Talk:Islam and slavery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Islam and slavery was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 2007-04-02

	This article is part of the WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Chronological Archives
1 2

[edit] manumission

the opinions of Gordon are appreciated, but can we a) cut down the massive quoting (such extensive quoting without substantial explanatory text may constitute a copyvio) and represent his main points in a few sentences of prose; b) make clear that it is Gordon's opinion (which is not quite what the text currently does, "Gordon notes... " assumes the factuality of his conclusions) especially as this is more interpretive than descriptive. ITAQALLAH 13:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Islamist" opinion?

What's with the heading 'Islamist' opinion? Have we used the word Islamist correctly? Ie, look at Islamism. Furthermore, is there a particular reason the article mentions Islamist opinion? And are each of the people mentioned there actually Islamists? Or are some of them 'just' Muslims? Should there not be an explanatory sentence or two introducing the section and giving cohesion, or is it just another lawyer's list? Maybe it's OK, but I think it should be at least questioned. --Merbabu 14:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "legal disabilities and dispensations" trimming and overhaul

i found that Levy had not really been represented appropriately, and that the current bullet-point format wasn't very encyclopedic or neutral, so i decided to do a rewrite. there's some material which i did not include, namely the material about marriage/concubinage (as we already have a section where this material can be inserted if it's not already there). i also removed the information about killing in talio, for free men are also killed in talio also for killing other free men. the only issue is when a free man kills a slave, when talio is not required (except in murder, according to Hanafis). furthermore, this: "slaves may lawfully be killed in vengeance (talio) if their master or their master's kinfolk kill the slave of another person" is not substantiated by the source i believe. ITAQALLAH 16:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Under Islamic law, a slave possesses..." Is this the case in the present day, or was it only the case in the past? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

the Encyclopedia of Islam and Levy write in the present tense. i would assume it's because the relative legal rulings and jurisprudence concerning slaves remains unchanged. ITAQALLAH 17:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we are going to need to summarize the current legal rulings and jurisprudence on slavery, or else acknowledge that Islam does not in fact prohibit slavery today. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's portayed as divinely ordained in the Quran as multiple scholars are cited as noting in the article. Arrow740 00:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards

There is nothing here on the talk page to indicate why the tag was posted; therefore, deletion of tag will commence. --ProtectWomen 18:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ibrahim and hajar

This section, authored by me has been excised by Merbabu. It was linked to other sections of Wikipedia on Abraham and Hagar as its sources. He can't see the relevance of it, and so he acts to suppress information about how one of the most important Islamic prophets ... treats his slave by abandoning her and their son in the desert. Of course, the conduct of Islamic 'prophets' acts as an example for muslims and of Islam - in respect to treatment of slaves, in this instance.

But anyway, it's been typically and predictably cut out before most editors got a chance to consider it so I'll relate it below.

On another note with regard to my personal life, a certain 'train' I've been expecting in recent weeks and waiting for has arrived. So, I expect to be retiring from Wiki-editing very soon.

[Excerpt begin]

==Ibraham and Hajar==

Main article: Hagar_%28Bible%29#Hagar_in_Islamic_traditions

See also: Islamic view of Abraham

The Islamic prophet Ibrahim abandons his slaveHagar and their child Ismail

Abraham (Ibrahim, under Islam) is acknowledged as an Islamic prophet. It is asserted that the Arabs are the progeny of him with his Ethiopian slave, Hagar. Hagar was given to him while he already had Sarah as a wife. By Abraham, Hajar gave birth to Ishmael (Arabic:Ismā'īl) which pleased him. Sarah thereafter regretted Abraham taking Hagar as a wife, so she prevailed upon him to send Hajar and Ishmael away.

Ibrahim brought Hajar to the hill called al-Marwa, left a bag of dates and some water nearby, and abandoned her. Hajar ran after him and said: "Are you going to leave us in this desert where there is no one to keep us company?" She repeated this many times but he would not look back at her.

Hagar, with Ishmael as a suckling, was left alone in bare desert far from human contact. She lived on the provisions until hunger and thirst overcame her. Her milk dried up, leaving Ishmael also hungry and thirsty.

Hoping to find water, she searched the desert but found nothing. She found Ishmael crying which made her weep also. She ran seven times back and forth in scorching heat between the hills of Safa and Marwa, in hope of seeing some water from high ground. Disappointed and tearful, she returned to Ishmael. Her search is superstitiously imitated by muslims in the act of ritual walking (sa`i, Arabic: سَعِي) between the same hills at Mecca as part of the performance of Islamic pilgrimage.

The legend concludes that Hajar and Ishmael were saved by Gabriel providing a source of water for her and Ishmael.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidYork71 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 28 March 2007.

David, Abraham did it at God's command, not on his own. This image is misleading as Abraham was actually hesitant to do so. I don't think any Muslim has ever recieved a similar order from God so your evluation that "Of course, the conduct of Islamic 'prophets' acts as an example for muslims and of Islam - in respect to treatment of slaves, in this instance." is irrelevant. --Aminz 00:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I don't think the story of Abraham is relevant to this article. --Aminz 00:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the picture. The background story could possibly be condensed to "Abraham obeys God's order to abandon his concubine Hagar" or something like that. Arrow740 01:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This story doesn't have anything to do with this article. --Aminz 01:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, the story and picture show an aspect of what it means to be a slave and the child of a slave in the context of Islam. Any muslim has that sunnah to inform his/her own conduct in relation to those enslaved. It's apt for the article.DavidYork71 01:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean.... that "picture show an aspect of what it means to be a slave and the child of a slave in the context of Islam" what aspect? in the context of islam? --Aminz 01:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A slave of any pre-Islamic Middle Eastern figure is relevant to this section, let alone one claimed as a predecessor by Muhammad. Arrow740 02:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both User:Sefringle who originally removed it and User:Aminz here. The image is out of place in an article about Islam and slavery. Just because Muhammad "claimed" Ibrahim doesn't make it true. (→Netscott) 02:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This story is the reason why muslims run between the two hills in the desert heat seven times on pilgrimage. It's part of Islam. Everything Muhammad claimed is part of it.DavidYork71 10:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Simply put, the story and picture show an aspect of what it means to be a slave and the child of a slave in the context of Islam. Any muslim has that sunnah to inform his/her own conduct in relation to those enslaved." - completely absurd argument, and false. ITAQALLAH 15:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Images are meant to add value to the text of the article. As Hagar/Hajar is not even mentioned here, I cannot see what justification there could be for including the image. If there is a reliable source which connects this story to Islam and Slavery, then text discussing this can be added, and the image along with it.Proabivouac 00:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright permission for any pictures from www.frontline.org.za

The follow email message may be cited as permission for any of the pics from that site. I have previously uploaded some and used them in the article.

From : Frontline Fellowship <info@frontline.org.za> Sent : Tuesday, 27 March 2007 1:57:26 PM To : <Dy90@hotmail.com> Subject : LETTER to DAVID YORK from DR PETER HAMMOND Attention: David York Dear Mr. York Thank you for your letter 18/3 via Christian Action. You are most welcome to reproduce the pictures on Islam and slavery from our website. They are a public domain. They were sketched by contemporaries in the 19th Century. I obtained these pictures from a variety of old books from second hand bookshops. If we can be of any further assistance, please do let us know. Yours for faith and freedom Dr. Peter Hammond

"I obtained these pictures from a variety of old books from second hand bookshops." that doesn't prove that the pictures are geniune. --Aminz 01:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And who is Peter Hammond? "Peter J. Hammond"; professor of economics at stanford university; or someone else? --Aminz 01:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, he is the representative of frontline.org.za Stanford is not in Zaire.149.135.32.222 04:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imami Source of Jurisprudence

The statement "In Imami Shiite jurisrudence, the master of a female slave may grant a third party the use of her for sexual relations.^[1]" must be verified by an imami source of jurisprudence.

It is in the EoI article. You have no valid reason to remove this. As such, this is vandalism. Arrow740 06:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a "imami source of jurisprudence". As long as it is a reliable source, which I believe EOI is, it is fine by Wiki policy. NN 07:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, can you please point me to the quote. I searched the article for "Imami", etc etc and couldn't find the quote. --Aminz 08:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Section L. It's the 10th page of my printout. Arrow740 23:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It has the same status as other statements from EoI. Leave it and then bring forward the Imami rulings that confirm or explain it later as added refs.DavidYork71 10:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shia Jurisprudence

In Shia jurisrudence, the master of a female slave may grant a third party the use of her for sexual relations.^[1], Arrow740, EoI is not a sufficient source for SHIA Jurisprudence. For eg. If someone were to claim a ruling in Christian Canon Law, they would have to refer to the Canon law source. It would not be sufficient to refer to any other source besides the Canon books. It is only logical. If you can obtain a source that quotes a ruling from a Shiite Islamic Jurist, then that would be sufficient. EoI has been called into question regarding certain aspects that it has claimed to be of Shiite interpretation. EoI is by no means a monolithic piece of literature on the entirety of Islam in ACCURATE DETAIL. Al-Zaidi

Presumably, Mr.Brunschvig has done that work for us. Do you have any reason to disagree?Proabivouac 04:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have posted something on Tom Harrison's page about this. Brunschvig quotes the classic scholar Al-Hilli. Unlike Sunni jurists who belonged to early days of Islam, Shia jurists are present up to now. I don't think they address such details about slavery anymore(at least it is not present in the specific popular books they publish). If they do, they can have their own opinion (e.g. some of them consider women's inheritence the same as that of man because of the new social order of the community; some others consider apostasy not to be punishable by death unless it is apostasy+treason etc etc). But after all, they all belong to the same tradition as Al-Hilli belonged. One example where many of today's jurists distance from Al-Hilli is on the ritual cleanness of people of the book. Anyways. --Aminz 05:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, with the information stated above, the article should reflect its source al-Hilli when stating "Shia Jurisprudence". Even today there are differences within Shia Jurisprudences as well as hundreds of differences within Sunni Jurisprudence according to Sheikh Ahmad Deedat. Aminz you should rephrase "Unlike Sunni jurists who belonged to early days of Islam, Shia jurists are present up to now." The Sunni Jurists of who founded the Maliki and Hanafi schools of Sunni Islam were students of the Shia Jurist and 6th Imam, Jafar As-Sadiq. Al-Shafi inturn was influenced by the Maliki and Hanafi teachings. Thus you should rephrase and mention only that the gates if ijtihad are still open within Shia Islam as opposed to Sunni Islam. Al-Zaidi

[edit] Article GA-nommed

Today, by me. DavidYork71 02:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Should pass. Arrow740 02:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

DY71, I disagree with nomination of this article. There are clearly active disputes here. --Aminz 07:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this article now, I'd say it is LONG, comprehensive and well-cited, and lacking pics in some sections.DavidYork71 02:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparisons

This article does not mention the issue of slavery in other parts of the world and other religions. Wouldn't such a provision of context be informative? Articles don't have to stand alone in isolation. Merbabu 04:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

We have pre-Islamic slavery. That provides the relevant context. Arrow740 05:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Look how long it is already. Do not extend the scope beyond the purview of the title.DavidYork71 05:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA-reviewer needed

In a few places I have advertised for a GAreviewer as follows:

The abovenoted article, to which I have contributed, I have nommed for GA. It needs a GA reviewer who is not in the business of glorifying Islam, bashing Islam or sugarcoating/minimising/denying the facts and circumstances of slavery. Most important is that the rights or dignities allowed to slaves by Islam have a proper exposure. My view of the I&S article is that it is informative, wellreferenced, wellresearched, comprehensive wellillustrated and LONG. On the subject of neutrality or stability, I would just ask that the article itself and not the disputatiousness of the talk page be kept in focus as the subject of review. Now that I have your interest do I have a volunteer??DavidYork71 08:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

DavidYork71 08:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit on the long side (ref WP:LENGTH), is not written in encyclopaedic prose style, overly relies on direct quotes from a particular source (Gordon) and uses images with unclear copyright status. Until these matters are cleared up, the article is unlikely to pass a competent GA process. Orderinchaos 08:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slavery in the Hadith

I have included some material on what Muhammad said on the matter of slavery according to Hadiths. David York keeps deleting that material. Should what Muhammad said about slavery not be included? The Hadith are Islam's second most important scripture, after the Koran. If the style of writing needs to be changed, let me know. The content itself is very relevant to the article, and is actually absolutely necessary. Coldbud 16:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The Hadiths are primary sources. We can include those to illustrate and support secondary sources, but if we rely on them by themselves it is hard to avoid doing original research. It would be better to cite the opinions of scholars who have said which hadiths are relevent and what they mean. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The preceding section is Slavery in the Quran where many examples are taken directly from the Quran itself. Shouldnt David York have deleted that as well then? Coldbud 22:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be cited to Lewis, EoI, and EoQ, with the actual quotes from the Qur'an cited in support. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removal

this:

In theory, the recognition by a master of his offspring was optional, and in the early period was often withheld. By the high Middle Ages it became normal and was unremarkable in a society where the sovereigns themselves were almost invariably the children of slave concubines.<ref>Lewis 1990, page 91.</ref>

... is not relevant to slavery in Islamic jurisprudence or the rules/regulations set by Islamic law on this topic. it more appropriately belongs in the history of slavery under Muslim rule section. ITAQALLAH 23:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

similarly, this is also extraneous (and probably belongs in the slavery in pre-Islamic Arabia sect): "In ancient Arabian custom, the child of a freeman by his slave was also a slave unless he was recognized and liberated by his father.<ref>Lewis 1990, page 24.</ref>." ITAQALLAH 23:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review (Fail)

1. Well written. This article definately needs to be mercilessly edited. It is very long, and the flow and focus of the writing is very inconsistant. The Slavery in the Qur'an section needs a serious overhaul. It is dominated by quotations from specific authors and riddled with direct in-text citations of Quran verses. We should report on the views of others, not cut and paste them into an article. References to primary sources should be placed in footnotes for reference, instead of muddling the main text of the article. Overall, there is too great a reliance on direction quotations and a very inconsistant quality of writing.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable. Despite the numerous citations, this article is severely lacking in many areas. The Slavery in The Hadiths section is apparently completely original research of primary sources. Reliable secondary sources are needed and primary source references should be placed in footnotes for a reader's reference. Additionally, there are potentially contentious claims in the article that are lacking references. Forexample is: "The majority of slaves within Arabia were of Ethiopian origin, through whose sale merchants grew rich. The minority were white slaves of foreign race, likely brought in by Arab caravaneers (or the product of Bedouin captures) stretching back to biblical times." The appearance is that references were added very sporadically and that the process of referencing claims is not complete.
3. Broad in its coverage. The article seems to cover the bases well.
4. Neutral point of view. The article seems reasonable neutral in its presentation.
5. Stable. This article is not stable. There are still edit conflicts and reverts ongoing recently.
6. Use of images. Good use of images.

While the article is sufficiently broad, neutral and has good images, it clearly fails GA standards. The article needs to be more completely referenced. Current references should be reviewed and reworked. This is particularly true of the heavy reliance on direct quotes. The article needs a good copyedit and soft rewrite to produce a consistant product. The article also needs to become considerably more stable to fulfill GA criteria. Vassyana 01:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this thoughtful , Vassyana. I agree with most of what you've said here.

I have removed the section you've identified as original research.Proabivouac 05:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I think the major problem is stability. After fully addressing the disputed accuracy and neutrality of the article, it should be able to pass GA. --Aminz 08:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not ignore point one.Proabivouac 08:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. --Aminz 08:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the reviewer (Vassyana) for putting in time and consideration on this.DavidYork71 13:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lewis's quote

The full Lewis's quote used in the Qur'an and slavery section is:

The Qur'an, like the Old and the New Testaments, assumes the existence of slavery. It regulates the practice of the institution and thus implicitly accepts it. The Prophet Muhammad and those of his Companions who could afford it themselves owned slaves; some of them acquired more by conquest. But Qur'anic legislation, subsequently confirmed and elaborated in the Holy Law, brought two major changes to ancient slavery which were to have far-reaching effects. One of these was the presumption of freedom; the other, the ban on the enslavement of free persons except in strictly defined circumstances.

The Qur'an was promulgated in Mecca and Medina in the seventh century, and the background against which Qur'anic legislation must be seen is ancient Arabia. The Arabs practiced a form of slavery, similar to that which existed in other parts of the ancient world. The Qur'an accepts the institution, though it may be noted that the word 'abd (slave) is rarely used, being more commonly replaced by some periphrasis such as ma malakat aymanukum, "that which your right hands own." The Qur'an recognizes the basic inequality between master and slave and the rights of the former over the latter (XVI:71; XXX:28). It also recognizes concubinage (IV:3; XXIII:6; XXXIII:50-52; LXX:30). It urges, without actually commanding, kindness to the slave (IV:36; IX:60; XXIV:58) and recommends, without requiring, his liberation by purchase or manumission....

Two points:

• The article starts quoting Lewis from "The Qur'an recognizes the basic inequality between ..." ; Lewis starts with "The Qur'an accepts the institution, though it may be noted that the word 'abd (slave) is rarely used, being more commonly replaced by some periphrasis such as ma malakat aymanukum, "that which your right hands own.";

This could be summerized and added to the article.

• Lewis says: "But Qur'anic legislation, subsequently confirmed and elaborated in the Holy Law, brought two major changes to ancient slavery which were to have far-reaching effects. One of these was the presumption of freedom; the other, the ban on the enslavement of free persons except in strictly defined circumstances."

This was previously in the article but is now removed. The "Principles" section attributes this to Muslim jurists. I think this should be added to the Qur'an section along with other reforms. --Aminz 08:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imbrahim and Hajar

The artist Gustave Dore signed this image at its bottom left corner and this work is attributed to him by the image source. Is there any reason to un-AGF, and if so who do you claim as the artist and copyright owner?DavidYork71 08:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

The images placed in each section should be representative of the matter they are discussing, or in relation to the text. The following image for example:

A boy slave in the slave trade market of Zanzibar punished by chaining to a 32 pound log. c.1890. From the Moresby Treaty of 1822, slave trade through Zanzibar became exclusive to Arab and Islamic traders as the sale of slaves to European powers had become illegal

It's caption reads: "A boy slave in the slave trade market of Zanzibar punished by chaining to a 32 pound log. c.1890. From the Moresby Treaty of 1822, slave trade through Zanzibar became exclusive to Arab and Islamic traders as the sale of slaves to European powers had become illegal"

Assuming that the picture is authentic, why is this slave is a good representative of the status of slaves under Muslim rule? Without that justification the image would be non-neutral. --Aminz 08:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

See how it balances and adds perspective to the ex-slave Bilal and the more recent abeed slave who's owned by King Feisal of Iraq. And there's another abeed ex-slave from Sudan there. To chain up a slave who's run away, even one who's a child .. that's the Islamic way, and that's why Muhammad said words to the effect that the prayers of a runaway slave will not be regarded and their virtues dismissed. When we step down from abolitionism to Islam we find that the runaway slave is one who has committed a major sin (the view of Muhammad) rather than standing up for their own dignity. It's apt for being exposed here.DavidYork71 09:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The source for this image mentions nothing about Islam and slavery. All that is mentioned is Arabs and slavery. It's essentially OR that this image is on this article. Daivd York is the one who added the "Islamic" part to the caption. (→Netscott) 09:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

David, I can not see how your comment addresses my point. It is rather an expression of a distorted view of Islam:"To chain up a slave who's run away, even one who's a child .. that's the Islamic way".

The Bilal pic was added because of a quote from Al-Hibri. He is an early companian of Muhammad and notable as the first Muazeen. The quote was latter removed from the article by Arrow and kept as a caption for the image. I think the proper place for the image is in front of a text that talks about slaves in early days of Islam (not in the intro for example). --Aminz 12:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Including this particular image may or may not be correct, but we have to be careful to choose a selection of images that neither vilifies Islam nor whitewashes the facts of slavery. Also, there is an extensive body of illustrated literature from the nineteenth century graphically documenting the slave trade. It would be ironic if the existing image were replaced by another of unquestionable provenance, with a clearly relevent caption, by a well-known author, that was also a good deal more graphic. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Representative characteristics of the subject image: black, owned, liable to be punished in the displayed fashion for naughtiness, inclusive of children, and openly acknowledged for all the above in muslim society of the time and place.DavidYork71 13:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Of all GA criteria, images got the best approval in the review.DavidYork71 13:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "At the end of the 19th century..."

In an article of this length, this should not be in the lead. The only support from the article is a repetition of the sentence. Why don't you guys who think Muhammad was engaging in a practice opposed to Islamic principles go find some more material on this supposed shift in thought? Arrow740 03:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The reasons is made in the quote. It opposes the Islamic principles of justice. Slavery is according to them, intended to have been gradually abolished. Please stop making the intro POV. --Aminz 03:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

All I'm asking you is to find the "they." No other scholars mention this shift, and including it in the lead is a violation of WP:LEAD. Again, if you think Muhammad was heavily engaged in something un-Islamic please find more than one sentence on it. Arrow740 03:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not only EoQ. EoI also says: "Although Islam, in teaching and in actuality, has favoured the emancipation of slaves, it was only under an overwhelming foreign influence that it began, about a hundred years ago, an evolution in doctrine and in practice towards the total suppression of slavery, its abolition in law and custom. This evolution, which has continued, is in some regions still incomplete."

It doesn't say evolution in practice alone but in doctrine and practice.

I will start a section on this. --Aminz 07:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selective editing

With regards to [1] this is just one of a string of edits I'm concerned with, particulary give that the editor recently said "To chain up a slave who's run away, even one who's a child .. that's the Islamic way" I have no confidence in the objectivity of the edit:

Left in article:

• The Qur'an accepts the institution, though it may be noted that the word 'abd (slave) is rarely used, being more commonly replaced by some periphrasis such as ... 'that which your right hands own.' The Qur'an recognizes the basic inequality between master and slave and the rights of the former over the latter

Hidden (ie, gone to reference section – who’s gonna read that?):

The historian Bruschvig states that from an spiritual perspective, "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.

Left in article:

• It also recognizes concubinage ^[2][3]. It urges, without commanding, kindness to the slave

Kept:

A master may make his female slave as his concubine and, if she is a Muslim, he can marry her.

Removed (ie, made into a footnote):

Note that Brockopp writes that the Qur'an touts abstinence as a better choice.

Also note sneaking edits to subtly change (added text in bold): “and recommends, without requiring, their liberation”

How is all this not neutral? Merbabu 13:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potential references

Potential references

• Bok, Francis; Edward Tivnan (2003). Escape from Slavery: The True Story of My Ten Years in Captivity and My Journey to Freedom in America. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0312306236. 
• Fisher, Humphrey J. (2001). Slavery in the History of Muslim Black Africa. New York University Press. ISBN 0814727166. 
• Antislavery Campaigner Wins Mauritanian Presidency, Published 2007-03-27 11:30 (KST)
• Slavery 'still exists' in Mauritania, Published Date: March 22, 2007
• Words of caution, Cameron Duodu, March 27, 2007 8:00 PM
• Slavery Lives on in Mauritania, Aug. 28, 2001
• Segal, Ronald (2006). Islam's Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 978-0374527976. 
• Gordon, Murray (1990). Slavery in the Arab World. New Amsterdam Books. ISBN 978-1561310234. 
• Davis, Robert C. (2004). Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500-1800. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1403945518. 

[edit] The Quran endorses slavery

I have about 6 sources confirming this in one way or another, many already quoted in the article. Suggestions on how to formulate this sentence for the intro? Arrow740 08:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New section

Aminz, please justify this sentence cited to Brockopp: "The abolitionist interpretations of slavery has been widely accepted by Muslim scholars." Arrow740 08:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, your recent edit summaries indicate that you are relying on tertiary sources. Please replace the references to secondary sources and remove what you cannot so cite. Arrow740 09:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The EoQ quote 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."

EoI and EoQ are both prestigous academic sources used in Academic circles. They differ from tritary encyclopedias like Britannica Encyclopedia prepared for public use. Further, according to the policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source". --Aminz 09:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punishment

1. Arrow, regarding this diff [2], please provide the full quotation for this. "enslavement as punishment for unbelief"??? --Aminz 09:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Also, why did you remove " an exceptional circumstance"? [3]. EoI says: "It is pleasing to see that in the eyes of Muslim jurists slavery is an exceptional condition: “ The basic principle is liberty ” ( al-aßl huwa 'l-Èurriyya)..." --Aminz 09:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

1. And what does this information has to do with that particular section[4]? It is about the city Mecca in 19th century --Aminz 09:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

1. And in this diff [5], it is Wahabi's POV contradicting the POV of other Muslim sects. It should not be stated as fact. --Aminz 09:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Are editors familiar with these eight pages from the BBC? [6]. This could be a good source of - well - sources. I found it particularly interesting that at the beginning of Islam, slavery was the norm and fundamental to these societies, and that banning slavery would have been similar to 'banning poverty' - noble, but unrealistic. Thus, Quranic mentions of slavery simply reflect society at the time and how to best 'manage' such a reality - ie, by stipulating how slaves should be treated well. I know the article touches on some of these things - but is it clear enough? Anyway, there is eight pages worth of cited quotes. Merbabu 11:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)