Talk:History of concubinage in the Muslim world

The discussion of consent in this article is confused

The claim that men could only have sex with his concubine if she consented is nonsensical. "Consent" with regard to sexual intercourse is a modern concept, and it's impossible for a slave to consent to something her master does to her. Even if a slave expressed consent, the power relationship would render it meaningless.

If, on the other hand, you wants to claim that "consent" here refers to a pre-modern Islamic concept, you need to identify what that concept is. There isn't one, and nor should we expect to find one, since it would contradict the basic definition of slavery, which is the right of one person to control another.

'...acceptable foolishness' ?

Discussion topic: 'edit dif' deletes part of following sourced content

..."This angered Uyanya. Uyaynah had earlier said at the Siege of Ta'if that he only came to fight for Muhammad so he could get a Thaqif girl and impregnate her. When Umar told Muhammad about Uyayna's comment, Muhammad smiled and called this "acceptable foolishness".

Deletion by edit dif

...When Umar told Muhammad about Uyayna's comment, Muhammad smiled and called this "acceptable foolishness".

Reason of deletion mentioned in delete summary

"Removed a highly misleading and irrelevant sentence. The Prophet did not smile and call him an agreeable fool for wanting to impregnate slave women. The source clearly says that this was the Prophet’s reaction to a pun that he had made."

Crosschecked source content @ archive.org link by searching ref no. 193 of the book content overall agrees with content included in article.

• Now question of Pun and encyclopedic relevance.

Who is doing pun? Probably 'Uyaynah' may be replying in sarcasm or pun whatever the character is talking about enslaving an impregnating a woman (may be for intellectual strength of the tribe). Irrespective of glorification out of conviction / sarcasm or pun thought of going for a war with objective 'enslaving an impregnating a woman' remains an intent or being casual on topic of engaging in Wartime sexual violence.

Response of a leader on getting to know intent of war interested companion is calling the thought of companion is "foolishness" is ok. But action is not of instantaneous reprimanding the companion for his "foolish" thought but it condones intent of Wartime sexual violence.

May be women are manumitted after captivity and distribution on a request, but loose talk about and captivity of non combatant women seems condoned.

Some modernist may even claim that these records were simply fictional accounts, but those seem to have been discussed like real ones in later centuries.

Real or fictional instance of a loose talk and lack of reprimanding the companion by the leader seems evident and if covered in reliable source then remains encyclopedically relevant and notable.

So my take is mention is relevant and notable in aligned right Quotebox in the article Sexual slavery in Islam.

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

References

This new edit

This new edit by Wiqi55 removes the passage's longstanding sourced words "and she detested him" and replaces it with the following irrelevant words "but she later chose to return to her husband and cousin."

The fact that this woman returned is already conveyed in the final paragraph of the section Women of Hawazin wherein it is stated "Likewise, the girls given to Talha, Uthman, Ibn Umar and Safwan bin Umayya were also returned to their families." I will shift Wiqi55's extra detail next to this sentence. It makes more sense to include that Zaynab chose to return to her husband when the text talks about the return of the women instead of the part of the text which describes Muslim soldiers having sex with their captives earlier. But I see no rationale for removing the words "she detested him" when the sex is being discussed. It merely shows that Zaynab detested Uthman who had sex with her. That is also how it appears in the cited source wherein it states "Uthman had intercourse with her and she detested him. The addition of the fact that this woman chose to return to her husband and cousin only strengthens the fact that she detested Uthman, for if she liked the man who had sex with her, she would not have chosen to return to her husband. Mcphurphy (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

What you're saying is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH: "If Waqidi says A, and Ibn Ishaq says B, then let us combine A and B to make C -- i.e., she both detested him and preferred her cousin!" That's original research. Instead, we need to attribute each statement inline with wp:due. As I explained in my edit summary, Ibn Ishaq's version is notable and quoted by many later historians (I cited one). To determine weight, could you cite a secondary source referring to Waqidi's "detest"?

Moreover, you're probably not familiar with Arabic otherwise you would've known that Waqidi is just using a term often used in the context of divorce. See, for example, how Waqidi uses detest to describe a woman who divorced many husbands.[1] It is also used for rejecting a marriage proposal. It doesn't imply any of the negative nuances of detest, like "loath" or "extreme hate". Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 23:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

No but this edit of yours certainly falls under WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. The Waqidi source says categorially that Zaynab detested Uthman (whether that was in the context of women wanting to divorce/leave her sexual partner or having extreme hate is irrelevant and is your own original research - which is prohibited). Instead of following the source as it is worded, what you are doing is removing the second part of the sentence sourced from Waqidi and taking another source (Ibn Ishaq) and mixing its words with the first half of the sentence from Waqidi to produce a meaningless sentence which reads "Uthman had sexual intercourse with her but she later chose to return to her husband and cousin." with the aim of obfuscating the fact that Zaynab did not like the man who had sex with her. Mcphurphy (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The source in the diff clearly supports both parts of the sentence; you probably can't read Arabic or don't know how use Google Translate. You also shouldn't present Waqidi's statement as corroborating Ibn Ishaq's because that's original research. It is equally possible to think of these statements as contradictory or a paraphrase -- Ibn Ishaq is often considered the source of Waqidi. The part you claim is about having sex actually also includes Ibn Umar's journey and return of his captive. Furthermore, I didn't cite Ibn Ishaq directly. I cited an annotated biography of Zaynab written by a later historian. Thus the notability of Ibn Ishaq's statement is supported by a secondary source. By contrast, the "detest" claim is not deemed notable by anybody except you. You even admitted above that you have no idea what exactly Waqidi means by it. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 06:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Greetings, Came across this Q&A regarding same issue. It seems according to other versions 'Zaynab bint Hayyan' seems to have liking for some one else and decided to return; even in that case practice of taking women captive allotting them as a war booty, treating them like property and enforcing sexual relations sans explicit consent it's not that the fellows did not know of concept of consent at all, in official marriage consent is asked 3 times but if it is case of captive women consent is not asked fails to generate due ethical confidence. Ex–Muslims are already raising these questions some of their literature will get through reliable academic sources it is just matter of time.

Hence transparency only would be best policy. Whatever number of 'related' primary sources are there present them in original Arabic language, then provide word by word translation and then provide secondary source commentaries. Then let the audience decide how to formulate and render the available information in the encyclopedia.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality template

I wonder if the neutrality of this article is, perhaps, questioned only because it is a controversial subject, which can clearly be seen in its edit history, as it is often vandalized and clearly arouse emotions - rather than being actually lacking in neutrality. Perhaps the neutrality template should be removed, if it only there because of people with bias? I have no idea if this assumption is true or not; I just thought I should mention it, because of the emotional edit history and consistent vandalization of the article.--Aciram (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It seems in /Archive 3, which contains conversation that took place at the time this template was added, that there is contention about whether the article should use "sexual slavery" or "concubinage" in the title, so someone may have added the template to indicate that a dispute was underway. However, when someone slaps the template onto an article without explaining why on the talk page, this can be considered drive-by tagging and it can be removed. I am removing it. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This article does have serious neutrality (and even some WP:SYNTH) issues. It was not merely drive-by editing, I think I placed the template and I explained in great detail why I did. Those issues are still not resolved.VR _talk 01:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

On side note: If neutrality and reflecting on imperfections are good values then open encyclopedias should become religion and religion should become open encyclopedia, probably that would be better way to resolve such disputes Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

If you question the neutrality of the article, you should explain why. The issue here is, that people with a religious bias may want to question the neutrality simply because they feel certain information place their religion in bad light, even if it is correct information. I don't know what the syaing above is suppose to mean, but religious bias should be kept away from this article as well as every article here. The neutrality of these articles are always in danger from religious bias. There shall be no re-definition of what neutrality is, and certainly not to a definition that say religious bias should be redefined to mean neutrality. --Aciram (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I do fully agree with you, when religious bias fails to reflect internally then likely to blame others for being biased. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Aciram: sure here is a non-exhaustive list of reasons:

• The article name (and subsequent terminology) is biased. We have overwhelming evidence that WP:SCHOLARSHIP prefers the term "concubinage" to "sexual slavery" when describing this phenomenon. I gave examples from around 40 (that's right, 40!) scholarly sources (published by BRILL, Yale University Press, Harvard University Press etc). See this and this. But the response was that the authors of these scholarly sources "happen to be Muslim themselves and want to put the most positive spin on it as they can, so they choose to use a more sanitized, yet less accurate term". The idea that we should dismiss scholarly sources because they are authors happen to be Muslims is ridiculous (and possibly even Islamophobic).
• The article gives WP:UNDUE weight to historical instances that WP:RS hardly talk about (as Wiqi55 alluded in above discussion). The article goes into detail about a story for which reliable, secondary sources can't even be found.
• This article only contains certain POVs but omits other very significant POVs. For example, it has a section on forced conversion but fails to mention the most important Quranic verse on this matter (and well covered by RS). Another example was discussed here about how the article selectively quotes certain opinions on dress prescriptions but omits others.
• As shown here the article WP:CHERRYPICKs sources.VR _talk 04:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

My first contention is etymologically word Concubine meant 'inferior wife' (Islam has no concept of Inferior wife all wives ought to be equal so Concubine is an un–Islamic Bidʻah term Pl. read again) , but if any given religion allows unrestrained polygamy Concubine amounts to be wife, inferior though. For this article what happens in other religion is immaterial.

In the religion under discussion first relationship categorisation happens one basis of Mahram or non–Mahram. Then a relationship is halal(licit) or haram (illicit), in halal (licit) relationships a woman can be a wife if not wife then Umm Walad slave, who is not Umm Walad slave but slave in sexual relationship until she bears a child she is plain Sex slave, then there would be a category of female slaves without maintaining sexual relationship but owner of 'female property' has right to create a relationship with her any time so such female slave amounts to be slave available for sexual slavery. Some one is wife or sexually available slave, there is no scope for any concubine (inferior wife) in the religion under discussion. One more category of freed i.e. emancipated slaves is their but that is in a way 'previously available–Sex slaves'.

As discussed earlier, concept of marital consent is very expressively available for wife in the religion under discussion, the same explicit religious provision of consent is not seen for sexually available slave women. So for just being politically right usage of word Concubine does not seem to make any sense and any scholarship doing so becomes dubious scholarship.

Last but not least, though " 'theoretically effective practically implemented, Sexual slavery', very well existed in the religion under discussion", on some other count as I have discussed elsewhere is Sexual slavery in Muslim societies better title since as per religious diktat a 'non–slave Muslim woman' is not supposed to be salable, but there are several instances (available with reliable sources) where in Muslim individuals and communities have been observed to have indulged in enslavement of Muslim women too without properly bothering about what their religion says. So it is unfair and untruthful not to use wording sexual slavery where it deserves similarly it would be more fair to use term Sexual slavery in Muslim societies.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Booku just gave an original research explanation concluding with "usage of word Concubine does not seem to make any sense and any scholarship doing so becomes dubious scholarship." So basically any WP:RS that disagrees with Bookku's personal POV is "dubious". Remember I provided 40 sources here and here. I'm hoping Anachronist, who is an admin (and removed the neutrality template) can chime in.VR _talk 16:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I removed the template because could not find any archived comments about placing it. All I found was discussion about 'concubinage' that seemed to have ended. Now that the dispute has resumed, the template should stay until it is resolved. I am not a party to this dispute and have not formed any view one way or the other.

It seems to me that 'concubinage' is a subset of 'sexual slavery' and that many sources in this article discuss exactly the title of this article as it currently stands, so 'sexual slavery in Islam' seems to be a valid article topic, as does 'concubinage in Islam'. Perhaps a split into two topics is in order? Or is there too much overlap between them? ~Anachronist (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It's kind of circular argument. First of all which sources are reliable is subjective & open for deliberations by Wikipedians hence in Wikipedia talk page discussions Wikipedians do have right to express why any particular set of sources do not match encyclopedic expectations. This has been done by User:Vice regent/VR too on several occasions in other article discussions, even on narrow scope of some one being of particular religious or continental background or not. So there is nothing wrong if users in previous discussions thought of VR cited sources to be biased being soft cornering particular religious view.

It is just not matter of personal PoV, Usage of term Concubinage too is sexual exploitation since status of the woman is not equal to the wife, but slave's sexual exploitation is much more. There are more differences between slave and concubine but main is relationship of concubine is more likely to be consensual and in sex slavery consent is missing or under duress.

Usage of term 'Concubine' only covers only a minuscule minority of those slave women who willingly ended up in elite Sultan's Harems Simple etymology search on google indicates word Harem comes from Arabic ḥaram, ḥarīm, literally ‘prohibited', So if a Concubine is given equal treatment to wife then it's likely to be a Haram deal. So Harem concubines remained slaves only without freewill.

Besides word concubine is injustice by playing down experiences of vast majority of war captivated compulsively enslaved female slaves who suffered innumerable atrocities. Word 'Concubine' also does not cover status of female slaves un til they end in final buyer's hand.

Those who took war captives to final dealer every one sexually exploited them. Female slaves were not only exhibited naked but buyers used to literally freely manhandle them in the name of checking their body parts. Until a female captive reaches in hands of final buyer and he successfully impregnates her what is the status of female slave other than a Sex slave?

Why do we underplay the reality through our untruth. Do you use word Concubine for 'male slaves'? if not then why play down sexual exploitation of female slaves? How any sensible mind can undermine experiences of sexual exploitation of vast majiority and still be classified as scholar is incomprehensible.

For example 'Sigeh' in Nikah mut'ah is religiously remains equal wife. But when in any country government restrains polygamy and still a long term consensual relationship takes place is religiously a marriage but as per law of monogamous country can amount to be concubine relationship being illegal. Indirectly this will help understand difference between concubinage and sex slavery.

In the religion under discussion concubinage undermines equal rights of the wife so is illicit but same time Sexual slavery is licit since it denies equal rights to sexual slave.

Now whether to defend Sexual exploitation with apologetic and polemics or not and if yes by citing which rules is for every one's own conscience.

As of now I leave this discussion, let others take care.

By the way you seem to be good @ defining what is reliable source and researching so just pl. do help in expanding Draft:Slavery in Mecca and Medina that article deserves support from like of yours. Happy editing.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Anachronist: you're right that sexual slavery has many forms: female concubines, forced prostitution, child sexual abuse (including child pornography), sexual slavery of men, rape (including wartime rape), sex trafficking etc. Muslims, who constitute 25% of the human race, have undoubtedly engaged in each of these practices. But I don't see reliable sources treating considering sexual slavery by Muslims as a coherent topic. Instead, WP:RS specifically refer to the institution that they call "concubinage", which only includes male masters entering into a polygynous relationship with their female slaves. WP:RS also treat specific examples of sexual slavery by Muslims (Bacha bazi, Rochdale child sex abuse ring, Kasur child sexual abuse scandal etc) but they don't make this out into a grand topic of "sexual slavery by Muslims".VR _talk 21:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Page already exists on the same topic

There is already a page covering the same topic named Concubinage in Islam. In arabic the word, Suriyya refers to both sexual slavery as well as concubinage. Moreover, according to Islam, only a slave can be called a concubine and any other form of concubinage is prohibited. the page referred above is more racially and religiously neutral though lacks a few topics.

Regards,

Wikiedit01995 ^talk

That is not correct. This page title is neutral. Since Islam is not a race, we should not act as if it is. Wikipedia should be neutral, thus it must be possible to write about a negative subject within any religion, even if that may cause negative feelings.

The article Concubinage in Islam does not cover the subject of this article. While it is indeed true that concubines were sex slaves, not all slaves who were subjected to sexual abuse were concubines. Courtesans, musicians, singers, dancers and maidservants were all slaves, but they were not concubines and could only be covered very briefly in Concubinage in Islam.

Concubinage in Islam does not cover all subjects covered in this article, but we cannot transfer that information from this article to Concubinage in Islam, since that article must restrict itself to the subject of its title, which is a subcategory to this subject.

The article Sexual slavery in Islam is a main article about all forms of sexual slavery within Islam and the attidude toward it; the article Concubinage in Islam covers a subject within that phenomena. It is similar to "Opera" being a subcategory to "Music" or "Flower" and "Plants", and we should not erase a main category and replace it with a subcategory. --Aciram (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October, 2021

This can be cited as a reference to add a sentence in the lead, "The consent of the slave for sex, for withdrawal before ejaculation or to marry her off to someone else was not considered necessary". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:578C:A76:3813:EA38:F15C:FCE6 (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Where exactly in the lead would you like this sentence? And what is your rationale for placing this in the lead rather than another section? —Sirdog (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

 Reopened Sirdog, it can be the second sentence in the lead, but feel free to add it anywhere! I observed that Kecia Ali has been used as a source for many sentences in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.7.6.21 (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Sirdog for IP. ––FormalDude talk 08:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the ping FormalDude, and thank you for your response IP! I'll see if I can find a way to insert that sentence or something equivalent to that in the article sometime tomorrow. —Sirdog (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Should not be done. Can you explain why this deserves to be in the lead? Please be careful of WP:UNDUE. This is already in the body of the article and that seems like appropriate weight.VR _talk 15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

It is like a summary - that is why I felt it was fine there.-Baamiyaan2 (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain why this deserves to be in the lead? For clarity, I did not intend to place that sentence or something equivalent to it in the lead. I am not comfortable messing with leads at the current stage of my editing career. I planned to read the article in whole, determine if inclusion was necessary, and if so, perform it. That said, I'm going to hold off now and see how this conversation progresses. —Sirdog (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Sirdog, I repeat, "It is like a summary - that is why I felt it was fine there". You should probably read the article. If you feel that it can be in the lead please add it, I will not be doing so.-Baamiyaan2 (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Aciram, Grufo, Mcphurphy and Anachronist should probably look into it as they seem to know the topic.-Baamiyaan2 (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Baamiyaan2, I did read your explanation. My previous reply was me stating that I'm pulling out of the request due to there being some debate on it's inclusion. As you say, I have indeed not yet read this article, I will let others more knowledgeable in this subject area than I handle this. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the ping. I don't know what this discussion is about, I stopped following this page months ago. If it is about inserting "The consent of the slave for sex, for withdrawal before ejaculation or to marry her off to someone else was not considered necessary" in the lead, I am against, it is already obvious that if you are a slave your consent never matters, so the sentence will exist only for emphatic reasons, and emphasis is POV. That sentence would become necessary if we started calling slaves "concubines", as we did in the past, but since we stopped doing that there is no reason to emphasize things. Don't take my words for granted, there might be also stylistic reasons that allow an emphasis, and I would need a better explanation of the two opposite positions. --Grufo (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The lead should not simply parrot a single sentence in the article body. That sentence does not even summarize the section in which it appears, which is about consent, and not specifically about "withdrawal". Also, the discussion of withdrawal occupies just a single short paragraph in the cited article. Therefore, putting the sentence in the lead gives it undue weight. A sentence summarizing the section named "The issue of consent" should summarize it more generally, not focus on one specific aspect. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

"Islamic views on concubinage"

I saw now that a new page "Islamic views on concubinage" has been created, as a sort of spin-off from this page. If we apply there the same policy that we applied here (and there are no reasons why we shouldn't) that page should be renamed to "Islamic views on sexual slavery". --Grufo (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why we should force the articles to have the same name. What makes more sense is for an article to reflect the sources that it uses. For that one, looks like the sources use the term "concubinage" more commonly, which I guess makes sense given the article's scope and subject matter. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Many of the sources in both articles overlap and that is not how Wikipedia works for articles that cover the same subject:

Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.

— WP:TITLE § Deciding on an article title

--Grufo (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not even convinced that the topics are separate enough to warrant two articles, as both discuss sexual slavery. There's a large overlap at the moment, giving us a WP:POVFORK situation. That doesn't mean that each article expresses opposing points of view, it means that the focus of each should be narrowed down, if they are indeed separate topics. Each article should contain a summary of the other one with a link to it. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Whether merging or not is another topic (a legitimate one). But what I am talking about is the fact that if the problem of calling sexual slaves “concubines” in a page title emerged here, the same exact problem emerges there – now with the further addition of inconsistency in title names. --Grufo (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Both articles also use the term "slave concubinage". According to a comment on Talk:Islamic views on concubinage, Islamic law does not distinguish between a concubine and a slave. If that is true, then the terms are interchangeable in the context of this topic. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Anachronist: concubine, in the Islamic context, means a female slave with whom her male master (and no other) could engage in sexual relations. Sexual slavery includes such concubinage, but also other things that were never allowed by Islam: sexual enslavement of men, prostitution of female slaves, child pornography etc. This is why we have dozens of scholarly sources that discuss "concubinage" in Islam (see here and here) but are hard pressed to find many reliable sources that use the term "sexual slavery" in relation to Islam. See also my earlier comment. Ideally we should have two articles Islamic views on concubinage and history of concubinage in the Muslim world. This separation mirrors Islamic views on slavery and History of slavery in the Muslim world.VR _talk 23:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)