Talk:Ma malakat aymanukum and sex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
???	This article has not yet received a rating.
	This article is supported by the Feminism task force, which deals with feminism articles.

Contents 1 Terrible article 2 Children 3 Merge to "Ma malakat aymanukum" and delete 4 One cannot have relationships with his slaves sister?

[edit] Terrible article

These paragraphs need to be rewritten:

an-Nisa, 24 can be interpreted either as explaining that "those whom one's right hands possess" are the only category of women with whom one may have sex even if they are already married, or as using the term to refer to one's own wife as opposed to others' wives. The phrasing in the rest of that verse could be read in isolation either as excepting or as including "those whom one's right hands possess" among those to whom one must give a dowry "for the enjoyment you have of them." [citation needed]

The following verse adds that a believer, if he cannot afford to marry a chaste believer and cannot restrain his desires, may marry a believing girl who is chaste (not a fornicator or an adulteress) from among "those whom your right hands possess", giving due dowry to her household (literally "household", but translated by some as "owner" or "master"); if the woman so married commits indecency, the punishment is half that for chaste women. (To keep this verse from contradicting itself, the translators understand "chaste"—محصنات muhsanat—as meaning "free" in the general case, but "chaste" when referring to the slave.) Arrow740 01:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Children

Please provide a full quote regarding the status of children of a free man and a slave. Arrow740 06:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

you tagged the statement as dubious. do you have any basis on which to suspect this? i will provide the extract pending your response. ITAQALLAH 07:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the quote which you provided me with earlier directly contradicting this item, it doesn't seem a likely law as there were no paternity tests when the Muslim legal schools were formed. Arrow740 07:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

i don't see any contradiction with the previous quote i provided. per your request:

Apart from the occasionally operative distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim slaves, Muslim law recognizes only one category of slaves, regardless of their ethnic origin or the source of their condition. The institution is kept going by only two lawful means: birth in slavery or capture in war, and even of these the latter is not applicable to Muslims, since though they may remain enslaved they cannot be reduced to slavery. Legally therefore, the only Muslim slaves are those born into both categories or who were already slaves at the time of their conversion to Islam. Their number tends to diminish both through emancipation, particularly recommended in such cases, and through the following provision: 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). What this amounts to is that slavery could scarcely continue to exist in Islam without the constantly renewed contribution of peripheral or external elements, either directly captured in war or imported commercially, under the fiction of the Holy War, from foreign territory.

damn those islamophilic tertiary sources. ITAQALLAH 07:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll get some secondary sources and see for myself. If it's as you say then this is a rare instance of Islam not being as bad as it seems, worthy of note. Arrow740 08:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge to "Ma malakat aymanukum" and delete

Can we get this merged to "Ma malakat aymanukum" and delete this article?

Perhaps we should merge. I'd like it if Striver, who created this article, would provide us with his suggestions.Bless sins 17:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the merger. Although the title is eye catching, there's not enough text. --Matt57 11:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I oppose, although it's not a big article, the amount of text would dominate the main article, fueling misscoseptions of Ma malakat aymanukum being largly about sex. --Striver - talk 02:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the article in it's current forms make sense for being sub-articles to the more sex oriented Islam related articles: having a link to the general Ma malakat aymanukum would make less sense. Ie, yes, the article is not big, but there are other considerations that justify the split, and no harm is done in the split. --Striver - talk 02:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I oppose per Striver: if it were not split it would hugely dominate the other article, which is inappropriate. Calliopejen1 06:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The main motive for the purchase of female slaves was for sex. This is in Islam and slavery quoted from the EoI article. Arrow740 07:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Where does it state that in the ahadith/sunnah? Jedi Master MIK 20:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about Muhammad. Arrow740 23:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

One, you were on 2 other pages. Two, his followers followed his example and teachings so indirectly it kind of ends up with talking about Muhammad. Jedi Master MIK 01:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One cannot have relationships with his slaves sister?

Continued from our argument

and Matt57, and how is this- "ref name="Paul">Lovejoy, Paul E. (2000). Transformations in Slavery. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-78430-1. , p.2 </ref> " an authentic or reliable source? this isnt even a link, when i press on it, it doesnt show me any verses of the quran or hadith or sunnah where your claims are confirmed, infact it doesnt show us anything. and is this LoveJoy or Paul E. supposed to be some major islamic scolar or something? this is not a reliable source. My claims are correct, atleast i Know, you may differ in thought its your wish, but, a person may have a relationship with her slaves own sister as long as the slaves sister is also a slave under the same master, or if the slaves sister IS the masters own wife. the person may not have a relationship with the slaves sister only If the slves sisiter is a free woman. my argument is legit. 210.4.77.150 13:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt have to have a link. Its a BOOK reference. How new are you to Wikipedia? The rest of your text is YOUR OWN OPINION. Unless you can quote and say "so and so said this", you can forget about talking about it on Wikipedia. How new are you to Wikipedia? Tell me. Do you have any sense of what this website is about? It takes a while for a newcomer to understand this, take your time.--Matt57 15:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, im not a "newcomer" as you are calling, ive been editting and working on articles here for quite a few years now. And i Knew that it was a Book reference. But it is unverified, we dont know what kind of book it is or how authentic it is, or whether a book of this name even exists, though im not saying it doesnt. and for example, if a certain book or source said 1+1=11, it does not mean that it is so, because it would be wrong, its supposed to be 2. Same way, even if its a book reference it must be a reputable or trustworthy source. Plus, its written by some LoveJoy or Paul E, who does not sound like an Islamic scholar or expert. I disputed the referenced title because it wasnt verified and gave no solid proof or source of its claim, and also because i Know its wrong. 210.4.77.150 11:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont know about others but I find it hard to take IP addresses seriously. It would be nice if you got a username. The book is not "unverified" as you claim. You can buy the book and see for yourself whether its reallty what it says or not. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)