Talk:History of concubinage in the Muslim world

List of useful references

• Two Classes of “Marriage”: Race and Sexual Slavery in Al-Shabaab-Controlled Somalia ~ Lindsay J. Benstead & ORCID Icon & Daniel Van Lehman, tandfonline.com 18 Jun 2021
• Gendered and Ethnic Captivity and Slavery in Safavid Persia: A Literature Review by Ladan Rahbari 14 January 2021
• Gender and modern-day slavery in Nigeria: A critical analysis of baby factory and terrorism ~ Mary Juachi Eteng & et alia May–June 2021
• A Treatise on Zinā in the Early Sokoto Caliphate Muḥammad Bello’s al-Qawl al-Marham＊ ~ KARIYA, Kota 40C-BYht0pts:/YBtYBctsp-/rYBteaCc/i:vto0m101,
• Yesterday is not Gone, Memories of Slavery in Zanzibar and Oman in Memoirs, Fiction, and Film ~ Emily Jane O’Del, Brilll

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. They are useful for verifiability, but they can't establish notability for "sexual slavery in Islam [for all time]", as each of the sources is focused on a particular region and time period.VR _talk 14:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

A 'list' article will help ?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:NLIST says "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources".VR _talk 14:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay over all that means what remains is matter of time and how to provide encyclopedic space. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Toddy1: If there are any useful talk page discussions, just replying to them will keep them live and prevent automatic archiving. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Perspectives on the perspectives section

This whole section seems largely off-topic. I've already removed the totally off-topic part entirely related to the enslavement of Muslim women in India. The second section, on the enslavement of Muslim women for concubinage by Muslim men, may be relevant to include somewhere else in the article as it pertains to the laws, enforcement and disregard of laws relating to the practice of concubinage. However, the first section, on specific reactions to Christian enslavement of Muslim women during the reconquista in Al-Andalus, does not seem particularly useful. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rasnaboy "Islamicate" was not a spelling mistake, see definition: Islamicate. Also, can I ask why you restored the material that I removed without proper explanation, like my edit had in the comment and on the talk page? As I clearly explained, this material is in no way related. For one thing, it is not in the Muslim World, as per the page title, and it is, in turn, definitely not related to concubinage in the Muslim World. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh! I think I made a mistake there. Thanks for pointing it out. :) And just realizing that while correcting the supposed spell error of "Islamicate", I think I inadvertently restored the material too. Have undone my change. Apologies for the confusion. Rasnaboy (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Iskandar323: What is your definition of Muslim World. Are you going to employ your own definition of Muslim World or look for consensus opinion?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

My definition is such that Hindu India and Christian kingdoms aren't considered the Muslim World. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Vice regent: What is your perspective over what Iskandar323 says about definition of 'Muslim World' for context of this article?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's how I'd go about answering that question:

1. Collect a few sources that aim to give a broad overview of the topic "history of concubinage in the Muslim world". The source doesn't have to cover the entire history but it should be relatively broad. I can suggest some sources if you'd like.
2. See what topics are covered by the sources. If sources that cover this topic also repeatedly mention, say Christian concubinage, then that topic can be considered sufficiently connected to this topic to merit some coverage. Otherwise not.

From my recollection, I haven't found sources in step#1 talk about concubinage in Hindu India. But I have seen sources compare Muslim concubinage to that in ancient Rome, Persia and Mesopotamia. Some sources also mention how some Jews in the Ottoman empire followed the Muslim pattern of concubinage, despite Maimonides' attempts to curb the practice. Sorry I have't provided citations for my claims. But I can dig them up if need be.VR _talk 00:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Conversion section

The forced conversion section was relying on some dubious sources and also misrepresenting what the source was saying, see the discussion here: [1]. Based on that I summarized that section down into 2 shorter paragraphs and moved it one level outwards. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Old version

Jushyosaha604's version

Most traditional scholars require the conversion of a pagan slave-girl before sex, even through force if necessary. The majority of jurists do not allow sexual intercourse with Zoroastrian or pagan female captives. They require a conversion of these women before sex can take place. Ibn Hanbal allowed sexual intercourse with pagan and Zoroastrian female captives if they are coerced to become Muslim. Many traditions state that the female captives should be coerced to accept Islam if they do not convert willingly. Hasan al-Basri narrates that Muslims would achieve this objective through various methods. They would order the Zoroastrian slave-girl to face the qiblah, utter the shahada and perform wudhu. Her captor would then have sex with her after one menstrual cycle. However, others add the condition that the slave-girl must be taught to pray and purify herself before the master can have sex with her. The scholars significantly lower the threshold of conversion for the girls so that the master may be able to have sex with her as soon as possible. Only a few early scholars permitted sex with pagan and Zoroastrian slaves girls without conversion. Al-Mujahid and Safiid bin al-Musayyab say the master can still have sex with his Zoroastrian or pagan female slave even if she refuses to convert. Imam Shafi'i claims that the Companions of Muhammad did not have sexual intercourse with Arab captives until they converted to Islam, but Ibn Qayyim argues that the Companions of the Prophet had sexual intercourse with Arab captives, such as the women of the Banu Mustaliq tribe, without making the sex conditional on the conversion of the women. He also asserted that no tradition required the conversion of a slave-girl before her master can have sex with her.

Traditional scholars differed on whether a pagan concubine was required to convert to Islam before sex, with many stating that sex was only allowed with a Muslim, Jewish or Christian concubine. Among those who required conversion, they differed on whether pressure or coercion was acceptable. The Caliph Umar argued a slave could not be forcibly converted to Islam on the basis of verse 2:256. Scholars differed as to what constituted conversion. Uttering the shahada was usually not enough and the woman had to also perform wudhu and pray in order to be considered a convert. Ibn al-Qayyim argued that the conversion of a polytheist woman to Islam was not necessary for sexual relations with her, citing the fact that no tradition required the conversion of a slave-girl before her master can have sex with her.

References

Jushyosaha604's version used exactly the same sources as the old version so the justification that it was was relying on some dubious sources does not make sense. So I have reverted. If you have specific objections to part of the text, please explain them here on the talk page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that Jushyosaha604's cut-and-paste version introduced three citation errors, which have been removed by reverting -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought the overall objective of the edit - reducing this long troubled section - was good. If the sources support it (I haven't had time to check), I see merit in boiling down the different scholars citations into a "Traditional scholars varied..."-type format with more summarization and less peculiar detail. Iskandar323 (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Toddy1 Citation errors aside, I think @Jushyosaha604 was making the point that the sources don't support the volume of material and sweeping generalizations that this section has. This was also discussed previously - do you have wider objections to reducing this section along the lines of the above? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. In terms of being easy to read and understand, the old version is better. I am not convinced that the new version was written consulting the sources cited. It ought to be of concern that only one secondary source is used.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Reverts

Pathawi, You removed this sentence but it has been added and accepted at Rape_in_Islamic_law#Consent_of_slaves, so why should it not be acceptable here at History of concubinage in the Muslim world? Copying a sentence from another article is allowed!-1Firang (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Will you let me link the term "non-Muslim" to the Kafir article if I cite the source used in the Kafir article which says that Kafir means "non-Muslim" too?-1Firang (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Why do you want to add the term kāfir? The point of the cited source is that only non-Muslims could be enslaved. That term is comparatively clear. You want to use a term that is not in the source and which is open to interpretation. By one very common understanding, People of the Book are not kuffār. Yet people who were definitely among People of the Book—Jews & Christians—were considered acceptable slaves in the historical contexts the sources address. (&, of course, there's one stream within Islam in which other Muslims are regularly subjected to takfīr.) There's not benefit to linking to this term & it introduces unclarity that's not in the source. Pathawi (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Copying sentences from other articles is actually a little tricky, & that's really not what's at question. It is unacceptable for reasons discussed at Rape in Islamic law and which led to your getting an administrative warning, and which I included in the edit summary here. Pathawi (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Marrying a slave off isn't concubinage, that's just marrying off a slave. History of slavery in the Muslim world more generally is a separate article. This article here is highly specific to the institution of concubinage. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Revert war

Barbardo I have been repeatedly adding text with a reliable source, the last of which was with this edit but you have been removing it repeatedly - see this, this and this edit. Please explain why you are removing sourced content? -60.243.252.254 (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry my bad I thought you were from a different wikipedia page edit.

As explained in my edit summary Kecia ali hasn't given evidence for such claim that it wasn't historically considered or provided primary evidence for such a claim. Barbardo (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Barbardo, wikipedia does not ask us to verify if the source gives evidence for what it says/claims. The reliable source used does say whatever the text says which is enough to add it here.-60.243.252.254 (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

But that's the issue how can it be deemed reliable if the author doesn't give or show proof for such a claim. Barbardo (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

That is not my problem.-60.243.252.254 (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

You may ask others what a reliable source is. I believe that source is reliable.-60.243.252.254 (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

But on what ground's is the source reliable since the author hasn't listed proof or gave any primary text to prove it Barbardo (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

But it is as your using kecia ali's source Barbardo (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Anachronist, Barbardo has repeatedly been removing text added with a reliable source (which he agrees is reliable, as can be seen above), the last being with this edit. Please suggest what to do next.-60.243.252.254 (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why you are pinging me, or why you think it is important to include that statement in the article. The passage you added is a copyright violation, pulled verbatim from the source, and would be removed anyway on that basis. I don't have another opinion. I suggest you read WP:BRD and after you do that, you might try Wikipedia:Third opinion. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I asked many times to give a more accurate source which lists the proof yet your still not doing that. Barbardo (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The text has been paraphrased and added using a reliable source - please suggest if it can be added back after reading all the arguments above. The text added can be seen here and the unparaphrased original is mentioned in the summary of changes in the same edit. 2406:7400:98:1D35:9B60:B127:DACD:3F66 (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC) |}

Both these ip address came from India mostly the same person Barbardo (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Barbardo some primary sources can be seen here. I am mentioning this just to show you that the text added was not false. However, we cannot use primary sources here.-49.205.144.136 (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The evidence used is from kecia ali yet again and no primary source from the quran or hadith suggests consent is not needed Barbardo (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

According to the primary sources I posted a link to above, the Quran says, "... lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war".-2406:7400:98:1D35:E838:AB27:3E93:5CDE (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Lower down in that article, a secondary source, Kecia Ali says, "Her master's right of possession granted him licit sexual access to her"-2406:7400:98:1D35:E838:AB27:3E93:5CDE (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The primary sources in that link like the Quran verses used don't say that consent is ignored it just legalize the relationship between the two which kecia ali confirms.

The issue we had before is kecia ali said consent wasnt needed historically which has no basis or proof. Barbardo (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

We can also paraphrase and use this: "The legal relationship between a master and concubine, which made sexual intercourse lawful, was exclusive to them alone, as if it were a marriage."-2406:7400:98:1D35:96F0:F8BA:54D4:3584 (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC) 2406:7400:98:1D35:96F0:F8BA:54D4:3584 (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make, with reliable secondary sources is that the consent of a female slave for sex was not necessary. -2406:7400:98:1D35:96F0:F8BA:54D4:3584 (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Which I disagree with kecia ali that's not stated in the primary text but thats her own opinion which lacks bases nothing in the primary text says consent is not needed. Barbardo (talk) 08:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

That's already stated in the article, that such relationships were legalized between them there is no need to add what's already mentioned. Barbardo (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

The cited source, "Islam and Slavery" is published by Brandeis University and does meet the Wikipedia standard for reliability. The author and publisher are the main aspects to consider when determining the reliability of a source for Wikipedia according to WP:SOURCE. A source is not required to have footnotes to meet the reliability standard. Furthermore, digging deeper and challenging the content of a source that meets reliability based on both author and publisher gets really close to original research which should be avoided per Wikipedia's guidelines as stated in WP:NOR. Regardless, I believe this content is appropriate to include in this article based on the quality of the source and its author. I also think this is helpful content as it more fully explains the relationship between master and concubine. My only caution is to make sure you either paraphrase or use quotation marks when restoring the content. > Rublamb (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2023

This article has been extended confirmed edit protected. The third opinion has been given (see above). I therefore request someone to read the above and add this now in the same place: " - the female captives/slaves did not have the right to deny their owners sex,"-2406:7400:98:1D35:6959:5BFB:582F:B985 (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC) 2406:7400:98:1D35:6959:5BFB:582F:B985 (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)