Talk:Islamic views on slavery

This article was nominated for deletion on 121105. The result of the discussion was no consensus. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

HI guys ,

Well this is the first major reformation of this article . Open for dicuussation, as always

removed the intro section , Islam not only means slavery , secondly this isnt relevant here , since being a slave of Allah , & being a slave are totally different concepts .

Muhammad's slaves.......authentic sources required  !!!!

Slaves in Islamic history , this whole thing is discuued in slavery article . No need to repeat the same thing again & again.

Not any more, someone cut out islam section in a slavery article an replaced it with mutch shorter, "by te way" 'Middle East'. Now this information is not anywere in wiki.

Sexual slavery .... again authentic sources required about what traditional madhabs say .

Regarding what has been happening in different muslim majority regions , the right place is slavery article, sice slavery going on in all the places of the world is discussed there .

This article is specific to slavery in Islam. A lot of the content once was in the Islam article and the group consensus was move it to its own article. I predicted back then that if we did that then the next step would be that the Muslim activists in Wikipedia would then proceed to cut it down to nothing. ( Like Farhansher just did to the slavery article , erasing any mention of Islam )This of course is exactly as I predicted. The next step will be to re-insert the article into the Islam article since the agreed upon solution failed.--Urchid 1 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)

Problems

I've reverted the edits by 65.139.80.56, who I'm assuming is also CltFn (talk · contribs), Diglewop (talk · contribs), and Urchid (talk · contribs), because his/her version is highly POV and badly written. However, the replacement is also POV in that it tries to present the opposite picture of slavery in Islam, whereas what's needed is something in the middle, with references to authoritative sources. I may try to do a copy edit if I have time. With that in mind, in the intro it talks about slavery in Rome, Greece, and Egypt, which I'm familiar with, but also in Jewish societies. Which Jewish societies are being referred to, and does anyone have a source? SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 2, 2005 03:44 (UTC)

Well some of the stuff I have copied from some sites , others I have searched in Hadeeth data bases . This jewish part was again on one of the sites . So if U think it is wrong , feel free to remove it .

Actually the condition the article was in , I had no other choice to write a totally new one , very POV version of it . And ofcourse , I would love to have some neutral person to work on it .

Some important things I would like to discuss

1 . As the link in slavery page says , this article was supposed to be " views of Islam on Slavery " , & not "muslims & slavery" . So I added all verses & ahadeeth regarding the subject .Because every association of muslims with slavery has been discussed in slavery article , so there is no ned to repeat the same stuff .

2 . There is no such article as Christianity & slavery or Hinduism & slavery , its important to understand why it was needed to start an article for Islam & slavery . Its because nobody ever inserted their POV in these religion's main pages , while there R some people here who are illeterate in Islam , & who like to make WP their diary of phobia . Were christians/christianity never associated with slavery ??

3 . This guy Urchid also inserted his POV in slavery article , thank God there are some neutral people there . That article discusses slavery with respect to geography & not religion . NOw , why was it considered necessary by some people to insert the name of Islam there . Do we see any reference to christianity in Slavery in Europe or Slavery in Americas ?? This is a big Question & I need some answers . Why cant it just be Slavery in MIddle East & Slavery in Africa ??

4 . As I have asked above , so I ask in the end , feel free to insert any information that is available on any authentic , neutral site . But no phobia plz !!! And see the pages associated with other Abrahamic religions , b4 inserting controversial stuff .

Thanks .

I agree with you completely. The existence of this article, and the spirit and manner in which it was written originally, is a product of the strong POV of its creator. We have to clean it up, or put it up for VfD, or find a way to merge anything salvageable elsewhere. I don't have sufficient knowledge to make it encyclopedic. I also have to avoid doing any substantial editing because I've taken admin action in relation to it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 2, 2005 19:40 (UTC)

This article is about Islam and slavery , it is specific to Islam. This is not a SLAVERY article it is an article on slavery within Islam and do not confuse me with those all those other users.--Urchid 2 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)

Are you saying you're not CltFn? But you're definitely 65.139.80.56, are you not?

I'm not clear about the point of your reply. Regardless of whether it's about Islam and slavery, or just slavery, it's a badly written personal essay, and it violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and Wikipedia:Cite sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 2, 2005 18:34 (UTC)

No I am not CltFn but I did do a revert once as 65.139.80.56 before logging in --Urchid 3 July 2005 13:57 (UTC)

You're not CltFn, but you are 65.139.80.56? That's interesting, because that lies within the same address range as CltFn's IP address, [1] which means we have two people editing Wikipedia with the same strong anti-Islam POV, who write in the same style, make the same spelling mistakes, and live in the same area. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 3, 2005 16:28 (UTC)

Like I told you I use dial up , and stop your secret police game which has nothing to do with an encyclopedia.--Urchid 3 July 2005 17:02 (UTC)

I have to agree with SlimVirgin and Farhansher. The version to which Urchid was reverting was little better than a poorly-organized laundry list of various times and places in which Muslims owned or traded slaves. It ignored the Muslim world outside the Middle East and Africa (i.e. the Indian subcontinent, Central Asia, the Pacific Rim, Spain. . .) and skimmed over the religious and legal perspectives on slavery—which ought to be the primary focus of this article—in a couple of sentences. The general effect was to present slavery in the regions it discussed as a religious, rather than an economic, phenomenon. It further (and this criticism applies equally to the rewrite) failed to address the use of military slaves such as Mamluks and saqaliba, which was (as I recall) the only uniquely Islamic form of slavery. —Charles P. (Mirv) 3 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)

regarding SlimVirgin's comment about Jewish societies at the top of this section: the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud both contain descriptions and regulations of slavery, which indicates that it was practiced both before and after the Babylonian exile. See the Jewish Encyclopedia on slaves and slavery and the book by Catherine Hezser. However, I don't think there's any need for reference to specific societies in the introduction of this article, just a note that slavery was prevalent throughout the ancient world. Judaism and slavery would be the place to discuss slavery regulations among the ancient Jews.

Come to think of it, though, Jewish views of slavery (or . . .laws regarding. . ., . . .attitudes towards. . ., etc.) would probably be a better title, not least because it would be less likely to become a stomping ground for anti-Semitic theories about Jews and the Atlantic slave trade. In the same vein, what about retitling this article similarly, e.g. Islamic views of slavery? That would help keep the material on slavery in which Muslims were somehow involved where it belongs, in its temporal, historical, geographical, and economic contexts. —Charles P. (Mirv) 3 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)

I have stumbled upon this article and discussion and agree that for conventional purposes that Islam slave trade history, which I do believe almost every religion and country/state can stake a claim in, should be part of the slavery and/or Islam article. This is an encyclopedia, not a ranting ground. If I can hear a fair arguement for keeping this article, I'll listen. But theres no reason to single out an entire group of people. -Chrisc112

POV

The POV expressed in the present version of this article as posted by Anonymous editor is an apologia. I have written a more exhaustive article entitled Slavery in Abrahamic religions that covers also slavery in Islam. If this article is to be kept it must be revised. Neither the original article nor the present version are neutral. Since this topic is already covered in Slavery, there is not point keeping a different entry dedicated to slavery in Islam. -Independenza

Wow, not only is this a poorly written article but it is a strong POV. It talks about freeing slaves, kind treatment of slaves, freeing slaves, and an apologetic version of why slaves still exist. Where to even begin? Barneygumble 8 July 2005 13:41 (UTC)

It's certainly poorly written, and it's difficult to see why it merits a separate article. Slavery in Abrahamic religions is also pretty poorly written, but given that it exists, could this be merged with and made a redirect to it? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:04, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Inevitable POV

This article i sbeyond hope. In an encyclopedia there can be no such thing as a discussion on how a major religion handles slavery (or other similar matters). Some people will always try to prove that the religion is at fault, others that it is not. The hermenutical problem is too complcated. Quoting verses in the Quran proves nothing ("konkordanzemethode"). We now for a fact that people claiming to be muslims have had slaves (as well as people claiming to be christians, Jupiter-worshippers or almost anything.

Some people see their actions as justifiable according to how they interpret their religious tradition, others don't and would claim they did what the did not acting as "true" muslims (or christians or whatever). It is not the role of an encyclopedia to provide the single true and normative interpretation.

That said, the article in it's state today is apalling. It is nothing but an apologetic sermon trying to convince us about the beauty of islam. I think this article should be deleted.

--itpastorn 21:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Somehow some people got a lock on this page to prevent normal editing. I love how some people say how much they like NPOV, but then they go ahead and produce garbage like this. This article is the biggest apologetic writing I have ever seen. No mention that Saudi Arabia didn't end slavery until 1962... only random writings that Islam has tried SO hard to eliminate slavery and slaves were treated so kindly. Barneygumble 18:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Slavery and Islam

Another article has been started on Slavery and Islam, apparently to get around the editing block here. The articles should be merged into this one, and the other should be turned into a redirect (as I have just done with Slavery in Islam). Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 17:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I reverted User:68.36.166.101's edits because they were unencyclopedic and POV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:32, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Redirecting to Slavery in the Abrahamic religions

Anyone have any objections to this?Heraclius 04:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Getting rid of this page would be a good idea, in my view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:47, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, right now it reads as an essay describing why Muslims have practiced slavery. The other version talks about Islam as a monolithic bloc encouraging slavery and makes it seem as if all Muslims should be slave-holders.Heraclius 04:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The page has been trouble from the start. Good decision, Heraclius. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:51, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Deletion

I don't see why the deletion tag is there, it's in the Quran!!!--The Brain 08:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Bilal

No article on Islam on Slavery can be complete without a mention of Bilal.

Slavery

This article sounds like a guilty person trying to cover-up something. It says the Quran doesn't forbid slavery but discourages keeping slaves and then goes to say all the verses about freeing slaves. There is a conscious effort my muslim wiki members to remove all the bad stuff about islam and their culture and to present only the good. That's not what wikipedia is about, it's about presenting facts. This website isn't a propaganda tool. (Anonymous User) 14 June 2006

Oh, so Muslims can't keep slaves but encourages the act of slavery to exist? So then Muslims are allowed to treat people like slaves then - torturing them in any way, and that their God allows this act? Is that what you all are implying? --Fantastic4boy 05:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes this very one sided it needs a section on Slaves take by Mohamed and give the numbers also mayby mention the small fact that slavery continued for a thousand years after it becomes supposedly a BAD thing.Hypnosadist 09:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hypnosadist edits

My first edit was make the intro less pov, and much more factual by removing unsourced comments such as "this greatly reduced slavery". My second edit was to add some historical information from the arab slave trade artical. This is bad form i know but there was nothing historical in this artical.Hypnosadist 11:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Addition of quotes from islam-q&a.com about when it is permisable to start rapeing your female prisoner of war.Hypnosadist 12:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hypnosadist your comment above almost seems like you want to do the opposite of those who want to whitewash history, which is paint it blacker than it was. I hope that is not the case. Anyrate here some other historical arenas that may get you started on the historical narrative of the slave trade and slavery in Islamic lands. Note the bold there is a difference, the only difference Islam made upon the institution of Slavery was that it gave them rights and attempted to regulate a more humane treatment towards them, what it actually achieved or failed to acheive socially is however historical record (the dichtomy between the ideal and the actual), at any rate this initial visualization of slavery is what bifurcated the way the institution of slavery developed in the Islamic lands vs. the Christian lands and later both found theological reasons to accept a ban upon it. Slavery existed in pre-Islamic Arabia were it inherited a slave system and economy that was based off Roman, Greek and Persian concepts. Note, when I say this it does not mean slaves were treated humanely or it was a jolly good show to be one. At anyrate some other headers that can get this show started is the heavy involvement of slaves in the Islamic military apparatus and various political institutions, you have Turkic Slaves such as Alp Tigin and Sabuktigin in Abassid times, later the Slave Dynasty in India, the Mamelukes in Egypt, eventually the Janissaries in the Ottoman Empire. POWs were the greatest source of these slaves and considered booty. --Tigeroo 08:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Tigeroo how can you "blackwash" the enslavement of at least 25 million humans. As to your point that Islam found theological reasons to stop slavery, i would love you to try and find one of those LOL! You just get the justifications for the crimes you gave, oh we learnt it off the romans, our economy was relient forced labour or we said to treat them nice (did you know that American slave owners justified themselves in the same way). If islam thought slavery was bad it had over a thousand years to stop it, you are quite right this historical record but there is no dichtomy between the ideal and the actual, they wanted slaves and they had them. Yes i would like to much more information in this article including "Turkic Slaves such as Alp Tigin and Sabuktigin in Abassid times, later the Slave Dynasty in India, the Mamelukes in Egypt, eventually the Janissaries in the Ottoman Empire."Hypnosadist 11:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not deny slavery or even deny the abuse inherent in the system or the historic atrocities. It's gone good riddance, no loss there. I am not gonna give you the oh it was discouraged and so it's being a goner is a good deal argument, or the we can't ensure their rights lets loose it one either since I'm more of a moral relativist. Slavery is banned, POWs are treated under the code of reciprocity, you don't touch mine I don't touch yours. I accept that there was no signficant abolitionist movement in Islamic lands. Look around you slavery dissappeared in a whiff once imposed by law and theology moved position to accomodate this situation as almost the natural state of events forbidding its reinstatement.--Tigeroo 14:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"theology moved position to accomodate this situation" could not have said it better my self, and that whiff was the smell of british gunpowder.Hypnosadist 14:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

actually I was not referring to the British gunpowder, that did not really end the slave trade just closed the markets under its governance. I was referring to how clergy can cherry pick things conveniently enough to be seen as the fount of divine wisdom. Nevermind that they got it wrong earlier. The Pope can fit that bill just fine too. Just as a related aside look up the history of POWs what happenned to the sods and the countryside before there were any agreements governing the sides.--Tigeroo 16:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for information

Does anyone have information on slaves owned by Mohammed or taken in battle by forces under his command or orders, as that would be particularly relivent.Hypnosadist 11:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Slavery in the Modern Islamic World

I think the current content in this section is not relevant to the section or the article. It needs to be replaced to other things such more relevant topics such as the slavery in Sudan and other sub- sahran areas in general. --Tigeroo 09:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree. There could be very well 2 articles: one about "Islam and Slavery" (this one) and one about "Slavery in the Modern Islamic World".

Also: This article is very one-sided. The external-link given with the article gives a good example other views are also held in today's Islam:

Shaikh Saleh Al-Fawzan, a member of the Senior Council of Clerics, Saudi Arabia's highest religious body has publicly asserted as late as 2003: "Slavery is a part of Islam. ... Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam." He even labeled anyone who disagrees an "infidel". [World Net Daily, 2003]

Pukkie 14:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is very one sided, ive started to try and improve it without loading it with week sources. The Shaikh Saleh Al-Fawzan info is very interesting. If you could find an exact source (ie a url or more detailed reference) then this SHOULD definitely go in here.

As to two different articles sticking with one covering both until we have enough for two well sourced small articles would be the best option.Hypnosadist 20:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've looked around about the Shaikh Saleh Al-Fawzan slavery quote, the original NGO that brought this alligation does not exist anymore. No primary source material (the tape of him saying this that the NGO is ment to have recorded) is available anywhere. So this fails notabilty and verifiabilty.Hypnosadist 14:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Slavery in the Caucuses

Caucasian peoples, particularly North Caucasian peoples, have traditionally kept slaves (and do, to this day). Many of these peoples are Muslim. I think this should be worked into the article somehow.

Proposal to merge "Islam and Slavery" and "Arab slave trade"

That is by far the more comprehensive article.--Mike18xx 04:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The article "Arab slave trade" started out life as the islamic slave trade, but that got changed for POV reasons. If we keep the two articles separate then we can cover the religion here and the people at "Arab slave trade" but as i say below lets find concensus.Hypnosadist 23:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree with the view that the focus of this article is not clear enough, it should be noted that there are Arabs out of Islam, and the majority of people in Islam are not Arab as well. If these articles to be merged, what would happen to Ottoman Slave Trade, which needs to be written???, Reventlov 12:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This article can stand on itself. --Aminz 22:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

about refining the focus of the article

there is no need to discuss the prevalence of slavery within arab/muslim history, this is already covered in the arab slave trade article. this article should focus more on the stance of islam on slavery (i.e. "slavery in islam") according to the general islamic texts, as currently there is no article dealing with the concept of slavery in islam. as an extension to this, perhaps the title of the article can be changed to "Slavery in Islam"? ITAQALLAH 21:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. Thus, we do not need to mention "Arab slave trade" at all as it is a different topic. Instead, I support a merge with "Religion and slavery." --Truthpedia 00:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

the thing is, that there's nothing much to merge it with (the proposed article is a stub as per its afd noted on the talk page). as for the section "arab slave trade" then its relevance in this article needs to be discussed further. what i tried to articulate was that this article should deal with the islamic conceptual stance on slavery, which is derived from the texts and the experts in the field of islamic studies. it can be argued that the section in its current form is irrelevant here, unless the content is changed and it talks about slavery in and around the time of Muhammad which would make it relevant to the teachings of islam. this, as opposed to talking about the actions of later Muslims which, as well as not being directly relevant here, has already been dealt with to a reasonable degree in the "arab slave trade" article. ITAQALLAH 00:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article should contain more information on the ayats and hadith associated with the slave trade. Also Islamic notables and their connections to slavery, ie did they own, trade or capture slaves themselves. Also modern Scholars and Jurists must also say what they think about slavery. I think the title is ok at the moment but we should look to see if there is a concensus.Hypnosadist 23:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

okay, i started work on the lead section. yes, we would want the opinions of notable scholars and jurists in the article. the sentence about islam not forbidding slavery needs work, as many jurists state that slaves can only be obtained as PoW's, and generally rule that as institutionalised slavery is more or less destroyed, it cannot be reintroduced. ITAQALLAH 23:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

section i removed due to legal complaint

I reverted a deletion of the below section but did not notice the change at thesource that says this article is now part of legal proceedings. I've put it here on talk until the case is sorted, if its not true i will remove it totally.Hypnosadist 23:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Instances of slavery in modern Muslim countries

The Sunday Times reported that Gul Khan (not to be mistaken with Gul Hassan Khan, former Chief Army Staff, Pakistan), a wealthy militant who uses the base of Jamaat-ud Daawa (JUD) near Lahore was involved in the kidnap and enslavement of Christian children from Punjab, Pakistan. It was further claimed that this money was used to fund terrorism.[2]

Of course if its true we put it back in, PS has anyone heard of this case from other sources.Hypnosadist 23:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

re: passage removal

" Schimmel asserts that because the status of slave under Islam could only be obtained through either being a prisoner of war or born from slave parents, slavery would be theoretically abolished with the expansion of Islam." end quote.

Hypnosadist, from what i understand of your justification is that this passage is irrelevant as the condition is only true under the pretext of islam ruling the world (as well as slavery still existing). i would say not quite: because everything islam says about slavery is indeed conceptual (and this article is about what islam says and the consequences of that according to scholarly opinion). what the author is ascertaining is whether or not islam encourages or discourages slavery, and i think within this context the assertion (which muslim jurists generally opine also) is entirely relevant. it is also speculating on the restrictions placed upon slavery (by islam) and the possible effect that would have. obviously, if you have any good sources which disagree with that, then this can also be mentioned. thanks. ITAQALLAH 23:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

just checked EoI, it says the exact same thing also. ITAQALLAH 17:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This is just factually wrong, if you have slave breeding its infinite. Slave begets slave begets slave for generation after generation. For proof of this look at america after the british navy cut off the transatlanic trade, they had more than enough when they stopped aborting the female slaves. Hypnosadist 21:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

slaves are most likely to breed with the master being the father (marriage with another slave is not generally likely), thus the child is born free. if it's factually wrong then all you need to do is bring a source on par with with EoI, Schimmel and Lewis so that it can be incorporated into the article (WP is about verifiabilty, not truth). ITAQALLAH 09:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine as much as i dislike quoteing them it looks like its time for Bat'yeor et al as this is just BS and does not have a place in this encyclopedia.Hypnosadist 12:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

PS At least you know you are promoting lies!WP is about verifiabilty, not truth) Hypnosadist 12:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

please refrain from personal attacks. what you perceive as truth may not be so. WP aims to quote scholarly opinions on a matter, not ascertain what is "true" via original research or unauthoritative sources like bat ye'or. ITAQALLAH 13:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Bat ye'or is an authoritve source ,at least she comperhends logic unlike this Annemarie Schimmel, no wonder Spencer and so forth think that Academia is completely Biased. So its non-muslims fault they are slaves for not converting (and forceing muslims to take them as POW's) is going to WP stance on islam and slavery. Hypnosadist 14:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

considering that she has no formal education or qualification in any topic related to islam (as well as having been criticised by established authorities), i think the value of her work is limited to helping document well-known criticisms directed at islam. she would not qualify as an independantly reliable source. ITAQALLAH 15:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Eunuchs

Schimmel says they are part of the culture and some have jobs, these eunuchs were created.Hypnosadist 14:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

this is what she says:

"The entire history of Islam proves that slaves could occupy any office, and many former military slaves, usually recruited from the Central Asian Turks, became military leaders and often even rulers as in eastern Iran, India (the Slave Dynasty of Delhi), and medieval Egypt (Mamluks). Eunuchs too served in important capacities, not only as the guardians of womens' quarters, but also in high administrative and military positions." p.67

she says nothing about Eunuchs being (i.e. through castration) created or being part of "islamic culture", just that they were able to play a significant role in society as per islamic history. to turn the above into this: "Contempory Slaveing practices included the creation of Eunuchs in which the mans sexual organs where forcably removed" is total original research and a misuse of the source taking it totally out of context. ITAQALLAH 14:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

She says "Eunuchs too served in important capacities, not only as the guardians of womens' quarters, but also in high administrative and military positions." so she says eunuchs existed, so eunuchs were created or is it your OR that they cut their own balls off.Hypnosadist 14:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

no, as eunuchs may have pre existed in lands in which the islamic govt expanded into. it is total OR to suggest that Eunuchs were "created" as per "Contempory Slaveing practices" (as well as out of context to derive it from such a sentence). ITAQALLAH 14:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh they where somebody elses eunuchs! thats OK then!Hypnosadist 15:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

layout changes

regarding the recent layout changes, i think the article needs to follow a coherent and chronological order. the previous layout was more suited to this i believe. it makes sense to put pre-islamic slavery as the first section, in order to contextualise the discussion (i.e. add background information) and make the actual changes implemented more apparent. slavery in islamic jurisprudence IMO belongs under "slavery in islamic society" because for a significant period of time islamic jurisprudence was part of islamic society. the opening para in "slavery in islamic society" serves as an introduction to the coming section (jurisprudence, and any historical info) which is why the 'asl (principle) is mentioned there as a pretext to what follows. ITAQALLAH 06:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I also think the previous layout was more coherent and ordered. --Aminz 06:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Peter Hammond

This evangelical ex-SA military pro-lifer is not my cup of tea but he is on a par with Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq for education (both doctors of divinities) and notability. I think you are applying a level of academic standard only appropriate to a modern science article not theology and history. Especially as they are a link not a source. I think this is a case of both or neither for me.Hypnosadist 14:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hypnosadist, These sources may give an idea of the lines along which one should be looking for additional material to add to this article. But I think all these sources should all go away since their works are peer-reviewed university-press published works. The article by Hammond is polemical. I don't have any trust in what he says. I have seen lots of lies from both Christian and Muslim polemics. --Aminz 22:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

GA comments

I've read the article and it has a promise for GA status. However, there are few minor copyedits needed to be done, before I make a decision. Could editors fix the following issues?

1. The second paragraph of the lead section has 2 ideas: slavery in Qur'an and Hadith, and racial slavery in Islam. It would be better to split it into 2 paragraphs.
2. The last line in the lead is awkward: "The famous medieval jurist al-Ghazzali rejected the idea of a white man being better than a black one as adopting the same hierarchical principles adopted by Satan in his ignorance, and thus falling into polytheism.[3]". Why does suddenly white, black, Satan and polytheism appear in the text? I don't understand it, because the line does not belong to the lead section at all.
3. Quoted statement: "The Qur’an, like the Old and the New Testaments, assumes the existence of slavery, Bernard Lewis states." should have inline citation. And then the next lines of Lewis statements do need to be cited anymore, as the context has been given.
   • I found there are many cases of this. I've made a copyedit as an example in for Azizah Y. al-Hibri in the subsection Treatment.
   • Basically, readers do not have knowledge of these persons, which are the source of the text. They are not part of the topic. So whenever you want to introduce him/her by giving a quotation, please describe first who he/she is and the first quotation should have inline citation. For example, "John Doe, an English mathematician, stated that equation of ......[1]"
   • Another way of quoting is by indirect quotation, which the person name is not given, but only the citation.
4. A brief explanation should be given for rare used words. For example manumission, fornication, etc.

I think the above issues are feasible to be resolved. Whenever they have been fixed, please leave me a message in my usertalk. I don't want to put this page on hold. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 17:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

My take on the review (I didn't know Indon reviewed it) :

• There is a bundle of vague words used such as majority, widely, are thought and more which doesn't comply with the MoS.
• Plenty of material given in the article uses dubious verbs to present the facts like the word speculate for example.

Lincher 21:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

GA review

I saw your message and the lead section has been fixed, but still there are some issues. I will give my review below, and if editors can fix the issues, then I can decide the GA status. As of 2 October 2006, per WP:WIAGA, here's my assessment:

1. It is well written.

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers → pass

There is no difficulty for me to understand the subject. Although some minor one-further-click is required (see criterion 1.d).

(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles) → pass

The lead section is better than the previous one and it gives contexts and also summarizing the article. The structure is quite logical to follow, because it all relates to slavery in the context of Islam.

(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style → weak pass

To make a quotation, use double punctuation "...". Single punctuation '...' is only used if it is a quotation inside a quotation. Please read again WP:MOS on how to make quotation.

(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided → needs minor copyedit

1. Well, it is said in this criterion that specialized terms are briefly explained or give wikilink, but I hate to do one click first to understand the word. It is even worse if the link is only a stub page, or has no further information, or it goes to disambiguation page, etc. So I would suggest editors to briefly explained the following words in parentheses, just like manumission that I've pointed in the above thread. They are: eunuch, congregational prayers, zakah, fornication.
2. Does zihar mean unintentional murder, or other offence?
3. What does bracket in "(for [freeing] necks)" mean?
4. What does the meaning of "..., such as the sometimes independent sultanate of Adal."? And the wikilink to Adal is disambiguation page. Please fix that.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material → request for citation

1. All materials are sourced and editors follow inline citation for better verifiability. However, some inline citations were not placed in appropriate place. When you want to quote a statement from an author of a book, it is better to put inline citation when it is first given in a context (paragraph). After that, editors can give further his/her statements in the following lines without inline citation, because the context has been given. For example in the first paragraph of section "Slavery in Islamic Society", it is stated about Bernard Lewis statement, but its source is given in the 4th line, which is too far. The link becomes loose that the same source is used for the first line. I have already given my comments above about citing quotation from a source (see the previous thread). Perhaps, editors still miss one or two of this problem. I've made a copyedit to correct for this problem.
2. Could editors give source of this line and also Qur'an passage of it? "Islam permits intimate relations between a male master and his female slave outside of marriage (referred to in the Qur'an as ma malakat aymanukum or "what your right hands possess"), although he may not co-habit with a female slave belonging to his wife." I've put {{fact}} there. Please update it.
3. The last section about Arab slave trade has no citation at all. I would like to have at least one citation there for verification of the section. You can take one or two sources from the main article.

(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required → inconsistent

1. There is inconsistency of quoting Qur'an and Hadith. For example in the section "Treatment of the captive". I was first confused of the list of items. Why don't readers expand it as text? But I assume that they are list of quotations from Qur'an and Hadith about treatment of captive, aren't they? But why the citation is not similar with the pervious sections? Please update it with consistent style of Qur'an and its passage number and Hadith and its source.
2. I would suggest to use quotation template for Qur'an verses. For example:

“ And it does not behoove a believer to kill a believer except by mistake, and whoever kills a believer by mistake, he should free a believing slave, and blood-money should be paid to his people unless they remit it as alms; but if he be from a tribe hostile to you and he is a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (suffices), and if he is from a tribe between whom and you there is a covenant, the blood-money should be paid to his people along with the freeing of a believing slave; but he who cannot find (a slave) should fast for two months successively: a penance from Allah, and Allah is Knowing, Wise. ” — Qur'an, ^{[Quran 4:92]}

There are available {{Template:cquote}}, {{Template:quotation}}, {{Template:rquote}} and {{Template:quote}} templates, depending which style you like.

(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources → pass

Good sources.

(d) it contains no elements of original research → pass

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic → pass

I'm not really major of this issue. As far as I know, all major aspects are included.

(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia) → pass

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias → pass

(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic → pass

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. → pass

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions → pass

(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status → not relevant

Conclusion: since there are some minor copyedits, I put this article On Hold status. Please fix criteria 1.(d), 2.(a) and 2.(b); and again leave me a message when they are all fixed. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 09:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Indon for your comment and suggestions. 1.(d) is fixed now. So, 2.(a) and 2.(b) are remained. --Aminz 06:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

2.(a)1 is fixed. --Aminz 07:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

2.(a)2 is fixed. TruthSpreader has also fixed 2.(b), so only 2(a)3 is remained. I've asked user:Yom to help us with this section. --Aminz 07:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Very good. Actually for the last section, you can take sources from the main article (Arab_slave_trade). All right, I'll wait for the last issue to be fixed. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 13:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

the arab slave trade article misses out some sources needed for the relevant points in that section so i did a quick search around and found some other refs for those points. one or two other sentences may need cites which i will add shortly. ITAQALLAH 16:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen changes in the last section and now all materials are well-referenced. Very good. So hence the GA status. I'd like to congratulate editors for their hard work. Some improvements are needed to make a comprehensive article that lead to FA status. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 01:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations to all editors who have made this GOOD ARTICLE on a contentious subject Hypnosadist 01:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Slavery in Christianity

Why is there no section on Slavery in Christianity? Is this balanced, or is slavery on something in Islam? I have started the article and would like some serious development to finish it, just like has been done here---Halaqah 13:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I went and added slavery to the chapter on Christianity and it was taken off saying Christianity has nothing to do with slavery- go and see for yourselves---Halaqah 01:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

AND?Hypnosadist 01:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Page rename and history merge

I've renamed this article per a non-controversial WP:RM. In addition, since the pages had separate histories with little overlap, I merged the histories. I also prepended the older page's talk content here and merged these histories as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

why is islam and slavery portrayed as being one and the same. what is the link betwenn the two. it should be deleted as when christianity is mentioned nothing on oppression is spoken of except the faith itself.--Sunara 15:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"why is islam and slavery portrayed as being one and the same. what is the link betwenn the two."

1. Islam and slavery are not being portrayed as being one in the same this article is showing the historical and theological links between the religion of Islam and the "institution" of slavery.
2. The links between Islam and Slavery are many (about 25 million of them! but i'll get to them) but here are two big ones;

1)Slavery is organised and mandated by the Quran.

2)The Founder/Leader of Islam owned slaves and concubines.

A leading expert in pre-industrial world trade estimates 25 million slaves where traded in the Ottoman empire.Hopes that helps you see the link.Hypnosadist 20:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

and how many in the Christian trade, where is that link? How about the leaders of Islam that were former slaves? Funny how as the person above said this kind of "academia" doesnt live on the Christianity page where it only focuses on religion. when it is added it is deleted. Ottoman obviously equals Islam, like White = Christain (am i understanding you?) --Halaqah 07:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont know how 25 million people could have been traded in that time period when the total world population was seriously less than today. --Halaqah 07:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets talk about your last point first, the Atlantic slave trade involved around 15 million in just three hundred years, Slavers using islam as their justification had twelve hundred years. If you do the math that comes to around 20,0000 people a year enslaved, not that many for such a large rich empire with millions of subjects and a lot of trade links.

"Ottoman obviously equals Islam, like White = Christain (am i understanding you?)" ah now the accusations of racism to quell criticism! The ottoman empire practiced Sharia Law, it was as an a islamic a government as existed at that time, and it practiced slavery because Islam/Sharia/the Quran say slavery is a moral and normal part of life.

I notice you fail to mention "2)The Founder/Leader of Islam owned slaves and concubines." due to the fact you know its true.Hypnosadist 13:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

is/was

IronDuke, you are changing sourced material. Why don't you contact prof. Lewis and ask him to change this? What you are doing is original research. --Aminz 00:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I would love to get in touch with Lewis - do you have contact info? In the meantime, as you can see from the slavery in Sudan section, slavery by Muslims is ongoing. Obvious? Yes. OR? No. IronDuke 00:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This is your editorial comment. The sources use past tense and you can not change it. These sources should have a reason for using past tense(probably because in almost everywhere slavery is abolished but I am not sure). Again, Lewis and other scholars are very careful in writing their books and if they use past tense then that is the best choice to their mind. Any conclusion in our part is original research. --Aminz 06:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the sources I'm using, in the Sudan section, have not been disputed. No serious scholar or journalist that I know of denies that there is slavery in Sudan, and that it has a religious basis. It's ongoing: present tense. IronDuke 14:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You didn't reply to my comment, but I have done some research. I'll probably add something to the article. Also, please note that this article is not about Muslims and Slavery. It is about Islam and Slavery. Not all Muslims follow the religion in letter. There is no reason to believe that the testimony of one person about some events is what is typically going on there. Anyways, the section needs a rewrite which I'll do soon. --Aminz 09:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

1. I did indeed reply to your comment.
2. It would be nonsensical to talk about Islam without discussing Muslims.
3. There is much testimony, not merely from "one person."
4. Look forward to seeing what your research turns up. IronDuke 20:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

there is always a distinction between what islam says and what muslims do. the article deals with what islam says: such as slavery in islamic texts, slavery in islamic jurisprudence, history of slavery under an islamic institution (i.e. accepted islamic caliphate, not simply a country with "islamic" in its title). i don't believe that any serious historian thinks that there has been any real islamic institution since the fall of the Ottomans. furthermore, the institution in Sudan claims to disavow itself of slavery. just because Muslims do B, doesn't mean they have done B with islam as justification, or that Muslims are living under an islamic institution (which they, in this case, are not) which is endorsing B. thus, i don't currently believe it (simply the association between "slavery" and "a group of muslims") is relevant at all here, in the same way that enslavement of Muslims is not relevant here. i would suggest putting it in Persecution of Christians or Persecution by Muslims. ITAQALLAH 20:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Info already exists at Persecution of Christians. Yes, adding it to Persecution by Muslims would be a good idea. I'll try and do that myself, if no one else does. But the info has to remain here as well. Yes, this article deals with the history of Islam and slavery. It's also (now) dealing with the present situation. I can think of no good reason to censor the info. The Muslim genocide (of which the enslavement of Christians and animists is a part) going on in Sudan has a distinctly religious component. There doesn't have to be a modern caliphate for us to include the info here. IronDuke 20:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It is more racist than religous. --Aminz 21:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

the distinction between slavery under an islamic institution and slavery at the hands of Muslims is stark. in the same way, "honor killings" by Muslims is not related at all to "Islam and human rights". slavery at the hands of Muslims which is not (officially) supported by an islamic state (nor supported by a non-islamic state, neither of which is the case here) suggests that it is not necessarily related to islam or its implementation (which is what this article is about). ITAQALLAH 21:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I won't object to having something about Sudan in this article, but doesn't deserve to have a section on its own. Furthermore, it should be written based on sources taught in universities, not Christian organizations. --Aminz 21:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The distinction may be "stark," but they both fall under the rubric of Islam and slavery. To say that Muslims persecuting Christians and animists through slavery has nothing to do with their religion is POV apologetics. Aminz, I'm glad you don't object to having something about Sudan in the article, as it's here and it's here likely to stay. The sources we have are quite good.

Now, as to the recent reversion: I've shown that it's ongoing, and trying to suggest that the existence of slavery in Sudan is a fact in dispute is bizarre (I'm being charitable). IronDuke 21:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"The distinction may be "stark," but they both fall under the rubric of Islam and slavery." no, both do not, and it has been explained exactly why the latter does not. it may be something to do with their being Christian, animist etc., there is currently no evidence you have provided which suggests they are (allegedly) being enslaved under the jurisdiction of islamic law, which would make it related to "islam and slavery". as with the other sub sections you started, you are equating the actions of people who happen to be muslim with the topic of the relationship between islam (as an ideology and a law) and slavery. it is not relevant here, and you are not presenting any sound argument as to why it merits inclusion, in spite of my opting to delay its inevitable removal so that you may do so. it seems that you're not the only one being charitable. ITAQALLAH 23:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Itaqallah please read No true scotsman, Aminz i believe reputable news sources should be acceptable, IronDuke check Human Rights Watch website for info on slavery in sudan from more reputable sources.Hypnosadist 23:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be under anyone's specific jurisdiction for it to be based on religion, which it clearly is. "Inevitable removal?" Assuredly not. IronDuke 00:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hypnosadist, you may wish to refer to affirmation of the consequent to note why 'slavery by muslims' may not always be 'islamic slavery' (i.e. slavery under an islamic state or institution). can you explain why the no true scotsman fallacy is remotely relevant here? you may also wish to note IronDuke's equivocation of implying the type of "current slavery" equalling "slavery" as witnessed under islam.

IronDuke, that is what you are required to prove, that the slavery is occuring as per the muslims' perceived implementation of islam (i.e. that they are 'enslaving' based upon religious injunction, not merely religious discrimination)- not simply that "slavery" is occuring, and muslims are the ones apparently doing it. currently, it is as shaky as your assertion that every instance of human trafficking equates to slavery. ITAQALLAH 00:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I am required to do nothing of the sort. "Religious discrimination" = factors directly relating to religious belief = Islam and slavery. IronDuke 00:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

that is inaccurate. religious discrimination is to discriminate against a person(s) because of their religion, not because of the religion on the one discriminating. similarly, one's particular belief which leads towards discrimination may not be acceptable under their religion. the link your are attempting to draw is quite visibly far-fetched. to be quite honest, i haven't expected for you to see why such a position is flawed, since you were rather adamant that the material would stay whatever the outcome of talk-page discussion. on to RfC? ITAQALLAH 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"religious discrimination is to discriminate against a person(s) because of their religion, not because of the religion on the one discriminating." No idea where you're getting that. It is jaw-droppingly untrue. "you were rather adamant that the material would stay whatever the outcome of talk-page discussion." Manifestly untrue. It was, in fact, you, who suggested that the section would suffer an "inevitable" removal. "on to RfC?" If you like. I have found that people don't respond in the numbers one would like, and results tend to be inconclusive. But be my guest. IronDuke 01:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

you are claiming that the term "religious discrimination" is due to the discriminating parties' religious beliefs, which is not necessarily true. "religious discrimination" connotes discrimination of a person(s) because of the religious beliefs they hold. religious discrimination can be at the hands of a non religious group or person (i.e. a communist or a secularist) as well as religious, so the basis of the term religious discrimination can have very little to do with the discriminator's religious beliefs, and this is not what the "religious" in the term "religious discrimination" refers to. it's patently obvious that simply religious discrimination on its own is not enough to show religious injunction behind enslavement, which is the only way how the action of a Muslim could be related to the topic "Islam and slavery" (per the very first sentence in the lead). as for your statement that my opinion regarding your approach is 'manifestly untrue', it may well be (and i hope it is), but there is reasonable evidence for it on the basis of statements like "it's here and it's here to stay". i know that RfC's tend not to draw much of a response, but it is still important in dispute resolution. besides, we can always try the mediation cabal after that. ITAQALLAH 11:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The extent to which Muslims feel liturgically justified in practicing slavery is interesting, and I welcome extra info on that. However, that is not the only portion of this subject that can be explored, and I'm frankly baffled as to why you keep insisting that it is. IronDuke 14:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Nasr, professor of Islamic studies at the George Washington University, writes:

Many pious Muslims also refused to have slaves and wrote against it, but the practice in its Islamic form, which meant ultimate integration rather than segregation, continued sporadically but less frequently until the nineteenth century, when under internal forces and the impacts of the ideas of Abraham Lincoln and others it was discontinued. 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. Before modern times both Christians and Muslim had slaves, which does not mean that either religion created or encouraged slavery.

--Aminz 04:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cite. I have included the relevant portion. IronDuke 14:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

IronDuke, regarding your recent additions to the article: You either don't know what slavery is, or pretend don't know. --Aminz 05:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, when you get a sec, please read (or reread, as the case may be) WP:NPA and WP:CIV. You may find taking a short break from editing this article will aid you in adhering to these policies. IronDuke 14:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

i believe his recent additions of non-related material are tantamount to original research. ITAQALLAH 11:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that your resistance to the inclusion of certain facts in this article is POV-warring on your part. Again, RfC is fine, but we've had comments on this already. Here are some of them:

• ...the article in it's state today is apalling. It is nothing but an apologetic sermon trying to convince us about the beauty of islam. I think this article should be deleted.

• ...I love how some people say how much they like NPOV, but then they go ahead and produce garbage like this. This article is the biggest apologetic writing I have ever seen.

• There is a conscious effort my muslim wiki members to remove all the bad stuff about islam and their culture and to present only the good.

• Yes this very one sided...

• I think the current content in this section is not relevant to the section or the article. It needs to be replaced to other things such more relevant topics such as the slavery in Sudan and other sub- sahran areas in general.

I see strong consensus for balance and for having a section on modern slavery. IronDuke 14:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we need a reputable secondary source to make this connection, otherwise it will remain as Original Research. TruthSpreader^Talk 14:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What would that secondary source have to say, in your view? IronDuke 14:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

that is, unfortunately, total misinformation due to the fact that not one of those comments are related to any article version after extensive work was undertaken due to which the article achieved GA status. i also feel that your stacking the article with OR, persistence in continuing to introduce material, the relevance of which is disputed, and quote-spamming of right-wing personalities is provocative and tendentious editing on your part- so it seems that both of us consider the other to be at fault. ITAQALLAH 01:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that difficulties don't still exist in the article. Your continual repetition of OR is not, in itself an argument. I wonder if you have read it recently. And indeed, you have not responded to the actual edits I've made addressing your concerns. I'm inserting right-wing personalities? One a scale of 1-10, how right wing is Seyyed Nasr, exactly? You wanted specific religious injunction to enslave, I provided it. From more than one source.

Also, if there is to be a section on modern slavery (which there currently is, after your edit) that must be reflected in the lead. Again, please see WP:LEAD.

As for consensus, what consensus are you referring to? IronDuke 01:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

you stated "rv- see talk", but hardly any of what you have said justifies your re-insertion of attempts to define human trafficking as "slavery", or equating "Arab" with "Muslim". right wing? i'm referring to Daniel Pipes. "You wanted specific religious injunction to enslave, I provided it. From more than one source." no, you did not. you produced a purported statement from a saudi about jewish women. that does not relate to sudan, or any instance of actual so called "modern slavery" by Muslims. Daniel Pipes, not an objective individual in the least, and understandably not a conventional scholarly reference, is certainly not a resource on which to attempt to assert "fact". the only reason why i have not removed the whole section (as i believe i should) is in the interests of collaborative editing: so that you can attempt to convince others of your position on the talk page which you are currently doing very little of. how then do you justify reverting on the basis of "see talk" when you have not addressed the merits behind it? the consensus referred to is the agreement amongst the editors about the general direction of the article immediately before and after GA status, as well as the status of the intro. if you also see WP:LEAD, you will note the boldface required in the first sentence, which you proceeded to remove. ITAQALLAH 02:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

could you explain in what way Dr. Kwaku, as a professor in Afrikan-American studies, is an authority on anything to do with the Islam and slavery? ITAQALLAH 02:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Dr. Kwaku's area of expertise includes elements of the African American experience in Africa, of which Sudan is a notable part these days. IronDuke 04:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think part of the difficulty here lies in your conflation of chattel slavery and slavery. Yes, chattel slavery is the most egregious example, but not the only one. There are other forms of enslavement. I pointed you once at least , I think, to our own article human trafficking, in which slavery is specifically discussed. Human trafficking is a form of slavery, not always of the “chattel” variety. I can explain this in further detail, if you wish. Daniel Pipes may be right wing, but that does not disqualify him from inclusion here. Nasr is perhaps biased, but that does not mean we exclude him. You and I must adhere to WP:NPOV, but they need not.

I see this pattern frequently. Cries of OR, silenced by sources, turn to “Oh, I didn’t mean those sources.” I’m sorry you don’t like them, but they’re perfectly legitimate for our purposes. As for linking slavery to Islam, we have:

• the “purported” quote by the “Saudi” – who is a prominent cleric and shaikh -- (I love that word “purported, BTW”: is there evidence of a media conspiracy that has manufactured it? Love to see it if you have a source on that.)
• We have “And according to Dr. Kwaku Person-Lynn, "The saddest and most painful reality of this situation is, that same slave trading is occurring today, still in the name of Islam”.
• We have Eibner (who has been there – have you?) “Sudan is the only place where chattel slavery is not just surviving but experiencing a great revival. This renascence of the slave trade began in the mid-1980s and resulted directly from an upsurge of Islamism in Sudan at that time, and especially from the Islamist emphasis on the renewal of jihad.”
• We have Pipes “The complicity of the militant Islamic government in Sudan has... been established. It dispatches armed militias to terrorize and subjugate non-Muslim communities in the predominantly Christian southern Sudan. This is jihad in the raw, the extending of Muslim rule.”
• We have the U.S. State department: “the U.S. State Department's allegations: "The [Sudanese] government's support of slavery and its continued military action which has resulted in numerous deaths are due in part to the victims' religious beliefs."
• And Al-Muhajiroun: "Once the Islamic State is established anyone in Dar ul Harb will have no sanctity for his life or wealth hence, a Muslim in such circumstances can then go into Dar ul Harb and take the wealth from the people unless there is a treaty with that state. If there is no treaty, individual Muslims can even go to Dar ul Harb and take women to keep as slaves."

And there’s more. I could get it, but at a certain point, it becomes overkill, no?

I see nothing in previous GA comments that suggests the changes I am making are contrary to consensus. As to the bolding, you raise a good point. I looked at it, and I can’t figure out a way to make it a reasonable sentence that actually means something. Can you? IronDuke 03:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Arab slave trade

There is a seperate article in the Arab slave trade for the slave trade in Muslim societies vs. slave trade in Muslim theology, as in what this should probably be. I think that should help sort out and present a solution to some of the problems this page is having in terms of focus.--Tigeroo 18:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Tigeroo you have stumbled on the great game of ping pong. Content keeps being deleted from one because it is to do with Islam and from the other because the info is to do with the arab racial/cultural grouping, it would only be possible if most editors on both articles agreed a joint frame of reference.Hypnosadist 19:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

PS For editors who haven't been around that long that the Arab slave trade used to be called the Islamic slave trade. This was changed after long edit wars on claims that it was POV to say that the trade was Islamic in nature, then many of the references to the Quran and islam were removed. Then this article was created to re-add that information to wikipedia.Hypnosadist 19:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, this article is (or is going to be) dealing with the slave trade from Pakistan to the West Coast of Africa. Arabs are but one part of the article. IronDuke 20:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I see the problem maybe it needs to be modified to Slave trade in the Muslim world to be more encompassing, right now either they need to be merged or a way ot intergrating the contents or flow of both be worked out, and be clearly indicate and link the other article. I think seperating the historical, from the theoretical could help sort out a lot of issues. Maybe slapping a merge tag could help come up with a solution from both sets of editors.--Tigeroo 13:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No tigeroo there is no split between the historical and the theoretical. Islam mandates slavery and slavery exists in these countries(in sudan to this day) because of that fact. Slave trade in the Muslim world would not cover the information that is most often deleted, that this trade is allowed by Islam.Hypnosadist 15:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, the article would be about how the institution is treated in Islamic theology and thought, and the evolution of the theological position through history. I don't know of a single religion or society that outlawed slavery before the modern era so I really wouldn't be expecting to find any such thing. There is "no mandate" as in thou shall go out and enslave the infidel, just as there is no prohibition. Historically even Muslims have been enslaved, something that doesn't fit in well with Muslim theology which generally "mandated" for them an exemption, and the article could explore that.--Tigeroo 17:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

OR, secondary sources

As per request, I am going to be adding a secondary source. Accordingly, I will be removing the OR tag. IronDuke 22:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

New thread regarding modern slavery issue (old one getting a mite long)

as i said before, there is nothing wrong with having a couple of sentences or a even paragraph on Sudan in the abolishion of slavery section but not in a new section. --Aminz 22:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

(moved from my talk page) IronDuke 01:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why present-day slavery should be in abolition. Can you say more? IronDuke 01:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a "new thread"... --Aminz 02:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just saw your recent edit. There are some interesting things there, things worth keeping, but blanking the entire section I wrote makes it hard for people to comment on the RfC, does it not? Let's wait and see what develops, if anything. IronDuke 02:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I will wait for now, but your sources are not satisfying nor the quoted material are relevant to this article. --Aminz 02:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the concept of slavery in the religion of Islam, founded 1400 years ago, about its legislations and functions. The article very clearly at the beginning says that Islam accepts the institution of slavery. Had the interpretations of Islam changed in modern time, I would have agreed with a section on the modern understanding of Islam regarding the slavery. Were this article on "slavery" alone, modern practice of slavery was in direct relevance with this article. Were the modern practice of slavery a result of a new interpretation of slavery in Islam, I would have agreed with such a section. The modern slavery is not directly related to the scope of this article which is the relation between Islam and slavery. Even without the abolition of slavery section, this article is not incomplete as this article is not the history of slavery in Muslim lands. But we have the abolition of slavery section. Yes, slavery abolished in Muslim lands. It flourished again in 1983 in Sudan as a result of the brutal civil war going on there. The slavery in Sudan is rather a racial slavery which is quite un-Islamic. It is more influenced by their culture rather than Islam. I have never heard of an authentic Muslim scholar who accepts racism. That is exactly the point. Unless a reliable scholar of Islam attributes something to Islam, it is un-Islamic even if some people who happen to be Muslims do that. But all these are irrelevant. I suggest we rename the "abolition of slavery" section to "History of slavery in Muslim lands". Please note that for the abolition of slavery we have one paragraph; the slavery in Sudan should not be given undue weight. --Aminz 02:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with some of the points you are making, particularly that some sections need beefing up. I also think there's a lot more nuance to be had in terms of which Muslims did what slavery when, and how Muslims disagree over slavery, past and present. I am deeply sympathetic to your contention that true Muslims would not keep slaves, but that is ultimately a POV position. I am sure that they regard themselves as true Muslims, and if WP gets in the business of deciding who is and is not a real Muslim, well, I think you can see the trouble there. This trouble is especially pronounced in Islam and Judaism, where no central, controlling religious authority exists (as in Catholicism). Anyone can say, "I am Jew," or "I am a Muslim." Sorting out the "real" ones is not our job. However, if we can find a notable, reputable source who says: "Yes, the Sudanese keep slaves. Yes, they base this on Islam. No, they are not true Muslims," I'm all for including it. I will look, I invite others to do the same.

I'm trying to figure out what exactly you and Itaqallah are saying, your basic disagreement with what I'm putting in. To that end, I'm going to try to paraphrase it, and ask that you tell me if I've got it right. What you're saying is, slavery with its justification rooted in Islam no longer has any part to play in modern life. Therefore, this article can only be about the history of slavery and Islam. IronDuke 03:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about "true" Muslims. There are murderers in every country and they adhere to a religion. We can not say they are murdering because their religion tells them to do so. If you can find a Muslim religous authority who says that racism is islamic then you can says "Scholar X says racism is islamic". Slavery is definitely not condemned by Islam nor is it by Christianity nor Judaism nor any other religion. --Aminz 03:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much that indicates that race is the only, or even at all, determinant factor. It doesn't appear to be in Mauritania, for example, nor the camel jockeys of Saudi Arabia. It's true, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all had slaves. However, Jews and Christians no longer have them, AFAIK, except perhaps in very, very isolated cases. Also, no one is running around using Jewish or Christian terms to justify slavery. And yet, in the section as it is now, there are references to slavery being part and parcel of jihad (a concept that does not exist in either Judaism or Christianity). Again, let me reiterate my support for being nuanced and even-handed. True, we cannot say they are murdering because their religion tells them to do so. But we can say they say their religion tells them to do so, or that others do. IronDuke 03:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

- "However, Jews and Christians no longer have them" - Haha, no no, OFCOURSE NOT, they are much too hypocritical for that. Instead they hire local companies from 3rd world countries, India, China, Pakistan, to do the DIRTY WORK for them, making their various garments, clothing, goods, etc. in sweatshops to keep their hands clean and so they can say "We no longer have slaves". When we all know that the whole western institution is based on enslaving children for cheap labour. Gmflash

Being in Australia, I know that after every few days I read in the newspaper that sex slaves are caught in Melbourne and Sydney. The actual number of these slaves is horifying. There is a complete mafia associated with it. Nobody associate their religion with it. Secondly, you discussed about Jihad that it doesn't exist in Judaism and Christianity. John Esposito writes in "Islam: The Straight Path" that Muhammad's use of warfare in general was alien neither to Arab custom nor to that of the Hebrew prophets, as both believed that God had sanctioned battle with the enemies of the Lord. By just having a different name for something doesn't mean that this concept is not in other religions. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

TruthSpreader, you wrote: Being in Australia, I know that after every few days I read in the newspaper that sex slaves are caught in Melbourne and Sydney. The actual number of these slaves is horifying. There is a complete mafia associated with it. Nobody associate their religion with it. Indeed, you are quite correct. And this is precisely the point. If Christians in Oz were enslaving Muslims, and invoking their own religion in so doing, it would absolutely go in Christianity and slavery. As for Jihad, well, erm, yes, lots of religions have had violent, proselytizing pasts. Can you tell me the last time Jews forcibly converted anyone? The point is, it isn't happening now. Also, please read the talk page before blanking sections again (which can be considered a form of vandalism). We're in the middle of an RfC, but people can't comment unless they see the whole version being discussed. I hope this is now obvious to you. IronDuke 15:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Being a library geek, I was reading the Encyclopedia of religion today. I saw comments similar to those of Esposito there as well. --Aminz 04:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC

i have opened an RfC (per the above dispute, which should be read) for views about how relevant reported slavery by Muslims, seemingly without religious injunction, is to the topic of "Islam and slavery", the basic topic of which is "Slavery in Islam". ITAQALLAH 01:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Dispute as explained by User: Itaqallah: Dispute over whether reported "modern slavery" apparently at the hands of Muslims is directly relevant to the topic of the history of slavery under Islamic institution as well as slavery in Islamic jurisprudence. Essentially, whether slavery committed by people who happen to be Muslims with no Islamic injunction to do so is related to the topic. Also includes dispute over whether the term "slavery" is within the context of current affairs is being used as an equivocation with "slavery" under Islamic rule. Source issues related to modern slavery also a concern, as is extensive quote-spamming.

Dispute explained by User: Aminz: User: IronDuke is mostly using poor sources usually from websites that are not academic. Some of the sources do not pursue an academic agenda but rather propaganda. Please compare the modern slavery section with other sections of the article which are written using reliable academic sources. For example have a look at [3]: This is a junk website compared to other sources used in this article. Before IronDuke had arrived 99% of the sourced used in this article were those written by renowned scholars (such as Bernard Lewis) peer-reviewed and published by reliable presses. Aside from reliability issue, IronDuke violates NPOV policy by giving undue weight to particular instances. For example, IronDuke finds a particular story found somewhere in the internet and posts it in the article. Implicitly, by doing that he is trying to make a dark picture of Islam. A girl has been gang-raped by six men who happened to be Muslims. What does it have to do with Islam? Why this particular story should be taken as an exemplar of what has been going on? That is POV pushing. --Aminz 02:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This section written using *reliable sources* might be also useful: [4] --Aminz 20:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Would you please do me a favor and put the section you wrote back as you had it/want it? Or would you rather I did it? Sorry for not having already done it myself. IronDuke 21:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Dispute explained by IronDuke: The article, before I came to it, lacked any mention of slavery and Islam in the present day. This is contrary to almost every mainstream source on the subject. There has been a contention that Muslims and slavery has nothing to do with Islam and slavery. I cannot understand that argument; it seems self-evidently false to me. User Itaqallah has pushed me repeatedly for sources (for which I thank him). Now he accuses me of "quote-spamming" (for which I do not). I'm not sure how to react when someone demands sources, then complains that there are too many sources. Aminz agrees with me that at least some of the sources I'm using are good (I hope he'll say which ones). As to his point about the "junk website", Burney has been quoted as an authority by the BBC. Not sure how much better I can do, especially on a current event. Aminz accuses me of giving undue weight, but I inserted the opposing source he provided as soon as I saw it, and would love to put in more opposing cites, if they or I can dig them up. I'll keep looking. IronDuke 04:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The article has become a news article. Giving excessive space to modern slavery or servitude practices has taken over the article, and article has lost its original focus. Recent summarization of slavery in recent times by Aminz was very appropriate. TruthSpreader^Talk 00:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverting to GOOD article

This edit/pov war has spiraled out of control to the vast detriment of this article. I've reverted to the article that got the GA status. Lets discuss the changes we want on this article BEFORE we make any and then with consensus.Hypnosadist 15:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hypno, I appreciate what you're trying to do. However, as there is an active RfC, it will help if people can actually see the edits under scrutiny. If you read the dialogue above, you'll see I've made this point several times. IronDuke 16:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sudan section

References are all biased and questionable. The lengthy quotes are unnecessary. --Kitrus 10:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we were waiting for RfC. But it seems we should solve the problem ourselves. --Aminz 10:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Any good refs that seem to support the other "side" would be welcome. Also, summarizing the some parts of the quotes would be okay as well. IronDuke 19:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Is muslim slavery "better" that christian/western slavery?

I doubt it: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm And why isn't the fact mentioned, that Muhammad himself was a owner of slaves, whereas Jesus wasn't?

Islam's definition of slavery

I have a question to ask regarding this article - what is Islam's definition of slavery? Is it similar to the Western view of slavery like the African slaves in the Americas? By that, I mean getting whipped brutally, left them to undergo extreme hunger and make them over work, physically, emotionally and sexually abused. Is that how slaves are like in Islam? If there is a difference, what makes it different to Western definition of slavery? --Fantastic4boy 05:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no difference, PERIOD!Hypnosadist 09:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

on the contrary the two definitions do indeed differ. perhaps i can find for you a scholarly paper on this, but basically you only need to see what the primary texts say to conclude that there is a major gulf in the two definitions.[5] ITAQALLAH 09:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Under shariah law, slaves had rights as well as obligations to the master. --Aminz 09:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"rights" enforced by whom? "major gulf in the two definitions" thats just sick is there no limit to the lies!Hypnosadist 12:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If its so good sell your kids to me under those rules! What No! Not even that cousin you don't like.Hypnosadist 12:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Slavery as practised in Christendom was different from the way slavery was and is practiced in Islam. However, slaves are still slaves, and don't have the most important human right, freedom. Arrow740 16:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote farm

The article needs some serious editing. It should be a quarter the length it is now. Arrow740 11:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul Lovejoy

Who is he? I have sources saying that concubines were slaves, period. Arrow740 03:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent removals

I've reverted a few changes, because the removals are not discussed. As it is pointed in other disucssions that wikipedia is not based on truth but on the principle of verifiability of information. And just a scholarly comment that when a paper is published in a journal, you don't need to have a famous person to be author to use it as a reference. The Journal itself should be a scholarly peer-reviewed source (hence, verifialbe), and self assertions like xyz is not Islamic scholar is not a valid reason in this regard. You can quote any scholarly journal which is published by big publishing companies like EBSCO and JSTOR. TruthSpreader^reply 03:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Law journals are not reliable sources for Quranic exegesis. I am putting my edits back. Before you revert again, please address my concerns with your actions below. Arrow740 03:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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. TruthSpreader^reply 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! TruthSpreader^reply 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 ^{[Quran 24:2]}.

Secondly Azizah Y. al-Hibri is president of Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights. TruthSpreader^reply 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." 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. TruthSpreader^reply 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). TruthSpreader^reply 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. TruthSpreader^reply 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. TruthSpreader^reply 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)

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)

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 [6], 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)