racial and geographic backgrounds. Although many of the enslaved were black, it may be distinguished from the concurrent European, West African and American slave trades in that there was no component of programmatic racial subjugation. There are also examples of slaves or former slaves attaining to positions of influence and even rulership in society during its currency.

The suppression and eventual outlawing of slavery in Muslim lands did not commence until the period after World War I), and then owes its inspiration largely to the pressure and controlling power influence exerted by leading abolitionist nations - particularly Britain and France. In places (for example, Mauritania) it is known to have have remained legal even up until the early 1980s.

Contemporary slavery practice in the Islamic world, despite official denials and proscriptions, finds expression in parts of Africa and Arabia and (most notably and persistingly) in the Sudan - in defence of which Islamic fiqh has conveniently, and at times creatively, been proffered as a justification.

This is highlighting six headlined themes (bold above) in the ensuing article. Unlike what was before
  • 'providing concise overview'
  • 'highlighting what comes in the article'
  • 'capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article'
  • 'establishing context'. I admit it doesn't define 'Islam', 'Muhammad', 'Slavery'. That would constitute an improvement
  • 'explaining why the subject is interesting or notable' This is lacking and can improve.
  • 'briefly describing notable controversies' Lacking. Controversies would be certains differences in the views of the differing madhhab (i have material on this to add in presently). Controversy of civil law abolitionism vs indefeasible slavery permissions of fiqh, HAS been referred to. NB. the number of such differences/controversies is more than can be all easily covered in intro.
  • 'clear and accessible style' (IMHO)
  • 'small details avoided' - this is big improvement from prior content
  • 'reader encouraged to read the rest of the article' I think this is achieved but your objective opinions are sought
  • 'subject of the article should be mentioned at the first natural place that it occurs in the prose, preferably in the first sentence' I can do this along with a brief description of why the subject is important and interesting.
  • 'carefully sourced as appropriate' Sourcing to all parts is found in the text of the body plus accompanying article 'Muhammed's Slaves'
  • length is longer than recommended but so was subsumed version
  • 'specialised terminology avoided' Madhhab is defined, .. fiqh?

Comments and adaptations invited. DavidYork71 13:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

a number of problems here. among them: a) you don't boldface the start of each paragraph b) you don't remove extremely well sourced material and replace it with your own musings c) you don't replace neutral commentary with biased commentary d) you don't introduce stylistic errors by splitting up the lead as extensively as you have done. ITAQALLAH 13:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
To say that the above is 'personal musing' is misguided. It is, summarised against six points corresponding to headings with in the main article, the precis of the content for the article that follows and that of its associated article (Muhammad's slaves). What exactly there is not tied to something in either article? Only one person willing to comment?
I have much interesting material here to include on fiqh of marriage by and to slaves, child slavery and birth into slavery, emasculation, slaves and property, slaves as property, slaves and their inheritance, slaves and retribution for manslaughter(talio), enforceability promises of manumission, inhibitions on bequests by mawla, 20th century Islamic slavery, slave marriage restrictions .. just imagine being a slave and your master saying who you may and must not marry and you have no legal recourse against it. Levy is a very interesting book about this. Past my bedtime so it will have to wait another day

DavidYork71 18:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

your lengthy reply is mostly a red herring. your contributions are unsourced original research, tainted with your own subjective analyses. for it to replace a well-sourced, accurate, neutral introduction is bemusing. ITAQALLAH 01:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead Para

Here again is a single lead para I have crafted. For critical assessment against the elements of WP:LEAD concise? covers main points? draws interest to article?, readable? referenced where necessary? small detail avoided? argot avoided? clear accessible style? existence of controversies mentioned? Evaluate, develop and comment:

Islam and slavery have a long history of accomodation defined by the existence of the Oriental slave trade for over a thousand years until last century. The subject has modern relevance because, despite official proscriptions, Islamically-condoned slavery (or at least slavery asserted as such) is still practised in parts of Arabia and Africa - most notably Sudan. The subject describes a tension between the goals of the modern abolitionist movement and contrary outcomes tolerated by Islam, especially with respect to the circumstance of young children 'born into' slavery and the plight of waqf slaves who may be held in slavery indefinitely.[5] It is also true that in the last century Islamic countries were among the last in the world to finally disavow and reject slavery. The accomodation of slavery within Islam is a rich subject with some interesting variances between the main traditional schools of Islamic thought (madhhabs). Finally, Islamic slavery has, - with respect to racial equality and the social mobility of slaves and former slaves - produced some commendable outcomes at least in comparison with slavery practised elsewhere in the world.
DavidYork71 18:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

DavidYork, please reply to my comment above. --Aminz 20:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The intro already says the two ways a person can become a slave. Please do not give undue weight to it. --Aminz 20:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
i see no reason to repleace the current well-sourced, neutral intro. ITAQALLAH 00:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The intro was bloated and apologetic. I'm not saying that the current version is perfect, but it is an improvement in those two aspects. Arrow740 07:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Bloated, apologetic; big amen to both. And apologetic in the sense that I'm wont to call 'turd-polishing' (or turdpainting) (cf. the expression 'you can't polish a turd') where Islam's status as a religion tolerating people being owned by and born enslaved to others .. is the turd. What's your view re this one para covering six points vs the longer intro of six points each with separate paras that I drafted and posted further above?
DavidYork71 12:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Remember the intro is to be concise, briefly covering all points and major headings, not introducing technical terms and detail. It is clear and readable, defines the subject, and states why the subject is interesting and worthy of note. It acknowledge the existence of significant controversies without launching into the assessment of any of them. The former lead just fell down on a lot of those criteria.
DavidYork71 12:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
ideal leads should be around three paragraphs long, summing up the article. it was well sourced, and replacing it with presentist, convoluted, and virtually unsourced prose is tantamount to vandalism. "apologetic" is a subjective and invalid pretext for removing well sourced material. ITAQALLAH 18:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:LEAD relates that the ideal lead will be 'sourced, as appropriate'. Now where a lead is summarising content that follows (ie. not introducing something from outside it) the sourcing is from the content that follows, which is also where the referencing is contained.
DavidYork71 19:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:LEAD states that the lead should be 'carefully sourced as appropriate.' the standard practice is to apply the same standards of citation to the lead as one would to the rest of the article, despite the lead summarising the article. ITAQALLAH 20:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
What evidence leads you to suggest that that is the standard practice? Arrow740 20:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
A suggestion for both 'sides' in this debate: the lead simply needs to summarise the existing contents and this can include the citations. Thus, like any summary/introduction, there should be NO content in the lead that is not in the main body - this is simple and mandatory. It should mention all main sections and ideas even if it is only one concise sentence to summarise 20 from the main body. On the other hand (but in fact related), there is no need to cite anything that is not cited in the body. I think you all get the idea that the lead should be a brief summary and not contain anything that is not in the body. Why is that difficult? --Merbabu 21:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Merbabu, i think the current lead fulfills that. indeed, a lead almost identical to this was part of the version that attained GA status. Arrow, the better articles tend to employ extensive usage of inline citations, including in the lead. ITAQALLAH 21:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, my intention was not to criticise or endorse any particular version. It is not a debate I want to get into detail over. I just want to make some general observations ad suggestions not specifically on content. Ie, a lead should not be that controversial if it is merely a highly summarised version of the article without additional info. As for the cites, once again, the 'as appropriate' phrase in the guideline suggest to me that if an editor feels that it is needed that's fine (as it will be cited in the body) - but we shouldn't be citing something in the lead if it is not cited in the body.Merbabu 22:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Reformed structure, new content, propose renomination for GA

By contributions and changes I've effected today there are some significant changes to the structure, which I relate for you below:

Contents [hide] 1 Reforming character of Islamic slavery 2 Pre-Islamic slavery 3 Slavery in the Qur'an and Sunnah 4 Islamic jurisprudence 4.1 Enslavement 4.2 Means of emancipation 4.3 Prerogatives of masters over slaves 4.4 Obligations of masters to slaves 4.5 Legal disabilities and dispensations of slaves 5 History of slavery under Islamic rule 5.1 The 'Islamic' slave trade 5.2 19th century and post 19th century 5.3 20th century suppression and outlawry 6 Contemporary slavery in the Islamic world 6.1 Contemporary Islamic juridical support for slavery 6.2 Islamically-inspired resurgence of slavery in contemporary Africa 6.2.1 Slavery in Sudan 6.2.2 Islamic slavery elsewhere in Africa 6.2.3 Disputation about the plight of slaves and official government denials

you will see that 1, 4.3-4.5, 5, 5.3, 6.2 and 6.2.2 are new headings

The lead is a single paragraph with much of the former lead under the first para. I would propose renomination for GA, but also would propose to introduce picture content of Islamic slaves and slave traders past and present .. particularly sudan. I can certainly find Sudan pictures but will take time for copyright clearing.

Please comment about the logical treatment of the subject matter in the scheme of content headings about. Any proposals for new headings or subheadings, moves, or mergings. Does it make sense and proceed logically and cover everything as good as or better than before. Please also note my newest contributions of the material for 4.3-4.5, 5.3 and 6.2.2. DavidYork71 05:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Nom done by me today under 'Social sciences - Miscellaneous nominations'

DavidYork71 05:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

GA comment

The issues in the top banner need to be fixed and a citation added to the statement with the citation needed template after it. Unless these two things are addressed, somebody may quick-fail it. --Nehrams2020 05:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


Changes, comments, questions...

I will try to spend a bit of time looking at this article and comment/edit where I can. I will progressively post any changes here. Please discuss if you need to. As a general comment, I am wondering if perhaps some of this information might not be better used in Slavery in Africa. Sure, some people are trying to use Islam to justify slavery, but does that mean we should therefore write a thinly failed article critical of Islam, or is it the fault of those behind slavery?

  • [10] - Looking at the reference provided. There is no reference to 'Islamic slavery'. There is also no reference to slavery justified by Islam. The word 'Islam' appears twice but not in the context your contribution suggests. Merbabu 08:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • [11] I've added more from this article. It changes it a lot if we include a bit more of the article. Again, isn't this more about Slavery in Africa? --Merbabu 08:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • [12] I've noticed this bit In early Islam, neither a Muslim nor a Christian or Jew could be enslaved.< ref > John Esposito (1998) p.40< /ref > ) seems to be missing from the current version - please let me know if I am wrong. If it is missing, can someone explain? I'm not challenging, merely asking. --Merbabu 08:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I see a lot of references to "Islam regards...", "Islams allows...", "Islam permits...", "In Islam...", - these seem very broad and sweeping. Is this exactly what the original sources say? I assumes that the issue is black and white with no interpretation allowed. Is that really so? Or should they be saying something like "According to Mr XXXX, Islam permits..." The sources probably need to be checked. --Merbabu 09:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • [13] We need to confirm what this source really says. The change is quite different, but the cited source is the same. hmmm. Merbabu 09:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • [14]. I made this change. I don't have this reference but have a number of others on the topic (ie, East Indies). Can hopefully add later. (see question below regarding use of this reference). Merbabu 10:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • From [15]. Writing about 1862 the English traveller W.G. Palgrave says that in Arabia he constantly met with '''negro'' slaves in large numbers.. That should probably be changed unless that is the actual word used in the reference, in which case it should be put in inverted commas. Merbabu 10:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Same with this one At Constantinople, the sale of women slaves, both negresses and Circassians continued to be openly practised until the granting of the Constitution in 1908.< ref >Levy, p.88< /ref >
  • Actually, I'm not sure what this whole section 20th century suppression and outlawry has got to do with Islam. It's not enough that they are examples from majority Muslim areas. Any reason i might have missed?Merbabu 10:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • [16] I'm just wondering, why has the Sunnah been added here? is it referring to the added paragraph on Muhammad? And is that addition relevant to the section? Just asking. Merbabu 11:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • [17]. Hmmm - quite a few here:
  • The practice of the enslavement of child war captives, enjoying the justification of the Islamic sharia - This is a fairly strong statement. While I am not in a position to suggest it is incorrect, and I know it is a quote, are we just going to take the writer's word for it? Is it indeed correct? If so, is it in the article cos I must have missed it. --Merbabu 11:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The large The Wall Street Journal quote (December 12, 2001) by Michael Rubin has no reference. Is it online? Where was it found? Merbabu 11:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This quote has been added to with in-line citations. Do we know that these are indeed the reports the writer was talking about? --Merbabu 11:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • [18] The supplied reference doesn't mention the word Islam or Muslim. Thus, I'm questioning the need for this passage in and article on islam and slavery? How about Slavery in Mauretania? Merbabu 11:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • THis unreferenced OR has now been placed in twice in 60mins. [19], [20]. Do not synthesise information or have original research please. Merbabu 12:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • [21]: A few changes to reflect what was in the cited article. --Merbabu 12:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • [22]. I feel this is poorly sourced. While I don't have reason to doubt it's accuracy, if it is indeed the case then there are no doubt better sources than an art critic. Not to disparage Robert Hughes, but i just don't think an opinion piece of his, no matter how good quality, is the bst info on the current status of slavery in Africa. Furthermore, the word 'Islam' or 'Muslim' does not appear in the article. Merbabu 13:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • [23] Is this the best place for the Nasr quote? Is it singificant? I certainly think it is a 'good' one. I don't understand why it is in this particular spot. Merbabu 13:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sachau's Muhammedanisches Recht

With regard to this [24] contribution, I am wondering how the editor got to use this old (1897) apparently German language book. Have you quoted it from another source? If so, that reference should also be put there. Ie, "cited in......" Merbabu 10:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The title would seem to be 'Muhammedan's Law' cited by Reuben Levy who is the author of these two books - [[25]], [[26]]
Nice work. Merbabu 12:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Propose remove NPOV dispute tags

Any objections in the next 48-72 hours? DavidYork71 12:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

there are far too many edits which are extremely tendentious and original research, as well as unilaterally enforced. there does seem to be some reasonable material here and there, but within the sea of unencyclopedic writing it seems a rarity. also, please don't flood up the history by making volumes of seperate edits. ITAQALLAH 23:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Itaqallah, I agree with your comments on the removal of the tag, except not your comment about not filling up the edit history. I would MUCH rather prefer small incremental changes that are explained in detail with each edit summary. Some one-off changes are so massive that it took me ten minutes to go through very carefully with a fine tooth comb. On the contrary, a detailed incremental edit history is very important for a clearly contentious topic as this one. Ie, look at this [27]. ???? regards Merbabu 23:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
that edit was pretty much a revert to his version. i've been told that flooding the history page wastes wiki resources. also see Template:Preview. ITAQALLAH 23:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok - i understand the argument that it stretches wiki resources, but in an edit war it will just have to be excused. Although I do agree with you that might simple non controversial fix of spelling which was one at a time, could have been done a bit more efficiently. As for saying that the reversion to his version it merely begs the question 'which version' - ie, it's unclear and 'opposing' editors can just get confused and grumpy. Merbabu 23:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop being cowboys

All 'sides' need to stop large scale reversion back and forth with minimal explanation. This applies to BOTH Itaqallah and David York from the two 'sides'. This article has to be approached seriously and incrementally. This [28] for example is completely inflammatory edit warring. There is no excplanation or description of why or to where this was reverted. Merbabu 23:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

the material had been rehashed and resectioned, which i believe was unreasonable. the previous consensus version was of a layout similar to this. the extensive rewriting of the whole article was undiscussed and inappropriate. ITAQALLAH 23:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
In fact, DavidYork started violation of "All 'sides' need to stop large scale reversion back and forth with minimal explanation." --Aminz 23:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Merbabu, making series of unilateral, wholesale edits, many of which are against policy, will inevitably result in a lot of the needless contributions being undone. i restored a scholarly, well-sourced lead, and you have reverted to a presentist, unsourced and lopsided lead. the sectioning introduced by DavidYork is poor, unilateral and illogical, and is contrary to previous consensus. ITAQALLAH 23:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me point out the first flaw in the new version: See the "Oriental slave trade" bit in the beginning of the intro and "The 'oriental' or 'Arab' slave trade is sometimes called Islamic slave trade, but religion was hardly the point of the slavery, Patrick Manning, a professor of World History, states." --Aminz 23:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Another example of OR: "The subject has modern relevance because, despite official proscriptions, Islamically-condoned slavery (or at least slavery asserted as such) is still practised in parts of Arabia and Africa - most notably Sudan."
That's POV; Compare this with "Since mid-twentieth century, slavery has been virtually extinct in the cental Islamic lands, through reports from Sudan and Somalia reveal that slavery is still practiced in border areas as a result of continuing war." from The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, p.298. Plus it is also POV because the Sudan government denies slavery. --Aminz 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
And there you go "The subject describes a tension between the goals of the modern abolitionist movement and contrary outcomes tolerated by Islam, especially with respect to the circumstance of young children 'born into' slavery and the plight of waqf slaves who may be held in slavery indefinitely"
I suggest you guys read this work by Bernard Lewis on slavery [29]. It explains how an article on slavery is best organized. The article in Encyclopedia of Islam is also good. --Aminz 23:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, a general comment. I’m not going to stand in the way of general whole-sale reversions back and forth if that’s the preferred method. It’ just not my preference. I was also assuming AGF in that MAYBE DY did add something of value. Ie, I wanted to justify each deletion and removal of his info. For example, I did do a good job of pointing out the flawed reinterpretation of his sources and insistence on blaming Islam for the cases of slavery (ie, blame that was largely missing from the articles). Agreed, he's quick to label slavery Islamically (is that even a word?) inspired simply beacuse it is in a 'Muslim country'. He has a real problem in synthesising and re-interpreting facts. See Australia-Indonesia relations.
OK - Having said all that, and saying I won’t become involved in a mass revert war, I suppose am happy to see the article reverted to pre-DY version (the GA version) as per Aminz’s suggestion and then have EACH subsequent addition justified on talk page first. I am happy to help enforce that. To be fair, the onus is on all parties to explain in reasonable detail why or why not they think a change is acceptable. --Merbabu 23:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Merbabu. --Aminz 00:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now removed this comment or similar 3 times in 24 hours [30] - david has inserted it three times. Yes, it is OR or at best synthesis.Merbabu 23:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Fail

Quick failed because of NPOV tag, obviously, the concerns above have not been adequately addressed, removal of the tag won't do that. Sorry. Good luck with the article.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 12:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Linking to Muhammad's slaves

Linking to that article has been removed. I proposed linking with the summarisation of its content under the heading 'Slavery in the Quran and Sunnah' thus: 'In the Sunnah, or personal example of the conduct of Muhammad, there are demonstrations of the behaviours of slaveholding, slave trafficking, the employment of slaves, household slavery, emancipation and adoption of slaves, slave concubinage, and approval for the enslavement of captive individuals or even of entire tribes as the result of military enterprises (see Muhammad's slaves).' Is there else which would be needed to add in there to summarise the article and its relevance to this one?DavidYork71 00:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this here. It shows others you are willing to collaborate (or at least willing to think about collaborating - ha ha). I questioned it's removal but did not remove it. Firstly, there is the issue of original research. While it is probably factually accurate (others may correct me) on this occasion it’s significance and hence need for inclusion is (a) unexplained/unclear (b) and/or your actual assertion of its significance is OR without specific reference to its significance (no matter how 'true' it may be). Ie, it’s not clear why it is here. I think you yourself have just alluded to the fact that it may need to be linked in better with the topic and relevance made clearer. At best, it is a minor point in the article and needs to be well-referenced. When another editor removed it, from memory they cited OR issues too. I hope the editor opposing it can explain. Merbabu 00:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
we don't substantiate assertions by citing other wiki articles. the cited article doesn't seem to verify the assertion anyway: the references to Za'ad al-Ma'ad are not usable as explained on talk. your alterations of the "Islamic position on slavery" in that article were misrepresentations of the sources. ITAQALLAH 01:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
David, without specific reference to its significance or some very profound and new case on your behalf, I agree with Itaqallah that it should not be here. ie, it's significance is unclear and unreferenced (and that is assuming it is actually correct).Merbabu 01:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
We would but any source that sites this is to POV to be used!Hypnosadist 02:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The present lead paragraph has reference to Muhammad and his associates owning slaves so there is the apt place to provide link to Muhammad's slaves. And yes this man, owned, traded, 'bought more than he sold', freed and adopted (Zayd), and took as concubine (Maria the copt), as well as approving enslavements (including mass enslavements - see and birth into slavery
The argument for the inclusion of this link is self evident. Muhammad is an exemplar for the islamic faith, his buying, selling and capturing of slaves indicates the complete acceptance of slavery as an act a good muslim can do. What is the Sunnah if it is not the example of Muhammed recorded for all time. Can there honestly be any debate about that? DavidYork71 08:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Replacement Lead Proposal

The current lead section has been criticised by other editors as 'bloated' and 'apologetic'. Here below is my proposal of an alternative for adaptation and comment. Remember, the lead is to be 'referenced, as appropriate' and it's not necessarily appropriate for the lead to be doubling references, for the parts of the article it summarises, where those reference are to be seen in the article's main body:

[START]
Bold textIslam and slavery have a long history of accommodation defined by the existence of the Islamic (or 'Arab' or 'Oriental') slave trade for over a thousand years until last century. The subject has modern relevance because, despite official proscriptions, Islamically-condoned slavery (or at least slavery asserted as such) is still practised in parts of Arabia and Africa - most notably Sudan. The subject describes a tension between the goals of the modern abolitionist movement and contrary outcomes tolerated by Islam, especially with respect to the circumstance of young children 'born into' slavery and the plight of waqf slaves who may be held in slavery indefinitely.Bold text[6]

Bold textIt is also true that in the latter half of the last century a number of Islamic countries were among the last in the world to formally disavow and repudiate slavery, while the toleration for slavery practices still seen in parts the Islamic world draws some of its support from pronouncements by influential Sunni religious scholars on the subject of Islamic permissions for its continuance.Bold text

Bold textAs a historical fact and a modern reality the accommodation of slavery within Islam is a rich subject with some interesting variances between the main traditional schools of Islamic thought (madhhabs). Finally, Islamic slavery has, - with respect to racial equality and the social mobility of slaves and former slaves - produced some commendable outcomes at least in comparison with slavery practised elsewhere in the world.Bold text
[END]

Anti-Slavery Hadith and Scholarly statements

  • This article is written in the passive voice as if Islam accepts slavery, like there is not difference of opinion on it.
  • There are Hadith that condemn slavery. Why are they not here?
  • Why is the Quranic notion of slavery only to Allah not mentioned?
  • Why is it when the Wahabi Salih al-Fawzaa's "affirmation of slavery" is mentioned from his rant "Taming a Neo-Qutubite Fanatic" that it is not mentioned that "Qutubite" refers to Syed Qutb followers of the Muslim Brotherhood and used as a slur against modern Islamists by Wahabis? i.e Islamists; currently the largest political leaning in the Muslim world, and the MB being the largest Islamic group globally and in Egypt + Sudan, believe Islam banned slavery.
  • There needs to be some quotes from islamic scholars that abhor slavery
  • This article should be sourced and used more to add to the article. Aaliyah Stevens 10:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And there is a difference between Arabs having "a long history of accommodation of a slave trade for over a thousand years until last century" and Islam doing so. Not everything Arabs do is representative of Islam, or is Islam. 10-15% of all Arabs are Christians, and the number was much higher in previous centuries. Arabs are not Islam. Aaliyah Stevens 10:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Too much original research to merit a response. Beit Or 23:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well find it in your heart to merit my humble self with such a response from your precious time. Aaliyah Stevens 23:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Aaliyah Stevens i will talk to you, and answer some of your points! Lets start with who stopped slavery, the trans-atlantic trade was stopped by the Royal Navy but the Arab trade routes took much longer and involved the french and germans as well and their troops on the ground in thier colonies in north africa. The abolishon of slavery was a European idea imposed by force on non-europeans in an act of cultural imperialism. And in those places the "western" troops couldn't control slavery continued, in the case of places like Saudi Arabia and Oman well into the twentith century.

Secondly the Muslim Brotherhood have been at best mis-informed about islam banning slavery and as a proud britain i find this lie highly offensive. Many modern scholars do abhor slavery but not for the previous 1200 years.

Finally Mohammed owned, bought and sold slaves, so did his family and decendants. This shocking truth is why in my opinion some people need to be lied to about islam banning slavery to keep there faith in the light of the immorality of slavery as modern humans understand it today. Hypnosadist 00:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Right on the spot, HS DavidYork71 03:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 1. The transatlantic slave trade was racial, based on the belief that slaves were inferior biologically. The notion of 'slave' in Africa and Arab world was very different. Have you seen the film Amistad?
  • 2. However I also as a Brit, accept it was the royal navy who stopped it. That doesn't however mean, that Islam in theory didn't ban it, just because Arabs continued it's practice.
  • 3. The Muslim Brotherhood, Syed Qutb, Hizb ut-tahrir, and most modern Islamists insist using a Hadith from Bukhari that Muhammad said that no more free men shall be taken as slaves, i.e. it was abrogated. And that the existing slaves were kept under much better conditions more like contracted butlers. So Islam didn't ban slavery, but it intended to phase it out by blocking the means to acquire new slaves, and asking Muslims to eventually free existing slaves as a manumission for their sins. Some Scholars add one exception to this: that is prisoners of war, used for labour, which they call slaves, was the ONLY remaining source of labour. This however according to the Quranic injunction of treating POWs how Muslim POWs are treated, depended on the relative international treaties & norms of each time, and depended on the treatement of Muslim soldiers captured on the other side - which would make it impossible today. Muslims didn't live up to these Islamic ideals, but that doesn't mean Islam didn't in theory aim to phase out slavery.
  • 4. I think it's strange that a non-Muslim non-qualified, probably don't understand Arabic to interpret Islam, brit like you, questions the Islamic authority of the Muslim Brotherhood, or thinks they are misinformed, especially since I have seen their evidences from Islam to forbid it. They have many famous scholars and Islamic lawyers, and are the largest Islamic group in the world. The fact that the largest Islamic groups ban it, at least deserves mention.
  • 5 It is clear we can at least agree that Muslims, didn't live up to the ideals of Islam, and acted abhorrently in many areas, not just in slavery, but hey that was the medieval world; we in England weren't great either. There should be one article called Arabs and Slavery, and another called Islam and Slavery. they are two very different things. Aaliyah Stevens 10:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Heading change

Please check my change here [31]. THe original heading blames Islam, while isn't it about Islam being used to justify slavery. That's a big difference. Ie, the latter suggests those using Islam as a justifitcation for slavery is the problem. Merbabu 12:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've adjusted this to 'Islam as a justification for slavery in contemporary Africa' to reflect the quote beneath "The saddest and most painful reality of this situation is, that same slave trading is occurring today, still in the name of Islam" DavidYork71 22:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
David, that is just someone's opinion in an opinion piece, and we can only be represent it as such. We cannot present it as truth. i know you know this. Your suggested heading also suggests that islam is at fault, only with mild subtlty. but i guess this is in line with your self-professed 'Anti-islam sentiment' [32], [33] which you are determined to push here. Merbabu 04:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
More anti-slavery than anti-Islam sentiment. The remainder of the article in its entirety should help you understand Islam's contribution to the maintenance of, and continued acceptance of, slavery. The content following from the heading indeed does relate to what the heading describes. It is also the Sudanese National Islamic Front which claims Islamic authority for the enslavements and associated crimes.DavidYork71 04:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
No, the problem is your insitant on contributions that are a thinly-veiled blaming of Islam the religion, RATHER than (some) people and their interpretations of islam for their benefit. Your post above actually suggests you too realise this: ...which claims Islamic authority. So how about Claims of Islamic authority for slavery Merbabu 04:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Slavery is a presuposition of Universe the Koran is writen in. This is why it has rules on which slaves you can have sex with and which you can't, and how they can possibly gain their freedom (important control mechanism). Rules exist about the relative value of slaves as compared to freemen. This is an issue without interpritation, the koran says its bad to be a slave but not that slavery is bad let alone that the practice (as a whole) should be stopped. Hypnosadist 05:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not 100% clear on the above post. Does the Koran merely 'accept' (ie, resigned to a reality of the time, and therefore provides regulation) or does actively 'condone' even suggest it is a good thing?
My biggest issue, however, is not these facts but how they are being presented here. Some of the versions being insisted on (primarily by DY71) are ones that I modified from essentially saying Islam is to blame for contemporary slavery. His current insisted contribs are only a bit more subtle. Ie, he refers to it as "Islam's contribution to the maintenance of slavery". Or, 'Islamic slavery' is also insisted upon without reference. Given that on at least two occassions now it has been shown he is misrepresenting his cited sources, I find it very hard to take is imposed view of the world as reliable. And his contribs to related articles.Merbabu 05:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The misrepresenting sources is a very bad wiki-crime as it can easilly remain undiscovered for a long time, please if you have done this DavidYork71 don't do it again as it is very damaging to wikipedia as a whole.Hypnosadist 06:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Current tagging

NPOV and OR are tagged at the head of this article currently. Any objection to removal? DavidYork71 02:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You must be kidding given the current dispute. --Aminz 03:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
He seems to operate in his own little world. Merbabu 04:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Then describe the justification for maintaining. Is there any remaining aspect of the subject not yet covered in the article? DavidYork71 04:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
it's got nothing to do with items uncovered. I can't believe you need it explained. Read the tags - 'neutrality', 'original research' and 'unattributed claims' - and then consider the CONTINUING edits over the last week. it is your contributions more than any others that are at the centre of this dispute. Do you seriously believe these aspects are not in serious dispute? Merbabu 04:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

disputed passage

this is a classic violation of WP:SYN, using two seperate sources to forward an assertion supported by neither:

According to Australian social historian Robert Hughes (writing for Time Magazine), slavery in Africa has been dominated by Arabs. ""Slave markets, supplying the Arab emirates, were still operating in Djibouti in the 1950s; and since 1960, the slave trade has flourished in (the Islamic Republic of) Mauritania and the Sudan. There are still reports of chattel slavery in northern Nigeria, Rwanda and Niger." [34] The Republic of Sudan has been governed under the implementation of Islamic sharia since 1983.[35]

it falsely assumes that all Arabs must be Muslim, and that any enslavement on their part must be Islamically-motivated, when the times article claims nothing of the sort, and neither does the citation to an obscure website. ITAQALLAH 07:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... he even had the temerity to rewrite the quote he cited and add "(the Islamic Republic of)", which wasn't in the Time article at all. Also, what happened to section header 5.1? It's blank. - Merzbow 07:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[36]. ITAQALLAH 07:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
DavidYork71 you can not change the inside of quotes! Hypnosadist 07:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I'd frankly be surprised were there not a source which (rightly or wrongly) draws this connection, but we are rightly forbidden from imposing it ourselves.Proabivouac 07:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Arabs and Slavery vs. Islam and Slavery

The two should be seperated. Islam and Slavery should be purely about what the Quran, Muhammad and Islamic scholars have said about the subject, while Arabs and Slavery should be about what happened regardless of if they were christian, jewish or Muslim arabs. People find it hard to deliniate the two, attributing blame to Islam for many misgivings of arabs.

  • 1.This article is written in the passive voice as if Islam accepts slavery, like as if there is not difference of opinion on it among Islamic Scholars.
  • 2. There are Hadith that condemn slavery. Why are they not here?
  • 3. Why is the Quranic notion of slavery only to Allah not mentioned?
  • 4. Why is it when the Wahabi Salih al-Fawzaa's "affirmation of slavery" is mentioned from his rant "Taming a Neo-Qutubite Fanatic" that it is not mentioned that "Qutubite" refers to Syed Qutb followers of the Muslim Brotherhood and used as a slur against modern Islamists by Wahabis? i.e Islamists; currently the largest political leaning in the Muslim world, and the MB being the largest Islamic group globally and in Egypt + Sudan, believe Islam aimed tophase out slavery.
  • 5. There needs to be some quotes from islamic scholars that abhor slavery
  • 6. This article should be sourced and used more to add to the article.
  • 7. The transatlantic slave trade was racial, based on the belief that slaves were inferior biologically. The notion of 'slave' in Africa and Arab world was very different. Have you seen the film and read the court transcripts from La Amistad? European slave traders tried to use the same argument you claim, that islam and African culture allowed slavery so why did the blacks object? This argument was refuted, because European racial slavery was totally different to slavery in west-africa where slaves were more like house servants.
  • 8. However I also as a Brit, accept it was the royal navy who stopped it. That doesn't however mean, that Islam in theory didn't ban it, just because Arabs continued it's practice. ther is a diffrence between the two.
  • 9. The Muslim Brotherhood, Syed Qutb, Hizb ut-tahrir, and most modern Islamists insist using a Hadith from Bukhari that Muhammad said that 'no more free men shall be taken as slaves', i.e. slavery was abrogated. And that the existing slaves were kept under much better conditions more like contracted servants. So Islam didn't ban slavery, but aimed to phase it out by blocking the means to acquire new slaves, and asking Muslims to eventually free existing slaves as a manumission for their sins. Some Scholars add one exception to this: that is prisoners of war, used for labour, which they call slaves, was the ONLY remaining source of labour. This however according to the Quranic injunction of treating POWs how Muslim POWs are treated, depended on the relative international treaties & norms of each time, and depended on the treatement of Muslim soldiers captured on the other side - which would make it impossible today. Muslims didn't live up to these Islamic ideals, but that doesn't mean Islam didn't in theory aim to phase out slavery.
  • 10. I think it's strange that a non-Muslim non-qualified, probably don't understand Arabic to interpret Islam, brit like you, questions the Islamic authority of the Muslim Brotherhood, or thinks they are misinformed, especially since I have seen their evidences from Islam to forbid it. They have many famous scholars and Islamic lawyers, and are the largest Islamic group in the world. The fact that the largest Islamic groups ban it, at least deserves mention.
  • 11 It is clear we can at least agree that Muslims, didn't live up to the ideals of Islam, and acted abhorrently in many areas, not just in slavery, but hey that was the medieval world; we in England weren't great either. There should be one article called Arabs and Slavery, and another called Islam and Slavery. they are two very different things.
  • 12 Right wing christain websites like WORLDNETDAILY.com are not objective sources for news! Aaliyah Stevens 11:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll just answer one of these points as i have no faith my words as a non-muslim are worth listening to!
"7. The transatlantic slave trade was racial, based on the belief that slaves were inferior biologically. The notion of 'slave' in Africa and Arab world was very different. Have you seen the film and read the court transcripts from La Amistad? European slave traders tried to use the same argument you claim, that islam and African culture allowed slavery so why did the blacks object? This argument was refuted, because European racial slavery was totally different to slavery in west-africa where slaves were more like house servants."
I love this misreprisentantion, so islam alloud people of all races to be enslaved so its morally supirior, that makes sense (the racist view of the slave trade and thier excuses is not morally supirior either).
PS Who sold the black slaves to the white man, who moved the slaves to the coast, who captured the slaves for the interior of africa, who was trading slaves in the congo when no white man had ever been there before?

Hypnosadist 00:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Arab slave trade is the article you are looking for Aaliyah! this article is about how islam says slavery is a morally acceptable condition for a human being, and hence ties it in with the 25 million slaves traded in the Arab slave trade as Islam was the moral and legal framework that said this trade was ok. Heres my counter to Qutb, this article documents slavery in the quran and rebuts Qutbs "arguments" [37].Hypnosadist 08:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Firstly what you have said above is your unsubstantiated POV, what matters here are credible, reliable, notable references. And Syed Qutb, Maududi, or Nabhani are higher authorities on Islam than any of us.
  • Secondly your so called rebut linked above does not mention Syed Qutb, it talks about another man from Saudi called Mohammad Qutb who also refutes that Islam allows slavery now. *Thirdly this so called refutation is not an academic one approved by Queensland Uni, it is an article that appeared in the "Queensland Humanist" student produced magazine, for the university's Manussa Group, a group "dedicated to the promotion of Humanism, the Critique of Religion". [38] Not exactly nuetral nor academic.
  • This article is about Islam and Slavery, NOT the Arab slave trade, so for you to speak so hatefully about Islam because of what Arabs did (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) is not accurate. This whole article mixes the two Christian Egyptian Arab priests were known to castrate slaves to make them Enuchs, but you seem to equate all Arab practice with Islam. Please don't make such uncivil comments about raping or enslaving me, it add no value to the discussion except emotion, and to imply I would condone such a thing because I believe in Islam is insulting, and incorrect. Aaliyah Stevens 13:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Then read the koranic quotes in the article i gave you, i did not claim it was a good source for this article it just has rebuttals to all they usual islam doesn't support slavery arguments when it patently does. This is proved firstly by the very simple fact it was still there after 1200 years of islamic rule. Secondly by the fact the koran contains rules for how a good muslim should treat his slaves, presupposing that a good muslim OWNS SLAVES!

PS Again islam set the rules in a traditional islamic state in which 25 million[citation needed] people were enslaved. Sharia said it was ok, the prophet said it was ok, the four califs said it was ok. The ottoman empire said it was ok until they came under pressure from the newly slave free european nations.

PPS Islam under Ma malakat aymanukum allows rape (and thousands and thousands of women just as human as you were raped under this law), that you find this insulting is good but the truth hurts. As the kids of today say "Take the Shame!". Hypnosadist 13:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • "read the koranic quotes in the article i gave you"
  • 1 I know the quranic quotes. Giving your own interpretations of Quranic verses is called spin, and at best original research (see WP:OR, we need to look at what context the verse came down in, what the scholars etc say about it, and need an understanding of the rules of Quranic & Prophetic abrogation of laws. Have you ever heard of the term Naskh? That is a science in itself in interpreting the Quran. This article is not determined by YOUR interpretation of the Quran. As for relying on English translations, the translators themselves like Yusuf Ali also mention by the verses on Slavery that it was abrogated, i.e. phased out.
  • "proved firstly by the very simple fact it was still there after 1200 years of islamic rule"
  • 2. Just because Arabs did it after Islam for years, doesn't mean Islam allowed it. Using that logic it means everything arabs did after Islam, was because Islam commanded it. That logic is hatefully reductionist, and assumes Islam and Arabs are a monologue. Christians used the bible to justify Slavery 1600 years after Jesus, that doesn't mean Christianity encourages it.
  • "Sharia said it was ok, the prophet said it was ok"
  • 3. So how do you explain with your expert knowledge of Islam the following words of the prophet before he died when he said:

    • "God has said: Three people I will deal with on the Day of Judgement: someone who gives in my name who betrays, a man who enjoyed the money of capturing selling a free man, and a man who employed someone who did his job, but did not pay him” (narrated by Al-Bukhari)

    • "There are three categories of people against whom I shall myself be a plaintiff on the Day of Judgement. Of these three, one is he who enslaves a free man" (al-Bukhari and Ibn Majjah)

  • "Islam under "Ma malakat aymanukum" allows rape..."
  • 4. How absurd! Before slavery was phased out the prophet said:

    • "Whoever slaps his slaves or strikes them, his only atonement is to free them" (narrated by Muslim on authority of ibn (Caliph) Umar).

      Aaliyah Stevens 17:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
1)"Have you ever heard of the term Naskh?" Yes.
2a)"Just because Arabs did it after Islam for years, doesn't mean Islam allowed it." Thats not what i said. I said califate and the later islamically governed nations ALL traded in slaves until the ottoman empire started to dismantle its trade. Slavery was legal into the 1950's in Oman, 1962 for Saudi Arabia, nations of over 95% muslims run under thier interpritations of sharia both with slavery going strong.
2b)"Christians used the bible to justify Slavery 1600 years after Jesus, that doesn't mean Christianity encourages it." No it did! until the abolition movement that was both a christian rethink (methodist and quaker) and a secular concept(humanism and the French Revolution). Then when the vast majority of christians decided to not accept the arguments for slavery and do something about it then it took 50 years to "phase it out".
3)"one is he who enslaves a free man" as opposed to a prisoner of war who does not have his ransom paid.
4a)"How absurd!" So after having had every man she ever knew killed and her and all her female relatives enslaved, shes going to enter a concenting loving relationship with a man who did this. How absurd!
4b)"Before slavery was phased out" by doing nothing for 1200 years and waiting for the europeans to tell you to do it, if we british had not been about how many thousand more years do you think it would be until it was phased out?
4c)"Whoever slaps his slaves or strikes them, his only atonement is to free them" and this was enforced by OFSlave? Even with these rules the enforcement was by God. Hypnosadist 19:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
As to whom ever added the cite tag to my talk the source is on Arab slave trade and is

"Paul Bairoch suggests a figure of 25 million African people subjected to the Arab slave trade"[7]

Paul is a world expert on pre-industrial world trade(you're not going to find a better source), one of the most traded commodities of course is Slaves. Hypnosadist 20:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your logic is something like this: Islam in it's laws (which wern't always obeyed) didn't phase out slavery, by forbidding the means of acquiring new slaves, and obligating that POWs be exchanged with the enemy for Muslim soldiers, or paid for, or if not then imprisoned until an arrangment is negotiated with the enemy as the majority of Islamic scholars and Muslim sources on the net say, because:

1. The arab slave trade enslaved 25 million africans over the last 1200 years 2. "califate and the later islamically governed nations ALL traded in slaves until the ottoman empire started to dismantle its trade. Slavery was legal into the 1950's in Oman, 1962 for Saudi Arabia, nations of over 95% muslims run under thier interpritations of sharia both with slavery going strong." 3. "doing nothing for 1200 years and waiting for the europeans to tell you (muslims) to do it, if we british had not been about how many thousand more years do you think it would be until it was phased out?" (you seem to talk in a paradigm that holds being british and muslim as different. I am both, this is the "them and us" divisive mentality) 4. regarding the prophet's words forbidding even slapping a slave, you say "So after having had every man she ever knew killed and her and all her female relatives enslaved, shes going to enter a concenting loving relationship with a man who did this? how absurd!" I repeat the prophet said "Whoever slaps his slaves or strikes them, his only atonement is to free them" (narrated by Muslim on authority of ibn (Caliph) Umar), and "Whoever kills his slave, we will kill him"[39]


All of your above reasons are what arabs did, not what Islam said. There is a diffrence, and you for some reason seem to not be able to get that through your head. When the prophet forbade rape of a slave, before slavery was phased out, and when he said god would punish anyone who enslaves people, that means nothing to you because for you the actions of medievil Muslims = Islam. Your logic is essentially that historical Arab governments' actions = Islam, and proves that Islam didn't forbid slavery. This is clearly flawed logic; OR and POV. This article is about Islam not various arab governments of the past. It is well known that many arabs and Caliphs drunk wine, and did many impious things, does that mean Islam didn't forbid alcohol? Yazeed was a Caliph that killed the prophet of Islam's grandsons and family, does that mean Islam allowed that?Aaliyah Stevens 22:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"When the prophet forbade rape of a slave." Never did. Even so, he did not feel himself bound by the laws he proclaimed for others to follow as you know. Arrow740 22:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

How can you rape a woman if you are not allowed to strike her, hurt her, etc as the prophet said in the above hadith? Consentual sex between servant and master existed in the ancient world, it was seen as way for the lower classes to raise their levels. Manhy masters married their female slaves, and there is a specific verse in the Quran saying it is better to marry them, then just have sex with them.

Aaliyah Stevens First read From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ Religion that i put at the top of the article. Hypnosadist 10:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Now that you've read that lets try again.
"Your logic is something like this" No Logic unlike reading Hadith is a science! As such it is precise and not "something like" anything.
"Islam in it's laws (which wern't always obeyed) didn't phase out slavery" Yes i agree, off to a good start.
"by forbidding the means of acquiring new slaves" It forbade some methods, others still existed such as breeding slaves (as the romans and americans did) and Jihad, of course you believe that just because jihad is the reason given for these peoples enslavement this has nothing to do with islam.
"and obligating that POWs be exchanged with the enemy for Muslim soldiers" because getting your troops back from the enemy non-muslims is such a sacrifice.
"or paid for" says it all.
"or if not then imprisoned until an arrangment is negotiated with the enemy as the majority of Islamic scholars and Muslim sources on the net say, because" Just because a "scholar" claims today that his current views are the "true" way does not affect the actions of millions people in the past or their views then(such as say that islam allows slavery, so they buy and sell slaves).
Now you quote some of the evidence given by notable sources in this and other articles, notably missing out the fact that the prophet owned slaves (wonder why?).
"All of your above reasons are what arabs did, not what Islam said" Two points, first is not just arabs, black africans oh and white people in eastern and central europe as well as people of mixed genetics with probably some jews, greeks, spanish, and indians as well. Second "not what Islam said" is completely wrong, the governments claimed to be following the teachings of islam and set up its laws to enforce those moral views. Not one government but tens of thousands of leaders and their Imans and scholars set the rules they wanted and that included slavery just as the Koran says you can own slaves, Aaliyah Stevens you even quote to me some of these Ayats that presuppose good muslims own slaves (they just should just treat them well).
"before slavery was phased out" Never was! Still going on 1200 years later! Still being justified by slave ownership in the Koran.
"This article is about Islam not various arab governments of the past" It is about Islam and slavery, so it is about islamic governments that allowed slave tradeing especially when they say the koran says they can, see From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ Religion above.
"I'm rather tied up in these issues because of what I believe are a few individuals poisoning the factual accuracy of many articles in this field. Many Muslim students have complained to me about the bias and sometimes lies published in wikipedia." Hope the above points out it was you that was misinformed about islam and slavery by sites like [40]. Hypnosadist 13:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Introductory nonsense

Sorry, but this:

Some have questioned the use of the term slavery, as opposed to 'servitude', as an accurate description [8] [9], and David Hecht has stated that Islamic 'slavery' was a totally different practice than what Western 'slavery' is synonymous to. [10] However, others believe that 'servant' is incorrect since these slaves did not enjoy the freedom to leave their employment without having been emancipated by their master.[11][12]

Is ridiculous POV pushing and does not belong in intro. When dozens of books have been written by the most eminent scholars of Islam called "Slavery in Islam" I don't think we need to question it. Arrow740 20:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way I will soon expand the material related to the themes I mentioned in the intro, and I invite others to help me with that. Arrow740 21:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that notable people consider the english word "slavery" not an accurate translation of the Islamic notion of 'slavery', and that it is referenced means it cannot be removed. what you say above is your (what I believe to be pretty accurate) POV, and is the de-facto use of the word in the article anyway. Also David Hecht of the BBC doesn't say don't use the word, but says it has a very different meaning and implication in Africa, so that should be included too, it is referenced. It doesn't say "many", or "most" people question, it says "some" Aaliyah Stevens 23:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Have reference to the reliable (muslim author and otherwise) contemporary translations of Quran, hadith and juristic writings. If they don't employ the term 'those possessed by your right hand' they use the term 'slave' to denote this nature of person and not 'domestic employee' or the like.DavidYork71 00:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Your view on the definition is represented, but you cannot discount the fact there are notable, credible people who argue that the english word 'slavery' is not an entirely accurate translation. These peopels views are referenced and you can't doubt their credibility, i.e. the BBC or academics. Be rational, I'm not asking for the word slavery to be wiped out from the article, I'm saying that the view of important people who view it as an incorrect translation has to be cited, referenced and instertedAaliyah Stevens 18:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The BBC is a news organization, not a credible source for the analysis of history or semantics.Proabivouac 18:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The BBC ref reports about a curent situation in Mauritania, and says that the definition of a slave there does not fit neatly with the word in english. That is credible, have you read his article? He says some "slaves" are wealthier than their "masters". Aaliyah Stevens
Contra Hecht, Haratin does not mean "slave;" it isn't even accepted as Arabic (nor does the article claim it is Arabic). This article says nothing about Islam or Islamic attitudes or doctrine re slavery. It also says nothing about the meaning of the word "slavery" in English or any other language. This is one of the worst misrepresentations of a source I've ever seen. Please take care to faithfully represent what sources actually say.Proabivouac 22:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't define the term 'slavery' out front as a good lead should [WP:LEAD]. But in any case can't a reader visit slavery to inform themselves of it. And the notion that Islamic slaves are employed domestic servants able to quit of their own will and find another job .. how absurd.. and we could say the content of this article bears that out.DavidYork71 00:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the article:[41] I said in my edit: "Others such as David Hecht have argued that it was a totally different practice to what western 'slavery' is synonymous to" This article is based upon what Muslim Arab slave traders did mainly in Africa, and Mauritania is given as one example in Africa, and it argues Islam justified slavery which mainly effected africa. This article insists on emphasising that Mauritania is Islamic, and so the following words in the article are poigniant:

In the article he says

"slaves are mostly black Africans("Haratin") and masters or "Bidan" have more Arab Berber blood" "today there are slaves who are in fact richer than their masters. While others say they are slaves but have never been owned by anyone".."there is not the kind of slavery here that existed in the Americas a hundred or so years ago. To claim there is, is to deny the uniquely dehumanizing experience that African Americans suffered.".....in "Amistad, one evil character argues that enslaving Africans is acceptable because Africans enslave each other. The reason this argument is wrong, we learn, is because slavery in Africa is not the same thing."[42]

So the writer referring to Muslim Arabs (bidan) enslaving Blacks (haratin), in what eitors of this article argue is sourced from islam, is saying that it is not the same type of 'slavery' as understood in the west. So please tell me when I said: "David Hecht have argued that it was a totally different practice to what western 'slavery' is synonymous to" what is wrong with saying that? After all he is referring to Muslim arab slavery of african blacks, as the logic of this whole article goes? Could you suggets how I should word a summary of David Hechts article? I am open to re-wording it. If you insist that it has nothing to do with Islam then you accept the thrust of my argument which is that what Arabs do to black africans, and others for that matter, cannot be attributed to Islam allwoing them to do so. Aaliyah Stevens 22:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The David Hecht source is not usable for several reasons. 1)False authority This is not a BBC published article, he just worked for them for a time. 2)Self Published This is an article sent to the Washington Post which they did not publish so it has to be published on a non-notable and non-reliable website. 3) Misreprisentation of the source. The article never mentions the word islam or muslim and is about the state of slavery like endentured service (that is obviously racially motivated according to David) that exists in one part of Africa 150 years after the british stopped trading in slaves. This is then misreprisented (by the wikieditors not david) to be the state of slavery over the muslim world over the 1200 plus years and thousands of square miles. This should be clearly removed completely. Hypnosadist 10:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

David Hecht was the BBC Correspondent, in Dakar, Senegal. It may not be published by the BBC, but he is a notable source, and he definately wrote this because if you do a search on the net, there are multiple sites with it on, so the website is not unreliable. The source is not misrepresented because it does not mention Islam, it mentioned Arabs, and what they did, which is the paradigm this article is based upon. I disagree with this paradigm, as I have said multiple times, what Arabs do, is not Islam, and they regularly violated basic principles in Islam. So if you agree with me that Arabs actions does not equal Islam, then the whole article has to be re-written, if you don't then this source is valid. Make your minds up, don't cherry pick what suites you. Either this source is not acceptable because what Arabs do is not Islam and therefore many other things in this article need changing, or it is acceptable because what Arabs do is Islam. You choose. I strongly believe the former. Aaliyah Stevens 11:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't actually matter what you believe in this regard, as again it does not fall upon us to decide what does or doesn't constitute "violat[ing] basic principles in Islam." Of course, you are correct that an article about Arab (much less "African") slavery is not topical here unless our secondary sources make the connection.Proabivouac 17:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
As usual logic fails you Aaliyah, lets go through what you say step by step again;

"David Hecht was the BBC Correspondent, in Dakar, Senegal" Yes he was.

"It may not be published by the BBC, but he is a notable source" Yes, for Senegal in the last part of the 20C.

"and he definately wrote this because if you do a search on the net, there are multiple sites with it on, so the website is not unreliable." 1) I did not question that he wrote the article. 2)Find one of these "multiple sites with it on" that does meet wikipedia requirements for a notable and reliable source and use that as the link. 3)"so the website is not unreliable." that a website can reproduce one page without error is not the standard of a reliable source in wikipedia, its much tougher than that.

"The source is not misrepresented because it does not mention Islam" Yes it is, this article is about islam and its "interaction" with slavery. ie the koran clearly says that slaves can be owned by good muslims.

"it mentioned Arabs" vaugely and in reference to the current genetic preponderences in the situation in senegal at the end of the 20C as such it says "masters or "Bidan" have more Arab Berber blood in them". Thats it, you could not use this as a source for the Arab part of the slave trade let alone part of islams acceptance of slavery.

"and what they did" no it does not, please stop misrepresenting sources (and please stop going on about the Arabs and what they did as some people might think you are racist especially as you are british, as i've had britain called "the mother of all racism" by a muslim editor so please stop adding fuel to the fire).

"which is the paradigm this article is based upon." You obviously think that but it is not the case. Thats why we quote Dr. Abdul-Latif Mushtahari, the general supervisor and director of homiletics and guidance at the Azhar University and many other scholars stating that slavery is legal in islam.

"I disagree with this paradigm, as I have said multiple times, what Arabs do, is not Islam" Yes but what millions of people claim (including tens of thousands of islamic scholars) is Islamic over 1200 years is Islam as far as wikipedia is concerned, see the FAQ above.

"and they regularly violated basic principles in Islam." Probably but not when it comes to owning slaves, you have even quoted ayats that presuppose good muslims own slaves to me.

"So if you agree with me that Arabs actions does not equal Islam" No the koran, hadith et al is islam. These as the many islamic scholars in this article say allows slavery. The mentions of slavery in the real world show that this permission to own slaves was used.

"then the whole article has to be re-written" Nope, but always improved.

"if you don't then this source is valid" No see the multiple policy violations of this source metioned by me and others above.

"Make your minds up" Have done see above.

"don't cherry pick what suites you" ROFL! Yes no-one on wikipedia pushes thier POV with the sources they use. ROFL!

"Either this source is not acceptable because what Arabs do is not Islam and therefore many other things in this article need changing, or it is acceptable because what Arabs do is Islam. You choose." I choose not reliable and not notable see above.

"I strongly believe the former." Tough, your view is not inline with wikipolicy on the POV of actions of religions.

Hope that deals with all your points. Hypnosadist 09:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, you may not accept it as a reliable source. However this article should then use only Quran, Sunnah, and the explanation of Islamic scholars and western orientalists on this topic, explicitly attributing their opinions to them, i.e. X believes Y about Islam, NOT Islam is X, and not try to attribute every instance of slavery currently in existence to Islam. Please could you provide me one source here in the talk page, that proves there is a single Islamic scholar in the world today that believes that slaves can be sourced from other then POWs?

From the islamist opinions section.
Dr. Abdul-Latif Mushtahari, the general supervisor and director of homiletics and guidance at the Azhar University, has said on the subject of justifications for Islamic permission of slavery:[13]

"Islam does not prohibit slavery but retains it for two reasons. The first reason is war (whether it is a civil war or a foreign war in which the captive is either killed or enslaved) provided that the war is not between Muslims against each other - it is not acceptable to enslave the violators, or the offenders, if they are Muslims. Only non-Muslim captives may be enslaved or killed. The second reason is the sexual propagation of slaves which would generate more slaves for their owner."

Hope that helps! Hypnosadist 12:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tendentious edits

This introduction, which Aaliyah Stevens wrote,[43] and Bless sins restored,[44] is palpably tendentious as well as factually incorrect ("and over this time, according to most Islamic scholars, slavery was phased out.") Also quite ridiculous, "...by those who didn't uphold the principles..." I invite everyone to bear in mind WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox, WP:NOR: it does not fall upon us (that means all/any of us) to decide and declare what Islam “really” is.Proabivouac 07:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fully concur. Facts and article do not bear out its content. See item 62 for an alternative introduction drafted by me.DavidYork71 07:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
'Phased out'. How does that explain 3-4 centuries of the Atlantic slave trave as against fourteen centuries of enslaving Africans for the Islamic world .. eventually arrested through the campaigning of Christian abolitionists (William Wilberforce et al.)?DavidYork71 15:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not say Islam is X. I said according to Saudi Salafi Scholars Islam allows slavery of POWs, and according to most scholars today it doesn't. I was presenting the two views about Islam and Slavery, the current version in the intro DOES NOT. It states pretty much that Islam allows slavery, it does not indicate that there is a diffrenece of opinion on it. Can we agree on a wording which says that Saudi Salafi scholars said it will always be allowed for POWs, orientalists maintain that historically it was allowed in war, and that most other Sunni scholars (as oppposed to Salafi) forbid taking POWs as slaves, they maintain that they must be returned, exchanged, or ransomed, etc. Please See: http://www.swahilionline.com/features/articles/islam/binsumet2.htm This is published on an African Website, by a Swahili science academic (I admit he is not a historian but that's not what he is talking about) at Doha Uni. The different views must be presentedAaliyah Stevens 11:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.swahilionline.com/features/articles/islam/binsumet2.htm Please read what makes a notable and reliable source Aaliyah. Hypnosadist 09:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I am surprised that someone with a doctorate in Kalam and Fiqh would see fit to consult such a source.Proabivouac 16:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Repetitions - or not?

I have noted the view of Aaliyah Stevens. Does any find that it adds more to content than it takes away from in style to have variants of the same saying (as follows) reiterated in two adjoining paragraphs early on: "There are three categories of people against whom I shall myself be a plaintiff on the Day of Judgement. Of these three, one is he who enslaves a free man, then sells him and eats this money". I would have this said once and really question the need for it to be commented on twice in ways that aren't nuanced from each other.DavidYork71 15:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

They are two different statements, which different implications for Muslims. One is a hadith Qudsi which Muslims believe is god's words, and the other is a normal hadith considered the words of Muhammad. The distinction may seem small to you, but is big to believers. Also the text is different, the 2nd hadith mentions more things. I don't know what the big deal is in including the whole hadith. Also it shows that the scholar is nt just making it up, but that his opinion is based on primary Islamic evidences. As a general rule in wikipedia, you should not delete referenced quotes, if another editor insists it stays until the dipsute is resolved. Aaliyah Stevens 17:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources, Explicitly mentioning them and intro

This article is entitled Islam and Slavery, so should use only the Quran, the Sunnah, and the explanation of Islamic scholars and western orientalists talking about Islam on this topic, explicitly attributing their opinions to them, i.e. X believes Y about Islam, NOT Islam is X, and not try to attribute every instance of slavery currently in existence or historically to Islam. Please could you provide me one source here in the talk page, that proves there is a single Islamic scholar in the world today that believes that slaves can be sourced from other then POWs?

  • The intro should mention there are 2 views in Islam on this topic
  • The intro should also mention that the view that still allows it, is Salafist, and even then only for POWs captured in war/jihad.

- - - - - - Aaliyah Stevens 13:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Abdul-Latif Mushtahari see above. Hypnosadist 12:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
PS Can you find sources in the 10th, 12th, 14th, 16th and 18th centuries that says islam says slavery is illegal (bet not). Hypnosadist 12:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking you the opposite. I'm asking you to provide me one verifiable source from a notable Islamic scholar from the 10th, 12th, 14th, 16th, 18th, 19th, 20th or 21st century that says explicitly that slavery is allowed in Islam from other than POWs & their offspring. Dr. Abdul-Latif only allows these two means for slavery, can you find any other? - bet not! If not this has to be part of the intro. And please don't paste some book that I can't link to on the web or buy from amazon, this relies on me trusting your honest, in context, quoting. Aaliyah Stevens 13:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Its already in the intro, see the quote below;

Furthermore, as opposed to pre-Islamic slavery, enslavement was limited to two scenarios: capture in war, or birth to two slave parents (birth to parents where one was free and the other not so would render the offspring free).

There is the issue of the buying slaves without OFSlave to prove that these rules where being enforced.Hypnosadist 14:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, maybe I'm not explaining myself. I want you to give me a quote that allows a source of slaves OTHER THAN POWs and their offspring. The above quote only mentions these. Aaliyah Stevens 14:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that this was in dispute. Of course, that is exactly the rule, with two caveats: first, the term POW is anachronistic and misleading in this context, as it applies only to captured "combatants," as opposed to "civilians," and further suggests a war which proceeds according to modern conventions of state belligerence. Second, I am not certain upon what basis you consider this the unique view of Salafis.Proabivouac 14:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As if this whole article is not parachronistic in style. Aaliyah Stevens 16:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep thats it! those are ways you can be enslaved legally in islam. But thats a problem for the slave trader not the slave owner who is clearly allowed to by anyone sold as a slave to him. Good to see you finally admit this is part of islam. Hypnosadist 15:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth, and answer the question with a verifiable source from a notable Islamic scholar from the 10th, 12th, 14th, 16th, 18th, 19th, 20th or 21st century that says explicitly that slavery is allowed in Islam from other than POWs (or whatever you want to call it) & their offspring. Aaliyah Stevens 16:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Currently the article states, "Furthermore, as opposed to pre-Islamic slavery, enslavement was limited to two scenarios: capture in war, or birth to two slave parents (birth to parents where one was free and the other not so would render the offspring free)," so what's the problem? It seems we all agree on this.Proabivouac 16:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
"parachronistic" cool word, i'll have to throw it into conversation to make myself look smarter. To stupid people like me it means old fashioned. How is this article old fashioned? Hypnosadist 17:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, that the intro should say there are two opinions about Islam and Slavery:

  • 1 That it is only allowed to make slaves of the enemy in war, if they are not ransomed or exchanged for Muslim caught by the enemy or no other agreement between the warring nations on treating captives exists
  • 2 That Islam aimed to forbid it, by phasing it out, but many Arabs failed to live up to this ideal as is shown in history. Aaliyah Stevens 08:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Please stop lieing "2 That Islam aimed to forbid it, by phasing it out, but many Arabs failed to live up to this ideal as is shown in history." any proof what so ever for this silly statement. Hypnosadist 06:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
please see WP:CIVIL. ITAQALLAH 06:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
When she bothers to read Wikipedia:Attribution, and show proof of her silly ideas. Hypnosadist 09:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Quranic views on slavery

See the following websites for further information on slavery in Islam:

In the sites above, it demonstrates that slaves are to be freed, and that In Islam, the term "slave" could also refer to "slave of Allah" (Abdullah), meaning one who serves God. It is not what the Western people would typically view as being whipped around, be treated like animals and machines, as well as not getting fed well & having no good rest.

Furthermore, to my knowledge, as stated in the Koran, Muslims are not allowed to own slaves. So, I'm really confused here - if such slavery is forbidden in Islam, why does the act of slavery still exist in a number of Muslim countries like Sudan? I'm curious whether slavery is really just a cultural or religious thing? So what is the real definition of slavery in Islam as compared to that of non-Muslims? --Fantastic4boy 02:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just read the central-mosque article and it has all the classic excuses for slavery(it does admit that muslims can own slaves) as well as claims that the west still uses slavery (only using econonmics) with this great bit of double think polemics.

If you study the expressions of such people(poor people in the third world), locked in endless, fruitless toil, you will understand that slavery is not an evil that Western civilisation has eradicated, rather one which Western civilization has ably disguised and distanced from itself.

Let no person, at least let no Muslim, claim that mankind has nothing now to learn from Islamic values about how to deal with the problem of slavery. On the contrary, we have everything to learn. How urgent, then, is our need to pray for guidance of God lest we persist in error, for His forbearance lest we persist in arrogance, for His help in finding a sure way to end the domination of those who do not know compassion except as a fine-sounding word.

Classic racist blaim the white man, the entire article is based on WEST=EVIL ISLAM=GOOD, with scant regard to the facts. The whole argument that islamic scholars have seem to have is islamic slavery was so nice to the slaves its ok to own another human being, this is a Sick and perverted lie. Given that this level of disinformation is endemic in most islamic religious sources it looks like the War on Terror will be going on for many more years unfortunately. Hypnosadist 04:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The idea that Islamic slavery is and was basically servitude is an insidious lie. First, slaves were owned. Second, they suffered mutiliation and disease (not to mention rape) at an extremely high rate. Arrow740 05:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't bring race into this. It has nothing to do with Islam = non-white, and west = white. That is the neo-nazi BNP view of Islam. Secondly Islam forbade mutilation and rape of slaves, as clearly and explicitly states in the above quoted hadiths of Muhammad. Lastly Watson's view,a nd others have to be included Aaliyah Stevens 08:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Though it did forbid mutilation, no one questioned the easy availability of eunuchs. About forbidding rape, I'd be interested if you could find something from the source literature on that. And about race, Avicenna wrote that some peoples were slaves by nature, and he included blacks there. I have material about the disproportionate suffering of blacks due to Islamic slavery and the ideological justifications for this that were produced. Arrow740 09:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Again you are blurring the lines between what Muslims did/said and what is sanctioned in Islam. Regarding Muhammad's views on race see this article:[45], there is not doubt that Muhammad was anti-racist. Regarding rape, the fact that there is a hadith that states that "if anyone strikes the nose of a slave we will strike his nose, if anyone harms a slave we will harm him, and if anyone kills a slave we will kill him" and, the other hadith quoted above which states that if you even strike a slave you must set him or her free. Anyway, you have taken the race issue off on a tangent, I was saying that the notion that Islam is for black & brown people, and the west is white, is wrong.Aaliyah Stevens 09:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

We are both in britain Aaliyah, you know the current definition of a race hate crime is whatever I (the victim) says it is. And i say that West is a Cover for White (in some cases) but in the end it does not matter whether these supposedly good religous men are generating this hatred for the west because of race or that the elves want to go there (lotr). I'm not going to read [46] because i am fed up reading hate filled diatribes posted here as supposedly good sources, they are not good enough and will not be going in the article. Its quite clear that the sources that you aaliyah and Fantastic4boy provided want to provide the hate needed to fuel the terrorism for the Clash of Civilizations. Yes i am aware that anyone of any race can be infected by a meme so i don't think "Islam is for black & brown people". Hypnosadist 06:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The only person here who seem to be hate filled, and prejudging a case is you. How open minded of you to imply that I peddle hate to fuel terrorism, and that you will not read a simple article on the position of Islam on race, from a professional city based organisation. It's almost like you want a clash of cultures to prove your point that you were always right about the "Islamic threat / conspiracy". People like you who peddle this notion that every Muslim who disagrees with you as 'Hate filled, fueling terrorism' are no different from those mad-Muslims and Nazis from the Third-Reich that went on about a Jewish conspiracy of hatred of white people, which led to their genocide. The west was a term made popular by the soviets to refer to NATO countries, which included Muslim Turkey, and has many other meanings, but 'white' is not one of them see [Western world]. Be civil [WP:CIVIL], this is my second warning to you, otherwise I will take further steps, you can't go around talking to people about raping them, then accusing them of peddling hate and terrorism, just because you disagree on a point, and are not even willing to check the evidence of the other side Aaliyah Stevens 09:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No i said this link was hate filled [Quranic verdict on Slavery against the west. You and other people have produced very low quality sources, if its not academic i'm not reading it if its posted by you as my good faith has nearly ended, i will read the city muslims source. I do not think you are "peddling hate and terrorism" just factual and logical errors. Now if you have a specific problem with the article say so this is not a talk page.
PS No incivility in calling me a nazi then.
PPS No double standards in calling me a nazi while talking about incivility, really.Hypnosadist 10:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The city muslims source was a NICE site, i've never said anything about Koran or Islam its self being racist (i don't know why i should be reading that source) just that hate rants about the WEST on dodgy web sites (like you said not all muslims are good muslims).
You quoted a source that said;

Until the evil of the European trade in black slaves, slavery was largely a by-product of wars between nations, the conquered peoples becoming the slaves of their conquerors. In the formative years of Islam, no reliable system existed of exchanging prisoners of war. The available means of dealing with them were either (i) to put them all to the sword; or (ii) to hold them and attend to their care in prison; or (iii) to allow them to return to their own people; or (iv) to distribute them among the Muslims as part of the spoils of war.

The first option must be ruled out on the grounds of its barbarity. The second is practicable only for small numbers for a limited period of time if resources permit-and it was, of course, practised-prisoners being held in this way against ransom, many so content with their treatment that they became Muslims and changed sides in the fighting. The third option is imprudent in time of war. This leaves, as a rule for general practice, only the fourth option, whence followed the humane laws and norms instituted by Islam for what is, in effect, the rehabilitation of prisoners of war.

The slave in every Muslim house had the opportunity to see at close quarters the truth of Islam in practice. His heart would be won over by kind treatment and the humanity of Islam in general, especially by the access the slave had to many of the legal rights enjoyed by Muslims, and, ultimately, by getting his freedom.

and ended talking about the west;

How urgent, then, is our need to pray for guidance of God lest we persist in error, for His forbearance lest we persist in arrogance, for His help in finding a sure way to end the domination of those who do not know compassion except as a fine-sounding word.

Very biased source that, and just not up to wp:att, and i don't want to read such hate based silliness.Hypnosadist 10:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You may consider it biased, but it is from Central Mosque, who's notability cannot be questioned. It is an Islamic source, and this article is about Islam and Slavery, and they are notable. It's not exactly hate filled either in my opinion, it simply points out a fact about European racial slavery, but that is besides the point. I don't think it was me that tried to use that as a source either Aaliyah Stevens 11:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure as to Central Mosque (its article on aisha is not appologist which i can't remember seeing done so clearly before) so i will take your word for it, also that was Fantastic4boy who posted it as i checked it after you mentioned it. It was the whole tone of article that i disliked very much, i don't post from little green footballs because i don't expect muslims to read hate based silliness. Hypnosadist 11:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Tagging

Once again, the article has been POV-tagged without the tagger specifying the underlying POV concerns on talk. I'm removing. Whenever a POV tag is applied it is imperative to start a talkpage item headed 'NPOV' and listing the specific points of concern so each can be examined and tested in turn. Otherwise the tag just sits there (on some pages, somewhat indefinitely) as evidence that some reader simply doesn't like what a subject reveals about a person, people, movement or organisation. We don't just tag items as some sort of a protest action and not contribute to the process of examining and developing the article.DavidYork71 10:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The points of concern are abundant in this whole talk page. Do not remove it unless they are resolved. Editors are not entitled to remove this tag simply because they don't accept the disputed points of the other editors. Aaliyah Stevens 11:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The tagging concerns previously raised (see 69 above) have been addressed:

1.difference of opinion among Islamic Scholars not noted. has been noted 2.Hadith that condemn slavery not there? yes. Now see under Qutb, Mawdidi, al-Nabhani 3. Why is the Quranic notion of slavery only to Allah not mentioned? this article is not about that. It's about slavery 4. Qutb not referred to he is now 5. There needs to be some quotes from islamic scholars that abhor slavery once again: Qutb et al. See 2 above 6. Comparison with Atlantic and European slave trade this have been covered 7. Islam 'phased out' slavery unsustainable when it continued for 1000 years, still exists today and legal abolition was achieved through a movement foreign an inimical to Islamic slavery permissions 8. WORLDNETDAILY.com not reliable relevant article authored by a PhD

So I would be removing the tagging unless and until someone comes to talk again listing and specifying any remaining points of POV-coverage contention DavidYork71 12:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"WORLDNETDAILY.com" Looked through the article and could not find it, could one of you post it here so i can look at it as Worldnet often uses AP and other RS's and generates its own notable content but not everthing on it can be used in wikipedia. Hypnosadist 11:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Merging would seem to lose a lot of content about the slave trade (1000yrs plus), legal position of slaves, enslavement in Sudan, and the plight of subsequent generations of slaves who are born into servitude under Islam without any participation in armed conflict. Topic is big enough to generate independent interest and invite specialist coverage, just like Christianity and slavery DavidYork71 11:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I oppose that suggestion too. The article obviously discuss a separate and important issue. -- Karl Meier 16:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, as above.Hypnosadist 09:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose Per above.--Sefringle 03:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose per above. Arrow740 04:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Article GA-nommed

by me DavidYork71 06:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

please stop renominating the article for GA while there remains evident editorial dispute. ITAQALLAH 06:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The only thing stopping this article from GA is reactionary pov-tagging because of what it, or a section of it, reveals about Islam on this subject. Almost every time I've seen a POV tag on this article I've followed the link to the associated talk page discussion and found .. no associated discussion. It's the responsibility of any tagger to specify on talk what particular areas they feel has not been covered. Also, an article can't be GA-reviewed by someone who's been a contributor. What aspect of the legal status of slaves is claimed to be unrepresented? After this long it should be capable of being expressed in words.DavidYork71 07:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
another condition is that the article must be stable, which it is not. a quick review of the GA criteria reveals that the article is some distance away from attaining them. especially when there is editorial dispute over various sections of this page, as demonstrated above, simply removing the tags to obscure the fact there is a dispute will not hasten the article becoming a GA. ITAQALLAH 07:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
DavidYork, i would invite you to self revert as per WP:3RR. ITAQALLAH 07:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
See my talk at #25. If the term 'legal disability' isn't an acceptable descriptor of the converse of 'legal dispensation' then what would you otherwise propose?DavidYork71 08:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
that's strange... i see no "dispensations" in that section... ITAQALLAH 08:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Review (Failed)

This article is needs a lot of work before it is up to GA standards.

  1. Well written. Immediately the lede jumped out as a warning flag. It is too long and just does not adhere to WP:LEDE. Overall, the writing in this article is inconsistant in quality and needs much work and copyediting.
  2. Factually accurate and verifiable. Reasonably good use of citations throughout. Still needs to be more completely cited however.
  3. Broad in its coverage. Seems to cover all the bases, though some more information about the explicit legality of slavery as appropriate would be desirable.
  4. Neutral point of view policy. This article is clearly tagged for NPOV and thus fails this criteria off the bat.
  5. Stable. Ongoing edit and NPOV disputes clearly fail this article.
  6. Images. No use of images.

This article plainly fails the GA criteria. Please work to improve the article and resolve the various disputes before listing this article again. Vassyana 13:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Lots of "howevers" here too. First line was painful. KittyHawker 20:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Appropriateness of term 'legal disabilities' w.r.t. situation of slaves

Levy uses the term at p.77 of his work in the following context:

"The legal disabilities of slaves in Islam arise from the fact that in theory they have no more rights than other chattels. On this question the schools of law are substantially in agreement, and the authorities quoted in what follows are taken at random from any school, only divergencies being noted."

DavidYork71 14:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

the POV tag was there as it mentioned exclusively disabilities without mentioning apparent "dispensations", thus unbalancing the section. ITAQALLAH 16:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I should remove then because it does describe the dispensation of halved punishment. It would also refer to mukataba if that wasn't already covered adequately elsewhereDavidYork71 10:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Key points from GA review

1. former lead was 'too long' and not achieving objectives outlined in 'WP:LEAD'
2. NPOV tagging. Any future tagging must propose its reasons so they can be addressed and not leave editors guessing about the POV existing and claimed uncovered or underrepresented
3. Needs copyediting to improve consistency of writing
4. Images not used well enough
5. Otherwise citations good and coverage sufficient.

There are a number of images here that would be appropriate to use here to improve on the fourth point, but clearance required. Can an 1890 image be used freely?DavidYork71 14:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Reformed lead to meet GA Criteria

At GA review just completed the present lead was reviewed as a major problem because 'too long and just does not adhere to WP:LEDE'. Below is my proposal of a lead that is more apt. Please vote in support/opposition and make comments about how we might achieve a better lead to take this to GA. (text follows}

Bold textIslam and slavery have a long history of accommodation defined by the existence of the Islamic (or 'Arab' or 'Oriental') slave trade for over a thousand years until early last century. The subject has modern relevance because, despite official proscriptions, Islamically-condoned slavery (or at least slavery asserted as such) is still practised in Africa - notably in Sudan since the reimposition of sharia, and in the Islamic Republic of Mauritania. The subject describes a tension between the goals of the modern abolitionist movement and contrary outcomes tolerated by Islam, especially with respect to the circumstance of young children 'born into' slavery. - - It is also true that in the latter half of the last century a number of Islamic countries were among the last in the world to formally disavow and repudiate slavery, while the toleration for slavery practices still seen in parts the Islamic world draws some of its support from pronouncements by influential Sunni religious scholars on the subject of Islamic permissions for its continuance. The anti-slavery pronouncements of certain other influential Islamic scholars and schools of thought are also noted. - - As a historical fact and a modern reality the accommodation of slavery within Islam is a rich subject with some interesting variances between the main traditional schools of Islamic thought (madhhabs). - - Finally, Islamic slavery has, - with respect to racial equality and the social mobility of slaves and former slaves - produced some commendable outcomes at least in comparison with slavery practised elsewhere in the world Bold textDavidYork71 04:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

David York, one of the criterions for GA articles is stability, i.e. lack of edit-warring. --Aminz 04:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Well i'm afraid the lead can't stay 'stable' if it's the first reason offered why whole article can't meet GA.DavidYork71 04:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know edit warring was the first reason for having this article de-listed. --Aminz 04:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at the last GA-review just recently. There's 1)reactionary pov-tagging without corresponding pov discussion being raised on talk. 2)lead too long and totally ineffective. 3)images not used (i've recently added two), and 4)copyediting required. I'd say the copyediting starts with that intro, and future POV-tagging needs to target specific sections and be corroborated with reasons, examples and suggestions on talk. DavidYork71 05:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this article is not neutral, not to speak of passing all GA criteria --Aminz 05:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The POV of those scholars (all of the four main madhhabs) who say that slavery remains allowable under Islam is covered, as well as those innovators who say that it isn't. What other POV do you want covered or treated in greater detail?DavidYork71 05:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.(from policy)DavidYork71 06:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoever pov-tagged most recently

please provide reasons on talk and your reform suggestions to overcome the non-neutral or 'favouritist' POV perceived. If not, as always, i'll untag. It makes me sound like a termagent, but I shouldn't have to ask for you to do this, it should have been done routinely as a matter of courtesy and explanation.
ps. does anyone have/can obtain pictures of islamic slavery scenes that are free images with copyright clearance?DavidYork71 06:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

See your talk page for my suggestions. Merbabu 11:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Condemnation of those who take their own freedom

"There are three whose prayer will not be accepted, nor their virtues be taken above: The runaway slave until he returns back to his master, the woman with whom her husband is dissatisfied, and the drunk until he becomes sober. Suyuti, commenting on Q. 4:34, see also Mishkat al-Masabih, English translation, Book I, Hadith No. ii, 74DavidYork71 09:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

List any NPOV-related concerns here pending removal of the tag.DavidYork71 22:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't see your concerns here, Aminz- will have to revert per DavidYork71--ProtectWomen 06:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • the legal disabilities/dispensations section has been highlighted to you several times DavidYork. you have ignored this concern however, persistently and disruptively removing the POV-sect tag to hide the fact a dispute exists. furthermore, some areas in the contemporary slavery section are problematic. finally, look at this talk page above to see recent disputes about various aspects of the article. ITAQALLAH 07:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
OK which parts specifically in legal disabilities/dispensations do you have a problem with? What specifically should be added to make the section better in your view? In the views of other editors? Hypnosadist 08:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
(Addressing itaqallah) So it that's your reason for NPOV tagging the whole article then it's incumbent upon you to say what else SHOULD be covered in the 'legal disabilities etc' section that ISN'T adequately covered there or elsewhere in the article. An NPOV tag has to be followed up with a justifying comment, that's why the tag bears a link to its associated discussion.DavidYork71 12:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The last NPOV concerns raised in any way that could be understood and addressed were done so by Aaliyah, and address appropriately addressed by the inclusion of the views of Qutb, Mawdidi, al-Nabhani DavidYork71 12:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to give Kudos to Itaqallah for at least posting a comment in this section (even though I disagree). Another editor is repeatedly tagging & reverting without even discussing here. A much better solution would be to tag the sections that are disputed and then give the reasons here on the talk page. The exact concerns are not even solidly listed.
This article is among the most heavily referenced on Wikipedia - including that of Islam itself. It appears the other editors are more interested in tagging the article for the purpose of making it fail GA. For that reason I must revert the tag, until the other editors get more serious about their problems with this article. --ProtectWomen 18:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Pretty sad if your best reason for tagging is so a comprehensive and good article can't get the credit for being so.DavidYork71 06:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

View of theologians

It should be also added that: "The famous medieval jurist al-Ghazzali denounced the perception of a white man being better than a black one as adopting the same hierarchical principles of ignorance endorsed by Satan: something which al-Ghazzali believes would eventually result in polytheism. cf. Azizah Y. al-Hibri, 2003" --Aminz 08:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

David, i haven't followed the detail of this for a few days now, but as a general comment, you simply unilaterally asserting POV issues have been resolved does not actually solve them. Merbabu 12:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
What's your solution when taggers are challenged to specify their justifications/concerns on talk and squib it? My solution is take off the tag as a disruption until someone can put it in words and offer their suggestions as a basis for critically reviewing the content.DavidYork71 13:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
(addressing merbabu) say i tagged Indonesian architecture the same. Wouldn't you take it off if I hadn't followed it up with a relevant comment in a short space of time?DavidYork71 13:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a page here and another archive of POV dispute. What more do you need? And, as for the Indonesian architecture example which I initially provided to you, perhaps if your editing history extended to less controversial (and often more important topics) as distinct from your current record—which you yourself admit is a POV mission of anti-Islam sentiment—then perhaps POV issues woudln't follow you around everywhere.
I repeat, while it is fair enough for people to specify their POV dispute if they place a tag, merely saying unilaterally it is now solved, does not actually solve it. Merbabu 13:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes i agree Merbabu but look at the Tagging section above. I ask about the worldnetdaily link, neither of the editors answer and they just move on to the next conflict. Hypnosadist 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Modern Slavery

Maybe this selection of articles from the BBC on modern slavery will help the Contemporary slavery in the Muslim world section. [47] Hypnosadist 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


To Do

Lots left. Arrow740 03:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the lead section could be broken into smaller paragraphs... It looks kind of bulky for a lead, which I believe should be a bit more of a concise summary ? And is the thing about conservative quran interpreters even true? How can there still be Islamic slavery if that is true. Can someone check that ? --ProtectWomen 06:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It is not true. Arrow740 06:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It can't be true when directly controverted by references in the article from Shaykh Saleh al-Fawzan, Gordon, Shaikh Saad Al-Buraik, Dr. Kwaku Person-Lynn, Imam El Hassan Ould Benyamin, Dr. Abdul-Latif Mushtahari, Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri, and Clarence-Smith (speaking of Qutb and Mawdudi), as well as the evidence from Chad, Sudan and Mauritania. I will remove.DavidYork71 06:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Good work on the rewrite and re-org all round, Arrow and Protect. I still view the lead as a stinker, tho. It needs to be changed/trimmed for GA and I have put my suggested alternative above.DavidYork71 06:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The idea that a conservative Quranic scholar would declare that something Muhammad actively engaged in is opposed to Quranic principles is laughable. More proof that the EoQ is not as reliable a publication as the EoI. Arrow740 06:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
You must be kidding. Article written by Jonathan Brockopp, professor of History and Religious Studies, in Encyclopedia of the Qur'an is not a reliable source? --Aminz 07:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
No we're not kidding. We gave specific arguments why he is wrong. You might want to respond to them. Arrow740 08:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, I don't have to explain to you. Wikipedia is not about finding truth. It is about verfiability. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution : The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. --Aminz 08:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
"i think he's wrong, so his opinions must be removed" - that is known on wikipedia as tendentious editing. ITAQALLAH 12:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
And why Murray Gordon is a reliable source? --Aminz 07:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
He's a professor of public policy. Slavery as conceived of and regulated by the socio-political Islam falls under the purview of such a person. He is in fact an excellent source. That's not to mention the publishers. Arrow740 08:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Professor of public policy in where(link to his webpage or other places please)? What are the publishers and what are they peer-reviewed. What is his speciality: Public policy is expressed in the body of laws, regulations, decisions and actions of government. Why does he have speciality in Islam. --Aminz 08:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If the removed source was suggesting that the slave could accumulate property and choose any employment, then it's also contradicted by Levy. Slaves could have that only after a mukataba was granted for them. We mustn't represent a source in as much as its clearly mistaken or inaccurate about such points.DavidYork71 01:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't get the relevance of your comment to the reliability of the source in question. Arrow is using a source and he claims the author is a professor of public policy. He needs to find a reliable source for his claim and then if true, justifies how a professor of public policy is a reliable source on Islam. --Aminz 01:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
First, I'd like to ask if you have any reason to disbelieve any of his statements. Now, he is a professor (see page 9) at the Austrian Diplomatic Academy, which according to our article and their website instruct on history, diplomacy, law, economics, and politics. He contributes to journals put out by an institute for policy research. He is clearly qualified to study the matter of the social and political instution of slavery and the laws and regulations regarding it in a society. He is also clearly qualified to study policy making of law-givers. This is not to mention that his book has been published by what appears to be (we went over this) a reputable French publisher. His book was then translated and published by a reputable American publisher. I am afraid that you will be unable to appeal to the guideline WP:RS to censor him here, especially in light of the fact that we are quoting Azizah al-Hibri. Arrow740 03:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a fair amount of material to add to the "principles" section. Arrow740 07:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

'fact' tagging of pic of child chained to log

Who was the Einstein who tagged the pic as needing verification that the child is being punished by being so chained? Isn't it obvious. Maybe you think it was for lifestyle reasons, not just punishment. In any case, click on the pic and there is a fuller narrative there.DavidYork71 01:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You have to understand that it was an Apple iLog and all the kids had them. Uhhh, some of them had iRocks, get it? I Rock! Ha.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.8.12.133 (talk • contribs).

original research soapboxing

This article is heavily full of original research. After having examined just the imagery alone there are several examples of this. One image that I've just removed was labeled, "Probably a photography of slaves in chains, probably somewhere in East-Africa". Unacceptable. The soapboxing that has gone into this article is equally unacceptable. (→Netscott) 01:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Netscott, please don't make unspecific accusations. That doesn't do any good. Arrow740 02:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The photo you're talking of was cited here in exactly the same fashion it's cited in Arab slave trade with nobody having a problem with it. Islamic permissions for slave trade and the section on the Islamic slave trade are an important part of the subject and this article.DavidYork71 01:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
While somewhat related to Islam you should know David York that Arab slave trade≠Muslim slave trade. Your editing is highly problematic in this regard. (→Netscott) 01:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The Arab slave trade grows out of permissions from Islam for the ownership and trafficking of slaves. That's why it's treated in this article and documented with appropriate pictures. Further, East African slave trade became exclusive to Islamic traders after the proscription of slavery and slave trading by European nations in the first half of the 19th century. That's why the 1890 photo of the boy slave from Zanzibar is apt. In the case of Zanzibar, until 1898, slavery and slave trading was condoned by an Islamic ruler - the Sultan.DavidYork71 02:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You are extending this to qualify an image you want to include here when you have zeo reliable sources saying this is what the image represents? It appears that as an editor you have much to learn. Doing this type of editing is original research. Without a source you are the one saying that the image represents an Islamic slave. Do you not understand that? (→Netscott) 02:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. David, did you check the book the image came from, and verify that the book claims it is a picture of actual slaves who were owned by Muslims? If yes, then the picture stays. If no, then the picture has to go until you can prove the cite is relevant. - Merzbow 02:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Latest lead reform

I had criticised the lead as 'too long, burden by material not present in the article body, and presenting detail more appropriate to the article than the lead with reference to [WP:Lead]

Below is the substitute lead I drafted which summarises the article content, describes the importance and scope of the article, covers the main points of the article, avoids presentation or examination of detail, and does not reference material outside the article body:

[START] Islam and slavery have a long history of accommodation defined by the existence of the Islamic (or 'Arab' or 'Oriental') slave trade from the Eighth until the early-20th century. The subject has modern relevance because, despite official proscriptions, Islamically-condoned slavery (or at least slavery asserted as such) is still practised - most notably in Chad, Mauritania and the Sudan.

The subject describes a tension between the goals of the modern abolitionist movement and contrary outcomes tolerated by Islam, especially with respect to the circumstances of those 'born into' slavery. It is also true that in the latter half of the last century a number of Islamic countries were the last in the world to formally repudiate slavery and participation in slave trafficking, while the toleration for slavery practices still seen in parts the Islamic world draws some of its support from pronouncements by influential Sunni religious scholars on the subject of permissions for its continuance. The 'Islamic abolitionism' theories of certain other influential scholars should also be noted.

As a historical fact and a modern reality the accommodation of slavery within Islam is a rich subject with some interesting variances between the main traditional schools of Islamic thought (madhhabs).

This article discusses the means by which Islam tolerates enslavement as well as the opportunities it provideds for manumission, the legal position and status of slaves, roles of slaves in muslim society, interaction of Islam and the Arab slave trade, interaction of Islam and abolitionism, and contemporary slavery under the rule of Islam and muslims. The spiritual concept of muslims performing as 'slaves of Allah' is not within the scope of this article.

Finally, Islamic slavery has, - with respect to racial equality and the social mobility of slaves and former slaves - produced some commendable outcomes at least in comparison with slavery practised elsewhere in the world.
[End]
DavidYork71 03:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

David, I appreciate your effort, but this still sounds like you're writing a term paper. First, an article can't refer to itself - constructions like "this article" aren't used in Wikipedia. Second, every single fact, opinion, and conclusion present in the text must be backed up by a cite - you cannot present two facts, cite them, and then draw a conclusion in the text. You cannot even put two facts together in a way that encourage the reader to draw a controversial conclusion, for this would be synthesis. Your version of the lead doesn't even cite a single source. Please see WP:LEAD for what a lead should and shouldn't be. - Merzbow 05:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
M, i'm glad you came out to comment about this. Per WP:Lead, a lead doesn't have to be extensively source or even sourced at all. It just 'should be sourced, as appropriate'. So we see that today's FA, Fourth international has only two cites in lead, where as in other FA's like Scouting and Swastika there are zero cites in the lead - they don't need it, because everything referred to there is amply cited in the article body.
I take your point about the 'this article' jazz. Do you think it warrants mentioning 'slaves of Allah' as beyond scope because Aaliyah, i think, complained about something like that.
So what's your version of a lead that meet the concerns expressed in WP:LEAD which the current is not? One that does not let down the article when it's taken to GA-review with its now-expanded coverage and comprehensive referencing.DavidYork71 05:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:LEAD says "should be carefully sourced as appropriate". "As appropriate" means everything non-obvious and non-controversial should be sourced, as per all applicable Wikipedia policies (for example, see WP:OR - "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source."). There is precious little in this article that is non-obvious and/or non-controversial. Anyways, to even start discussing an alternative lead it must not have the obvious flaws I mentioned in my first post. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but welcome to the Wikipedia Islam article space. :) - Merzbow 06:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
this lead has been rejected above i believe. ITAQALLAH 07:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I attempted a neutral compression of the existing sourced intro. If any of the material I deleted is desired elsewhere in the article, it can certainly be placed there; it was all decently sourced, just too long. - Merzbow 07:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Merzbow. I still have a problem with this sentence: "At the end of 19th century a dramatic shift in Muslim thought occurred and today even conservative Islamic scholars regard slavery as opposed to Islamic principles of justice and equality.[2]" This seems to be categorically false, as DY and I attempted to show above. Also, the article itself contradicts this sentence in the "Islamist opinions" section. In any case, this sentence may have a place in the body if attributed to Brockopp explicitly, though it doesn't belong in the intro. Arrow740 07:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merzbow, thanks for the trimming. ITAQALLAH 07:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. A timely initiative.DavidYork71 09:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

</rest> Arrow, here is the full quote from Encyclopedia of the Quran:

Pressure from European powers to end the slave trade was resisted in some areas but also found ready assent among Muslim jurists. In the Ottoman empire, east Africa and elsewhere, the manumission contract (kitāba, based on q 24:33) was used by the state as a device to end slavery by giving slaves the means to buy their freedom from their masters. Some authorities made blanket pronouncements against slavery, arguing that it violated the qurʾānic ideals of equality and freedom. The great slave markets of Cairo were closed down at the end of the nineteenth century and even conservative Qurʾān interpreters continue to regard slavery as opposed to Islamic principles of justice and equality. This dramatic shift in Islamic attitudes toward slavery is a prime example of flexibility in interpreting qurʾānic norms.

--Aminz 09:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have it. It is wrong. This guy is contradicted on some other matters in the EoI article as well. Arrow740 09:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It obviously controverted by the comments of Mushtahari, Haeri and others. You can't have a conclusion that's directly contradicted by the contents of the article represented in the lead section. It detracts from the credibility of the article. Better to acknowledge there the existence of the interpreters who don't accept the impermissibility of slavery, right?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.101.114.238 (talk • contribs).
Interesting... does the EoI article actually contradict this though? - Merzbow 21:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, please show us the quote from EoI which you say contradicts it. Seyed Hossein Nasr also agrees with it: "If some write today that slavery is still practiced here and there, as in the Sudan or some other African lands, it is more like the slavery of sweatshops in China or the West today. In neither case is it a prevalent practice, nor are such practices condoned by religious authorities." --Aminz 07:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
What practices? The abuse? No doubt. The masters are not supposed to physically abuse their slaves (aside from forced sex) or force them to convert to Islam, we all know that. Arrow740 01:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, you said EoI contradicts EoQ. Please provide the quotation. --Aminz 02:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS

Could you please explain why the following source is reliable? Thanks.

  1. Segal, Ronald (2001). Islam's Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

--Aminz 09:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, a review in a journal edited by your pal al-Hibri concludes quite favorably: [48]. Segal appears to be the founding editor of the Penguin African Library: [49]. Another review by a professor at NYU indicates the book to be a reliable source [50]. Arrow740 09:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Third sentence

That sentence does not belong in the lead. We have removed a reference to racist theologians which is not elaborated on in the body, we should remove that sentence as well. Another problem is that the things which Muhammad supposedly abolished (and I have yet to verify this) were not prevalent according to the EoI so this is a red herring. Arrow740 20:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Potential references

POV tag

Does anyone have a reason for it? Arrow740 03:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, please ask this question when the article is stable for awhile. --Aminz 07:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? Arrow740 07:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Because the tags are showing existence of active disputes.--Aminz 07:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The tag is supposed to show that someone is disputing the neutrality of the article. If no one disputes it here, the tag should go. Arrow740 07:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
By your removal of POV tag, you seem to want to unilaterally force your own decisions. Or do you want to be reverted? Why don't you address the concerns I stated in the next section? --Aminz 09:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Some points regarding the intro

Well, I have some points:

1. "The major juristic schools of Islam traditionally accepted the institution of slavery"

Here the dominant modern interpretation is missing.

2. "This resulted in increasingly massive importation of slaves from non-Muslim lands, and these slaves suffered a high death toll."

The sentence is stated unqulified? Does it refer to 19th, 18th century slavery? If yes, the dates should be provided. A relevant quote from Lewis says: "While, however, the life of the slave in Muslim society was no worse, and in some ways was better, than that of the free poor, the processes of acquisition and transportation often imposed appalling hardships. It was these which drew the main attention of European opponents of slavery, and it was to the elimination of this traffic, particularly in Africa, that their main efforts were directed."
I think we should also add the first part: "the life of the slave in Muslim society was no worse, and in some ways was better, than that of the free poor"?

3. "However, slavery claiming the sanction of Islam is documented presently in the African republics of Chad, Mauritania and the Sudan."

This sentence suggests that the reason for existence of slavery in countries such as Sudan is the sanction of Islam. First of all, while there are many who agree with existence of slavery, the government of Sudan insists that the whole matter is no more than the traditional tribal feuding over resources. So it needs to be NPOVed.
Secondly, to say that slavery exists in some African countiries exactly because of Islam is POV.

--Aminz 07:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

1. "The major juristic schools of Islam traditionally accepted the institution of slavery"

Here the dominant modern interpretation is missing.
The dominant modern interpretation seems to be that enslavement is an option for war captives. See the fatwa of al-Fawzab (Saudi Arabia): 'Slavery is a part of Islam'. In the section 'Islamist opinions' we have the Professor Clarence-Smith calling out Mauwdudi for 'dogged refusal to give up on slavery' and Qutb for 'evasions and silences'. Dr Mushtahari of al-Azhar says 'Islam does not prohibit slavery but retains it'. He in turn is backed up by Shaykh Haeri of Karbala (Iraq). That leaves al-Nabhani who says captives are instead to be ransomed or exchanged .. but doesn't go into the permissions for concubinage with maid slaves, and certain people from Pakistan and Indonesia alluded to by the first named authorityDavidYork71 10:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

2. "This resulted in increasingly massive importation of slaves from non-Muslim lands, and these slaves suffered a high death toll."

The sentence is stated unqulified? Does it refer to 19th, 18th century slavery? If yes, the dates should be provided. A relevant quote from Lewis says: "While, however, the life of the slave in Muslim society was no worse, and in some ways was better, than that of the free poor, the processes of acquisition and transportation often imposed appalling hardships. It was these which drew the main attention of European opponents of slavery, and it was to the elimination of this traffic, particularly in Africa, that their main efforts were directed."
I think we should also add the first part: "the life of the slave in Muslim society was no worse, and in some ways was better, than that of the free poor"?
I think in the first para it says that 'captured slaves ... did benefit from the Islamic dispensations, which improved their situation relative to that in pre-Islamic society'DavidYork71 10:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

3. "However, slavery claiming the sanction of Islam is documented presently in the African republics of Chad, Mauritania and the Sudan."

This sentence suggests that the reason for existence of slavery in countries such as Sudan is the sanction of Islam. First of all, while there are many who agree with existence of slavery, the government of Sudan insists that the whole matter is no more than the traditional tribal feuding over resources. So it needs to be NPOVed.
Secondly, to say that slavery exists in some African countiries exactly because of Islam is POV.
The point the current text makes is that "slavery claiming the sanction of Islam is documented presently". The issue is whether this is factually correct. What it "suggests" is your guess. If it is factually correct then it should stay. NN 07:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
In Mauritania, the Islamic sanction is the sanction of the state which is an Islamic Republic and which condones and acquiesces to the continuation of the hereditary slavery there. In Sudan we have the description from Dr Person-Lynn under the section 'Africa' that 'that same slave trading is occurring today, still in the name of Islam'. As for Chad, it may better be described as 'slavery that includes an Islamising purpose' because slaves are forcibly converted to Islam.DavidYork71 10:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
1. "Here the dominant modern interpretation is missing." First of two points, most modern interpretation says slavery is legal just you can't legally get slaves (and thats the best it gets) and second and most importantly these modern interpritations are such an historically recent event that NPOV on religions clearly states (see above) that the vastly more common view that slavery is legal in islam is represented first and foremost.
2a. "This resulted in increasingly massive importation of slaves from non-Muslim lands, and these slaves suffered a high death toll." Last time i read this it was at the end of a longer section that detailed the expansion of the slave trade from arabia to africa and the longer distances increased slave mortality rates (just like say crossing the atlantic).
2b. "the life of the slave in Muslim society was no worse, and in some ways was better, than that of the free poor" I thought you were better than that aminz, add all or none.Hypnosadist 09:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
1. Hypnosadist, I meant this quote from EoQ: "Some authorities made blanket pronouncements against slavery, arguing that it violated the qurʾānic ideals of equality and freedom. The great slave markets of Cairo were closed down at the end of the nineteenth century and even conservative Qurʾān interpreters continue to regard slavery as opposed to Islamic principles of justice and equality. This dramatic shift in Islamic attitudes toward slavery is a prime example of flexibility in interpreting qurʾānic norms."
If there has been a dramatic shift in Islamic interpretation of the Qur'an, it merits mentioning.
2a. I had two points: The statements seems to be true for certain centuries of Muslim history; it is stated unconditionally in the intro.
2b. Sorry, I don't understand your point. My point is that if we are quoting Lewis, why should we skip the first part (life within Muslim lands) and state the negative side? --Aminz 09:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Point # 1

At the end of 19th century a dramatic shift in Muslim thought occurred and today [[Islamist]]s regard slavery as opposed to Islamic principles of justice, equality, and contrary the reported statements ''([[hadith]])'' of [[Muhammad]] (see .<ref name="Brockopp"/> I'll look for Brockopp's article (in the Encyclopedia of Islam?), but I think we need to expand on this somewhere, if not in the introduction. I would like to know the reasoning that led scholars to conclude slavery as practiced by the prophet and his companions was okay, but slavery after 1900 (or 1970) was contrary to Islamic principles. Tom Harrison Talk 13:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's sort of a throwaway comment at the end of the EoQ article. He doesn't back it up. There is no way that this statement should be in the intro. Arrow740 19:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
'Prophet', give us a break. The only prediction he ever got right in his life was to say that Rome would win a battle nor did he predict his own death well enough to have clearly identified his successor beyond dispute. But about slavery being 'contrary to Islamic principles after 1970' I don't see any of the happy slaves in Mauritania, Chad and Sudan today finding any agreement with you there. Look in the 'Islamist opinions' to find multiple references to scholars on the subject affirming the allowability of it in circumstances'DavidYork71 19:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
please see WP:SOAPBOX. ITAQALLAH 20:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, straight up: Does Islam prohibit slavery? Tom Harrison Talk 19:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not, see Usul al-fiqh. Arrow740 20:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me or does it strike others as rather simplistic to attribute these "modern" examples of slavery to Islam? Look at this section of the Joseph Kony article. He is the leader of the Lord's Resistance Army. If we follow the simplistic logic here then we could equally apply it to his "Army"'s enslavement of over 20,000 children and label it as "Christian slavery". (→Netscott) 19:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
If they are using Christianity as a justification, go ahead. It looks to me like the answer is 'no, Islam does not prohibit slavery, but the governments of all majority-Muslim countries do.' But I ask to know; maybe there is something analogous to In Supremo Apostolatus that declares slavery inconsistent with Islam. If so, let's say so and include it. If not, let's take out the sentence about the dramatic shift in Muslim thought. Tom Harrison Talk 20:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Tom, I think the question of "Does Islam allow for slavery" is not a correct question. One might ask "Which interpretations of Islam allow for slavery and which don't". What are the arguments. EoQ states: "the institution of slavery changed dramatically in the seventh and eighth centuries c.e.: tens of thousands of captured slaves poured into Damascus and other urban centers, and Mecca (q.v.) and Medina (q.v.) became important centers of the luxury slave trade. The earliest legal texts have expansive chapters on slavery and manumission that depend very little on the Qurʾān. Pre-modern Islamic civilizations, with their eunuchs, slave armies and slave dynasties, were even further removed from qurʾānic concerns. Modern interpreters have used this disconnect to argue that the Qurʾān would not have condoned the slaving practices common in Islamic history, with some claiming that medieval interpreters subverted the Qurʾān's demand for manumission contracts, while others argue that the Qurʾān's original intent, properly understood, was to eliminate slavery altogether" --Aminz 22:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Every scholar says that slavery is portrayed in the Quran as divinely ordained. Every single one. Furthermore, every interpreter will say that Muhammad's actions are the standard for all time. Arrow740 23:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Aminz; I have not yet been able to find a copy of the EoQ/EoI, so I'm glad to be able to read some of it. I would like us to be able to say, "All mainstream contemporary Islamic scholars teach that it is a sin to own or trade in slaves today." If that is not the case, we may have to make a more 'nuanced' statement which, speaking bluntly, will not reflect as favorably on contemporary Islam. Not that it's my goal to present Islam either favorably or unfavorably, but to accurately describe Islam and slavery as it is today and as it was in the past. If the people in Mauritania who keep slaves are claiming some Islamic justification for doing so, we probably have to present that. It would be good if we could say that almost all other Muslims and almost all other Islamic scholars say they are wrong, and why. Tom Harrison Talk 23:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Tom, I think the most accurate statement is that in places where slavery is abolished, everybody is saying that the Qurʾān's original intent, properly understood, was to eliminate slavery altogether (that's what I have been taught). But I guess in some undeveloped African countiries like Sudan where slavery is still in practice, people may justify it by Islam. There is a lot of flexibility in our reading the sacred texts. EoQ says: "The great slave markets of Cairo were closed down at the end of the nineteenth century and even conservative Qurʾān interpreters continue to regard slavery as opposed to Islamic principles of justice and equality. This dramatic shift in Islamic attitudes toward slavery is a prime example of flexibility in interpreting qurʾānic norms." --Aminz 23:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
"the most accurate statement is that in places where slavery is abolished, everybody is saying that the Qurʾān's original intent, properly understood, was to eliminate slavery altogether" Maybe people who don't know much about history or Islamic jurisprudence. Objective scholars all tell us the same thing; it is divinely ordained and Muhammad had absolutely no intention of abolishing the practice he himself took to new heights in Arabia with his destruction of the Jews. Arrow740 00:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Arrow740, no doubt that was true in the past, but we would need solid citations to say it is the case today in the face of slavery being abolished in most Muslim countries. We have a citation for the statement in the introduction that "today even conservative Islamic scholars regard slavery as opposed to Islamic principles of justice and equality." I'm new to this material, and don't have access to as many references as I would like. Are there citations to scholars who today maintain the intrepretation you describe? Tom Harrison Talk 01:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The last section of our article gives examples. No scholar would say that slavery is opposed to Islamic principles for reasons I've already stated multiple times. Arrow740 01:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
They are mostly justifying why Islam had to accept the institution of slavery at that time. Like Qutb who says: "And concerning slavery, that was when slavery was a world-wide structure and which was conducted amongst Muslims and their enemies in the form of enslaving of prisoners of war. And it was necessary for Islam to adopt a similar line of practise until the world devised a new code of practise during war other than enslavement" --Aminz 01:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
None of them say it is un-Islamic or opposed to Islamic principles, and some indicate that it is even now part of Islam. Arrow740 02:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
When Qutb says "until the world devised a new code of practise during war other than enslavement", he clearly means it is not applicible now. I am waiting for your EoI quote that contradicts EoQ. --Aminz 02:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
You have been utterly unable to justify the sentence in the intro labelled dubious. It's presence is in violation of WP:LEAD, and if a sentence I wanted in an exception to the guideline is to be excluded on the exact same grounds, then this one should as well. At least my sentence was true. About the contradiction, I think I was referring to the EoI's reference to the word rajul, but because I couldn't read the EoQ properly, I didn't know that where I thought EoQ was talking about that term, it was in fact raquq, or something like that. Arrow740 09:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Raqiq is an arabic word for slave. What doesn't have to do with the point in discussion? We have a quote from EoQ, a reliable source, saying a shift has happened. Lack of mentioning it is POV. Should you find a quote from EoI contradicting EoQ(as you claimed), we can mention them both. --Aminz 10:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Lewis

This is not necessary as every single scholar cited agrees with him. Arrow740 08:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please use quotation marks when quoting a scholar word by word. Otherwise it is copyright violation. Thanks --Aminz 08:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
OK. Arrow740 09:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Slavery in the Quran

Arrow, regarding this edit of yours: [51].

The EoI says: "Spiritually, the slave has the same value as the free man, and the same eternity is in store for his soul; in this earthly life, failing emancipation, there remains the fact of his inferior status, to which he must piously resign himself. The Quran regards this discrimination between human beings as in accordance with the divinely- [I:25b] established order of things (xvi, 71, 75; xxx, 28)."

It is clear that the discrimination is of this wordly manners not spritually. Lewis is also talking about legal status, not about spritual values. --Aminz 09:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Lewis isn't making the distinction. Also I object to your cutting up Brunschvig's sentence, as the sentence is meant to summarize the status of the slave. Also, Brunschvig is not as prominent a scholar, and Lewis' treatment should come first. Arrow740 09:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Lewis is talking about "rights" and "status" of slaves, not their after life status. That "Lewis isn't making the distinction" is your own view; Lewis doesn't contradict EoI. The EoI is both talking about both Spritual and legal status. The legal part is mentioned by Lewis; the spritual part by the quote I provided. --Aminz 09:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You're injecting this into his discussion. "Lewis is also talking about legal status, not about spritual values." That is your own conclusion. Lewis is discussing the subject from a general perspective. You should not try to frame his exposition. That is exactly what you are doing. Arrow740 09:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Common. Lewis is talking about "rights" and "worldly status". It is a strange reading of the text to generalize it to hereafter and spritual matters and represent it as if it contradicts EoI and EoQ. --Aminz 09:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's best not to split up the quote/reference from the historian BruschvigDavidYork71 10:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Article GA-nommed

By me, under 'philosophy and religion'. If Toilets in Japan, can get there and beyond, why not this article??DavidYork71 11:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

please stop renominating the article for GA. you have done it three or four times in quick succession now, and if anything it fails on the basis of stability alone. ITAQALLAH 15:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
you sound like you don't want there to be a good article revealing what this does about the subject. Didn't we learn something from last review like .. more picture content desired, that the lead was the turkey, and copyediting needed. All have been addressed.DavidYork71 16:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
DavidYork, an article needs to be stable as a GA criterion. --Aminz 21:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A request

David's added to this section: [52] Given that he has been cuaght out before incorrectly representing citations, would he be kind enough to type out the context from which it was taken? From which of the cited sources did he get it? Merbabu 12:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That qualification refers the the particular case of Chad, where there is forced conversion to Islam as a component of the enslavement. With regard to the enslaved slavemasters "change their name, forbid them to speak in their native dialect, ban them from conversing with people from their own ethnic group and make them adopt Islam as their religion." http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=52490
I foreshadowed this in my comments at point 3 under 'Some points regarding the intro' above, but of course I recognise your past hatred to acknowledge the role of Islam and Islamisation in the worst enslavement campaigns affecting contemporary Africa.DavidYork71 13:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, 'the qualification' as you put it is not in the link [53] you've provided. IN fact, this is not the first time I have found that you have misrepresented this very point.[54]. While i appreciate this time around you have actually left the 'correct' info from the link in this article, you have once again added in your own 'qualification' which is WP:OR.
I have no problem acknowledging anything negative about Islam (or Muslims, or Arabs - which by the way three words that this article often treats as interchangeable). Not in the slightest. I am not a Muslim, and in fact I do have a number of real personal reasons (I'm guessing more than you) why i could be very anti-Islam if i chose. What I do have problems with is biased, OR, agenda-pushing edits and subsequent insistence on these edits after they are challenged. It's not the topic, rather the editor's agenda that I am challenging. If you have a reliable source to explicitly show Islam's (or is that Muslims, Arabs, or Islamists you mean?) involvement in slavery, sure, go ahead and use it; but don't add, 'qualify' (as you put it), misinterpret, or manipulate such sources to suit your oft self-confessed agenda.
Thus, is there any reason why this 'qualification' of yours should not be removed? [55] Merbabu 14:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How many slave parents?

Aaliyah stevens has said in edit summary that a slave must have two parents to be born enslaved. Here is an explaining para with refs:

Islam accepts certain circumstances of child enslavement. The children of the marriage of two slaves are born enslaved, as the property of the owner of the woman. If a free man marries a female slave not his own, any children they have will be enslaved from birth as the property of the woman's master.[14] The same is true same is true for the child born of a slave parent from an 'irregular union'.[15] The children of the married slave girl not born from her owner likewise will be enslaved to him/her. If a child is born of a master and his slave, the child in that case is automatically free however his/her inheritance is reduced an amount representing the sale value of his/her slave parent.[16]</ref>

So it is only one parent that needs to be a slave for the child to be enslaved with, however, the -exceptional- case of a free born child where the mother is slave and the father is her owner (ie. umm walad situation)

Is there away to add a note to the article explaining this more fully?DavidYork71 13:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"exceptional" is original research. it is the most likely scenario, in fact. ITAQALLAH 16:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
exceptional as in only. Children by all other men, before and during her enslavement fall under the general rule.DavidYork71 16:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The issue of children of slave women by free men appears to be quite complex. I'll try to figure out an acceptable formulation for the intro. Arrow740 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
We might just mention it in passing and explain in detail further down. Tom Harrison Talk 21:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
EoI says: "whereas the usual principle of Muslim law is that the child assumes at birth his mother's status, free or slave, an exception, of all the more importance in view of its wide application, is made in favour of the child born of a free man and a female slave belonging to him; such a child is regarded as free-born (otherwise he would be his father's slave)."
So, the child assumes at birth his mother's status with an exception that if a female slave and his free master have a child, the child will be free. --Aminz 22:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I read that. The issue is that the person who determines whether or not the child is his is the master. The father has to choose to recognize it, like Lewis and Levy said. Arrow740 23:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Where does Lewis say that masters lied about that? --Aminz 23:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the EoI article. It's a complicated issue. There is the problem of determining paternity. The father is required to recognize the child, however the determination of paternity is up to him. So if a man impregnates a slave, that woman only becomes an umm walad if the father makes a pronouncement that the child is his. He is required to do so if it is, but since there is no certain way to determine this, what he says goes. The EoI article goes into the issue in some detail, but Lewis' shorter statements on the issue are quite consistent with the EoI's treatment. Arrow740 01:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad Bin Uthman and Mohammad Moinuddin Siddiqui as scholarly authors and [WP:RS]

This relate to this edit [56] removing references to a work of 'Al-Kabaar' by Muhammad Bin Uthman translated as 'The Major Sins' by Mohammad Moinuddin Siddiqui. The Author noted 'a slave who runs away from his master' as one of the 70 major sins under islam. For more information about Major Sins of Islam Sin#Islamic_Major_sins:_Al-Kaba.27ir and note number 57. So then should it leave any doubt that a slave commits a major sin by running away? Particularly when there are hadith expressing that a runaway slaves prayers will not be answered nor his/her good deeds taken account of. Here's the work again: [57]. What underlies treating the author, his work, or what he reports about runaway slaves in Islam as not notable, not reliable, or not scholarly. I had believed that the author and the work were in very good standing for Islamic scholarship. Itaqallah should address this.DavidYork71 16:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Weblogs and Geocities sites would not meet our requirements for reliable sources. But, what are these works by Muhammad Bin Uthman and Mohammad Moinuddin Siddiqui? If they are notable scholars articulating a significant position, we should consider including their views. Tom Harrison Talk 17:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
That's what I'm saying. Now perhaps google their names and come back with your opinion of whether they ought be reliable sources or serious scholars in their treatment of this subject matter (among others)DavidYork71 17:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
there doesn't seem to be very much information from which we can ascertain whether "Muhammad ibn Uthman" is notable, and i am sure Arrow will echo these sentiments. in any case, the way you have written this passage is unfortunately rather biased. ITAQALLAH 19:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Segal

What is Segal's quote? The article says: "However, a slave was a slave for all that; owners were endowed with such power over their slaves that few can have failed to abuse it in humiliating and sometimes brutal ways." --Aminz 23:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, can you please copy/paste the EoI quote here. --Aminz 23:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

EoI says: "The domestic slave is in his master's power through fear and respect, through self-interest, through affection. We must bear in mind that he is generally well-treated; we may reflect that he lives in a family atmosphere, without thought for the morrow. To the slave-woman, concubinage offers, besides various advantages for herself and her children, the chance of an ascent in the social scale, of which an untimely emancipation would rob her. Even when freed, the slave is often likely to remain close to his master. If he has procured his freedom against the latter's wishes, or if he has been snatched from the claws of the slaver, he is woefully without resources in a hostile environment, unless he benefits by the special measures which governments ought to take—and which they have occasionally taken—with a view to his social readjustment."

You have the EoI, it's on the page of the article that I indicated in the citation later in this article. Segal says:

Slaves were to be regarded and treated as people, not simply as possessions. That is not to romanticize their condition. A slave was a slave for all that. Owners were endowed with such power over their slaves that few can have failed to abuse it, more often in trivial but still humiliating, and sometimes in brutal, ways. Even masters persuaded of their own piety and benevolence sexually exploited their own concubines, without a thought of whether this constituted a violation of their humanity. In the provision of eunuchs, indeed, Islamic slavery was scarcely more compassionate than its Western counterpart; and those who purchased them were the accomplices of those who provided them.

EoI also mentions the fact that slaves had no legal recourse in the case of abuse by their masters, and there were no fixed penalties in Sharia for that. Regarding the position of slaves in Islamic society, I think it is better not to mention anything in the intro, because there were/are aspects that are (relatively) positive, and those that are extremely negative (like all slavery). It is better to keep it out of the intro; the intro will never be stable unless we agree on some rules like this. Arrow740 00:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I notice the lead is again blowing up in size after I went through all that effort to shrink it the other night. I think the length I had it gave plenty of space to cover all the points important enough to be covered in the lead. Can we please agree to keep it roughly that size (regardless of the content or emphasis)? This is what I had it as: [58]. - Merzbow 01:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with that one. Itaqallah also expressed some support. You see my point, Merzbow? Once we start using the intro to advance opposing POV's it will blow up in size like before. Arrow740 01:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not perfect but I am fine with it too. You can revert it back to that version. --Aminz 01:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Needs Imami Jurisprudence source

This claim must be verified by an imami source In Imami Shiite jurisrudence, the master of a female slave may grant a third party the use of her for sexual relations.[17]

Possible Useful Historical Source

This book was written in 1882 and is out of copyright, it covers some of the social and political sides of the abolition of slavery written from a primarily Christian point of view. Note that these events were pretty much current affairs at the time of writing.

[http://ia310940.us.archive.org/0/items/thefutureofislam17213gut/17213-8.txt The Future of Islam, by Wilfred Scawen Blunt]

The abolition of slavery in Zanzibar was a concession to European opinion at least as much as to European force; and a moral sympathy is acknowledged between a Moslem and a Christian State which has its base in a common sense of right and justice.

. . . . Blunt quotes from what is supposedly the Prophet's first treaty with the Christians of Arabia:

"And this is my command. No Moslem shall molest a follower of Christ; and if he dispute with him it shall be with good manners. And if a Christian do any man wrong it shall be a duty with Moslems to stay the avenger and make peace between them, paying the ransom if the wrong demand a ransom. And it is my wish that Christians should not be disregarded by my followers, for I have pledged my word unto them before God that they shall be as Moslems in my sight, sharing and partaking of all things with the rest. And in their marriages they shall not be troubled No Moslem shall say to a Christian, 'Give me thy daughter,' nor take her unless he be willing. And if a Christian woman become a slave to a Moslem he shall be bound by this covenant to leave her her religion, nor shall he compel her to disobey her religious chiefs. This is the command of God, and whosoever shall deny it and disobey God shall hold him for a liar.

. . . .

A fourth interest, also a moral one, but connected with an accepted fact of English policy, is the attempted abolition of the African slave trade. Now, though it is unquestionable that Mohammedanism permits, and has hitherto encouraged, slavery as a natural condition of human society, it is no less true that without the co-operation of the various Mussulman princes of the African and Arabian coasts its abolition cannot be effected. Short of the occupation by European garrisons of all the villages of the Red Sea, and from Gardafui southwards to Mozambique, or, on the other hand, of the subjection of all independent Moslem communities in Arabia and elsewhere, a real end, or even a real check, cannot be put on the traffic except through the co-operation of Mussulmans themselves. The necessity has, indeed, been completely recognized in the numerous treaties and arrangements made with the Sultans of Turkey, Zanzibar, and Oman, and with the Viceroy of Egypt; and, though I am far from stating that these arrangements are wholly voluntary on the part of any of the princes, yet their good-will alone can make the prevention efficient. An excellent proof of this is to be found in the case of the Turkish Government, which, since its quarrel with the English, has given full license to the traffic in the Red Sea, which no means at the disposal of the latter can in any measure check.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.8.12.133 (talk • contribs).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/s/l/Talk%7EIslam_and_slavery_Archive_2_d526.html"