Islamic views on slavery is currently a good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at 2007-05-18
Please use the |page= parameter to specify the number of the next free GAN review page, or use {{subst:GAN}} instead to find the next free page automatically.
This article is not categorized by subtopic. Please edit the |subtopic= parameter on this talk page to include one. For a list of subtopics, please see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
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.
the opinions of Gordon are appreciated, but can we a) cut down the massive quoting (such extensive quoting without substantial explanatory text may constitute a copyvio) and represent his main points in a few sentences of prose; b) make clear that it is Gordon's opinion (which is not quite what the text currently does, "Gordon notes... " assumes the factuality of his conclusions) especially as this is more interpretive than descriptive. ITAQALLAH13:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the heading 'Islamist' opinion? Have we used the word Islamist correctly? Ie, look at Islamism. Furthermore, is there a particular reason the article mentions Islamist opinion? And are each of the people mentioned there actually Islamists? Or are some of them 'just' Muslims? Should there not be an explanatory sentence or two introducing the section and giving cohesion, or is it just another lawyer's list? Maybe it's OK, but I think it should be at least questioned. --Merbabu14:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"legal disabilities and dispensations" trimming and overhaul
i found that Levy had not really been represented appropriately, and that the current bullet-point format wasn't very encyclopedic or neutral, so i decided to do a rewrite. there's some material which i did not include, namely the material about marriage/concubinage (as we already have a section where this material can be inserted if it's not already there). i also removed the information about killing in talio, for free men are also killed in talio also for killing other free men. the only issue is when a free man kills a slave, when talio is not required (except in murder, according to Hanafis). furthermore, this: "slaves may lawfully be killed in vengeance (talio) if their master or their master's kinfolk kill the slave of another person" is not substantiated by the source i believe. ITAQALLAH16:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the Encyclopedia of Islam and Levy write in the present tense. i would assume it's because the relative legal rulings and jurisprudence concerning slaves remains unchanged. ITAQALLAH17:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are going to need to summarize the current legal rulings and jurisprudence on slavery, or else acknowledge that Islam does not in fact prohibit slavery today. Tom HarrisonTalk17:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This section, authored by me has been excised by Merbabu. It was linked to other sections of Wikipedia on Abraham and Hagar as its sources. He can't see the relevance of it, and so he acts to suppress information about how one of the most important Islamic prophets ... treats his slave by abandoning her and their son in the desert. Of course, the conduct of Islamic 'prophets' acts as an example for muslims and of Islam - in respect to treatment of slaves, in this instance.
But anyway, it's been typically and predictably cut out before most editors got a chance to consider it so I'll relate it below.
On another note with regard to my personal life, a certain 'train' I've been expecting in recent weeks and waiting for has arrived. So, I expect to be retiring from Wiki-editing very soon.
The Islamic prophet Ibrahim abandons his slaveHagar and their child Ismail
Abraham (Ibrahim, under Islam) is acknowledged as an Islamic prophet. It is asserted that the Arabs are the progeny of him with his Ethiopian slave, Hagar. Hagar was given to him while he already had Sarah as a wife. By Abraham, Hajar gave birth to Ishmael (Arabic:Ismā'īl) which pleased him. Sarah thereafter regretted Abraham taking Hagar as a wife, so she prevailed upon him to send Hajar and Ishmael away.
Ibrahim brought Hajar to the hill called al-Marwa, left a bag of dates and some water nearby, and abandoned her. Hajar ran after him and said: "Are you going to leave us in this desert where there is no one to keep us company?" She repeated this many times but he would not look back at her.
Hagar, with Ishmael as a suckling, was left alone in bare desert far from human contact. She lived on the provisions until hunger and thirst overcame her. Her milk dried up, leaving Ishmael also hungry and thirsty.
Hoping to find water, she searched the desert but found nothing. She found Ishmael crying which made her weep also. She ran seven times back and forth in scorching heat between the hills of Safa and Marwa, in hope of seeing some water from high ground. Disappointed and tearful, she returned to Ishmael. Her search is superstitiously imitated by muslims in the act of ritual walking (sa`i, Arabic: سَعِي) between the same hills at Mecca as part of the performance of Islamic pilgrimage.
The legend concludes that Hajar and Ishmael were saved by Gabriel providing a source of water for her and Ishmael.
David, Abraham did it at God's command, not on his own. This image is misleading as Abraham was actually hesitant to do so. I don't think any Muslim has ever recieved a similar order from God so your evluation that "Of course, the conduct of Islamic 'prophets' acts as an example for muslims and of Islam - in respect to treatment of slaves, in this instance." is irrelevant. --Aminz00:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the picture. The background story could possibly be condensed to "Abraham obeys God's order to abandon his concubine Hagar" or something like that. Arrow74001:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, the story and picture show an aspect of what it means to be a slave and the child of a slave in the context of Islam. Any muslim has that sunnah to inform his/her own conduct in relation to those enslaved. It's apt for the article.DavidYork7101:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean.... that "picture show an aspect of what it means to be a slave and the child of a slave in the context of Islam" what aspect? in the context of islam? --Aminz01:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A slave of any pre-Islamic Middle Eastern figure is relevant to this section, let alone one claimed as a predecessor by Muhammad. Arrow74002:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This story is the reason why muslims run between the two hills in the desert heat seven times on pilgrimage. It's part of Islam. Everything Muhammad claimed is part of it.DavidYork7110:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Simply put, the story and picture show an aspect of what it means to be a slave and the child of a slave in the context of Islam. Any muslim has that sunnah to inform his/her own conduct in relation to those enslaved." - completely absurd argument, and false. ITAQALLAH15:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Images are meant to add value to the text of the article. As Hagar/Hajar is not even mentioned here, I cannot see what justification there could be for including the image. If there is a reliable source which connects this story to Islam and Slavery, then text discussing this can be added, and the image along with it.Proabivouac00:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright permission for any pictures from www.frontline.org.za
The follow email message may be cited as permission for any of the pics from that site. I have previously uploaded some and used them in the article.
From : Frontline Fellowship <info@frontline.org.za>
Sent : Tuesday, 27 March 2007 1:57:26 PM
To : <Dy90@hotmail.com>
Subject : LETTER to DAVID YORK from DR PETER HAMMOND
Attention: David York
Dear Mr. York
Thank you for your letter 18/3 via Christian Action. You are most welcome to reproduce the pictures on Islam and slavery from our website. They are a public domain. They were sketched by contemporaries in the 19th Century. I obtained these pictures from a variety of old books from second hand bookshops.
If we can be of any further assistance, please do let us know.
Yours for faith and freedom
Dr. Peter Hammond
"I obtained these pictures from a variety of old books from second hand bookshops." that doesn't prove that the pictures are geniune. --Aminz01:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "In Imami Shiite jurisrudence, the master of a female slave may grant a third party the use of her for sexual relations.[1]"
must be verified by an imami source of jurisprudence.
It doesn't have to be a "imami source of jurisprudence". As long as it is a reliable source, which I believe EOI is, it is fine by Wiki policy. NN07:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arrow, can you please point me to the quote. I searched the article for "Imami", etc etc and couldn't find the quote. --Aminz08:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has the same status as other statements from EoI. Leave it and then bring forward the Imami rulings that confirm or explain it later as added refs.DavidYork7110:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shia Jurisprudence
In Shia jurisrudence, the master of a female slave may grant a third party the use of her for sexual relations.[1], Arrow740, EoI is not a sufficient source for SHIA Jurisprudence. For eg. If someone were to claim a ruling in Christian Canon Law, they would have to refer to the Canon law source. It would not be sufficient to refer to any other source besides the Canon books. It is only logical. If you can obtain a source that quotes a ruling from a Shiite Islamic Jurist, then that would be sufficient. EoI has been called into question regarding certain aspects that it has claimed to be of Shiite interpretation. EoI is by no means a monolithic piece of literature on the entirety of Islam in ACCURATE DETAIL. Al-Zaidi
I have posted something on Tom Harrison's page about this. Brunschvig quotes the classic scholar Al-Hilli. Unlike Sunni jurists who belonged to early days of Islam, Shia jurists are present up to now. I don't think they address such details about slavery anymore(at least it is not present in the specific popular books they publish). If they do, they can have their own opinion (e.g. some of them consider women's inheritence the same as that of man because of the new social order of the community; some others consider apostasy not to be punishable by death unless it is apostasy+treason etc etc). But after all, they all belong to the same tradition as Al-Hilli belonged. One example where many of today's jurists distance from Al-Hilli is on the ritual cleanness of people of the book. Anyways. --Aminz05:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proabivouac, with the information stated above, the article should reflect its source al-Hilli when stating "Shia Jurisprudence". Even today there are differences within Shia Jurisprudences as well as hundreds of differences within Sunni Jurisprudence according to Sheikh Ahmad Deedat. Aminz you should rephrase "Unlike Sunni jurists who belonged to early days of Islam, Shia jurists are present up to now." The Sunni Jurists of who founded the Maliki and Hanafi schools of Sunni Islam were students of the Shia Jurist and 6th Imam, Jafar As-Sadiq. Al-Shafi inturn was influenced by the Maliki and Hanafi teachings. Thus you should rephrase and mention only that the gates if ijtihad are still open within Shia Islam as opposed to Sunni Islam. Al-Zaidi
This article does not mention the issue of slavery in other parts of the world and other religions. Wouldn't such a provision of context be informative? Articles don't have to stand alone in isolation. Merbabu04:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a few places I have advertised for a GAreviewer as follows:
The abovenoted article, to which I have contributed, I have nommed for GA. It needs a GA reviewer who is not in the business of glorifying Islam, bashing Islam or sugarcoating/minimising/denying the facts and circumstances of slavery. Most important is that the rights or dignities allowed to slaves by Islam have a proper exposure.
My view of the I&S article is that it is informative, wellreferenced, wellresearched, comprehensive wellillustrated and LONG. On the subject of neutrality or stability, I would just ask that the article itself and not the disputatiousness of the talk page be kept in focus as the subject of review.
Now that I have your interest do I have a volunteer??DavidYork71 08:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
It is a bit on the long side (ref WP:LENGTH), is not written in encyclopaedic prose style, overly relies on direct quotes from a particular source (Gordon) and uses images with unclear copyright status. Until these matters are cleared up, the article is unlikely to pass a competent GA process. Orderinchaos08:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slavery in the Hadith
I have included some material on what Muhammad said on the matter of slavery according to Hadiths. David York keeps deleting that material. Should what Muhammad said about slavery not be included? The Hadith are Islam's second most important scripture, after the Koran. If the style of writing needs to be changed, let me know. The content itself is very relevant to the article, and is actually absolutely necessary. Coldbud16:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Hadiths are primary sources. We can include those to illustrate and support secondary sources, but if we rely on them by themselves it is hard to avoid doing original research. It would be better to cite the opinions of scholars who have said which hadiths are relevent and what they mean. Tom HarrisonTalk17:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The preceding section is Slavery in the Quran where many examples are taken directly from the Quran itself. Shouldnt David York have deleted that as well then? Coldbud22:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, the recognition by a master of his offspring was optional, and in the early period was often withheld. By the high Middle Ages it became normal and was unremarkable in a society where the sovereigns themselves were almost invariably the children of slave concubines.<ref>Lewis 1990, page 91.</ref>
... is not relevant to slavery in Islamic jurisprudence or the rules/regulations set by Islamic law on this topic. it more appropriately belongs in the history of slavery under Muslim rule section. ITAQALLAH23:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
similarly, this is also extraneous (and probably belongs in the slavery in pre-Islamic Arabia sect): "In ancient Arabian custom, the child of a freeman by his slave was also a slave unless he was recognized and liberated by his father.<ref>Lewis 1990, page 24.</ref>." ITAQALLAH23:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"In theory, the recognition by a master of his offspring was optional." What do you not understand about that? The EoI article further mentions that the father can deny paternity: "Enfranchisements were usual, but it was not unknown for a concubine who had borne a child to seek from her master a denial of paternity." Please put that back in. Arrow74018:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (Fail)
Well written. This article definately needs to be mercilessly edited. It is very long, and the flow and focus of the writing is very inconsistant. The Slavery in the Qur'an section needs a serious overhaul. It is dominated by quotations from specific authors and riddled with direct in-text citations of Quran verses. We should report on the views of others, not cut and paste them into an article. References to primary sources should be placed in footnotes for reference, instead of muddling the main text of the article. Overall, there is too great a reliance on direction quotations and a very inconsistant quality of writing.
Factually accurate and verifiable. Despite the numerous citations, this article is severely lacking in many areas. The Slavery in The Hadiths section is apparently completely original research of primary sources. Reliable secondary sources are needed and primary source references should be placed in footnotes for a reader's reference. Additionally, there are potentially contentious claims in the article that are lacking references. Forexample is: "The majority of slaves within Arabia were of Ethiopian origin, through whose sale merchants grew rich. The minority were white slaves of foreign race, likely brought in by Arab caravaneers (or the product of Bedouin captures) stretching back to biblical times." The appearance is that references were added very sporadically and that the process of referencing claims is not complete.
Broad in its coverage. The article seems to cover the bases well.
Neutral point of view. The article seems reasonable neutral in its presentation.
Stable. This article is not stable. There are still edit conflicts and reverts ongoing recently.
Use of images. Good use of images.
While the article is sufficiently broad, neutral and has good images, it clearly fails GA standards. The article needs to be more completely referenced. Current references should be reviewed and reworked. This is particularly true of the heavy reliance on direct quotes. The article needs a good copyedit and soft rewrite to produce a consistant product. The article also needs to become considerably more stable to fulfill GA criteria. Vassyana01:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this thoughtful , Vassyana. I agree with most of what you've said here.
Thanks for the review. I think the major problem is stability. After fully addressing the disputed accuracy and neutrality of the article, it should be able to pass GA. --Aminz08:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The full Lewis's quote used in the Qur'an and slavery section is:
The Qur'an, like the Old and the New Testaments, assumes the existence of slavery. It regulates the practice of the institution and thus implicitly accepts it. The Prophet Muhammad and those of his Companions who could afford it themselves owned slaves; some of them acquired more by conquest. But Qur'anic legislation, subsequently confirmed and elaborated in the Holy Law, brought two major changes to ancient slavery which were to have far-reaching effects. One of these was the presumption of freedom; the other, the ban on the enslavement of free persons except in strictly defined circumstances.
The Qur'an was promulgated in Mecca and Medina in the seventh century, and the background against which Qur'anic legislation must be seen is ancient Arabia. The Arabs practiced a form of slavery, similar to that which existed in other parts of the ancient world. The Qur'an accepts the institution, though it may be noted that the word 'abd (slave) is rarely used, being more commonly replaced by some periphrasis such as ma malakat aymanukum, "that which your right hands own." The Qur'an recognizes the basic inequality between master and slave and the rights of the former over the latter (XVI:71; XXX:28). It also recognizes concubinage (IV:3; XXIII:6; XXXIII:50-52; LXX:30). It urges, without actually commanding, kindness to the slave (IV:36; IX:60; XXIV:58) and recommends, without requiring, his liberation by purchase or manumission....
Two points:
The article starts quoting Lewis from "The Qur'an recognizes the basic inequality between ..." ; Lewis starts with "The Qur'an accepts the institution, though it may be noted that the word 'abd (slave) is rarely used, being more commonly replaced by some periphrasis such as ma malakat aymanukum, "that which your right hands own.";
This could be summerized and added to the article.
Lewis says: "But Qur'anic legislation, subsequently confirmed and elaborated in the Holy Law, brought two major changes to ancient slavery which were to have far-reaching effects. One of these was the presumption of freedom; the other, the ban on the enslavement of free persons except in strictly defined circumstances."
This was previously in the article but is now removed. The "Principles" section attributes this to Muslim jurists. I think this should be added to the Qur'an section along with other reforms. --Aminz08:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Imbrahim and Hajar
The artist Gustave Dore signed this image at its bottom left corner and this work is attributed to him by the image source. Is there any reason to un-AGF, and if so who do you claim as the artist and copyright owner?DavidYork7108:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Images
The images placed in each section should be representative of the matter they are discussing, or in relation to the text. The following image for example:
File:Slavezanzibar.jpgA boy slave in the slave trade market of Zanzibar punished by chaining to a 32 pound log. c.1890. From the Moresby Treaty of 1822, slave trade through Zanzibar became exclusive to Arab and Islamic traders as the sale of slaves to European powers had become illegal
It's caption reads: "A boy slave in the slave trade market of Zanzibar punished by chaining to a 32 pound log. c.1890. From the Moresby Treaty of 1822, slave trade through Zanzibar became exclusive to Arab and Islamic traders as the sale of slaves to European powers had become illegal"
Assuming that the picture is authentic, why is this slave is a good representative of the status of slaves under Muslim rule? Without that justification the image would be non-neutral. --Aminz08:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See how it balances and adds perspective to the ex-slave Bilal and the more recent abeed slave who's owned by King Feisal of Iraq. And there's another abeed ex-slave from Sudan there. To chain up a slave who's run away, even one who's a child .. that's the Islamic way, and that's why Muhammad said words to the effect that the prayers of a runaway slave will not be regarded and their virtues dismissed. When we step down from abolitionism to Islam we find that the runaway slave is one who has committed a major sin (the view of Muhammad) rather than standing up for their own dignity. It's apt for being exposed here.DavidYork7109:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source for this image mentions nothing about Islam and slavery. All that is mentioned is Arabs and slavery. It's essentially OR that this image is on this article. Daivd York is the one who added the "Islamic" part to the caption. (→Netscott)09:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David, I can not see how your comment addresses my point. It is rather an expression of a distorted view of Islam:"To chain up a slave who's run away, even one who's a child .. that's the Islamic way".
The Bilal pic was added because of a quote from Al-Hibri. He is an early companian of Muhammad and notable as the first Muazeen. The quote was latter removed from the article by Arrow and kept as a caption for the image. I think the proper place for the image is in front of a text that talks about slaves in early days of Islam (not in the intro for example). --Aminz12:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Including this particular image may or may not be correct, but we have to be careful to choose a selection of images that neither vilifies Islam nor whitewashes the facts of slavery. Also, there is an extensive body of illustrated literature from the nineteenth century graphically documenting the slave trade. It would be ironic if the existing image were replaced by another of unquestionable provenance, with a clearly relevent caption, by a well-known author, that was also a good deal more graphic. Tom HarrisonTalk12:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Representative characteristics of the subject image: black, owned, liable to be punished in the displayed fashion for naughtiness, inclusive of children, and openly acknowledged for all the above in muslim society of the time and place.DavidYork7113:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In an article of this length, this should not be in the lead. The only support from the article is a repetition of the sentence. Why don't you guys who think Muhammad was engaging in a practice opposed to Islamic principles go find some more material on this supposed shift in thought? Arrow74003:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons is made in the quote. It opposes the Islamic principles of justice. Slavery is according to them, intended to have been gradually abolished. Please stop making the intro POV. --Aminz03:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm asking you is to find the "they." No other scholars mention this shift, and including it in the lead is a violation of WP:LEAD. Again, if you think Muhammad was heavily engaged in something un-Islamic please find more than one sentence on it. Arrow74003:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not only EoQ. EoI also says: "Although Islam, in teaching and in actuality, has favoured the emancipation of slaves, it was only under an overwhelming foreign influence that it began, about a hundred years ago, an evolution in doctrine and in practice towards the total suppression of slavery, its abolition in law and custom. This evolution, which has continued, is in some regions still incomplete."
It doesn't say evolution in practice alone but in doctrine and practice.
With regards to [1] this is just one of a string of edits I'm concerned with, particulary give that the editor recently said "To chain up a slave who's run away, even one who's a child .. that's the Islamic way" I have no confidence in the objectivity of the edit:
Left in article:
The Qur'an accepts the institution, though it may be noted that the word 'abd (slave) is rarely used, being more commonly replaced by some periphrasis such as ... 'that which your right hands own.' The Qur'an recognizes the basic inequality between master and slave and the rights of the former over the latter
The historian Bruschvig states that from an spiritual perspective, "the slave has the same value as the free man, and the same eternity is in store for his soul; in this earthly life, failing emancipation, there remains the fact of his inferior status, to which he must piously resign himself.
Left in article:
It also recognizes concubinage [2][3]. It urges, without commanding, kindness to the slave
Kept:
A master may make his female slave as his concubine and, if she is a Muslim, he can marry her.
Removed (ie, made into a footnote):
Note that Brockopp writes that the Qur'an touts abstinence as a better choice.
Also note sneaking edits to subtly change (added text in bold): “and recommends, without requiring, their liberation”
Bok, Francis (2003). Escape from Slavery: The True Story of My Ten Years in Captivity and My Journey to Freedom in America. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0312306236. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Fisher, Humphrey J. (2001). Slavery in the History of Muslim Black Africa. New York University Press. ISBN 0814727166.
Segal, Ronald (2006). Islam's Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 978-0374527976.
Gordon, Murray (1990). Slavery in the Arab World. New Amsterdam Books. ISBN 978-1561310234.
Davis, Robert C. (2004). Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500-1800. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1403945518.
New section
Aminz, please justify this sentence cited to Brockopp:
"The abolitionist interpretations of slavery has been widely accepted by Muslim scholars." Arrow74008:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your recent edit summaries indicate that you are relying on tertiary sources. Please replace the references to secondary sources and remove what you cannot so cite. Arrow74009:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The EoQ quote says: "The great slave markets of Cairo were closed down at the end of the nineteenth century and even conservative Qurʾān interpreters continue to regard slavery as opposed to Islamic principles of justice and equality."
EoI and EoQ are both prestigous academic sources used in Academic circles. They differ from tritary encyclopedias like Britannica Encyclopedia prepared for public use. Further, according to the policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source". --Aminz09:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure you're wrong about 'Arafat being a secondary source, because he notes Maududi in the same way, Maududi clearly being a primary source. Arrow74005:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arrow, regarding this diff [2], please provide the full quotation for this. "enslavement as punishment for unbelief"??? --Aminz09:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Islamic law provided a powerful and highly articulated paradigm for slavery, manumission, and clientage. This paradigm, however, is fraught with tensions and ambiguities. The slave is both person and property. The natural condition of human beings is freedom but enslavement is sanctioned by God as punishment for unbelief." Arrow74006:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what does this information has to do with that particular section[3]? It is about the city Mecca in 19th century --Aminz09:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to start a section about castration, that would be a better place. Barring that, it is an interesting fact where it is. Arrow74006:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in this diff [4], it is Wahabi's POV contradicting the POV of other Muslim sects. It should not be stated as fact. --Aminz09:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shia also believe that they are uncompromising restorers of the prophet's example. Every sect think of itself in the same way. --Aminz08:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are editors familiar with these eight pages from the BBC? [5]. This could be a good source of - well - sources. I found it particularly interesting that at the beginning of Islam, slavery was the norm and fundamental to these societies, and that banning slavery would have been similar to 'banning poverty' - noble, but unrealistic at the time. Thus, Quranic mentions of slavery simply reflect society at the time and how to best 'manage' such a reality - ie, by stipulating how slaves should be treated well. I know the article touches on some of these things - but is it clear enough? Anyway, there is eight pages worth of cited quotes. Merbabu11:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead
I usually write for an imagined audience of bright high school students, or college freshmen. Such a reader searching for information on Islam and slavery will reasonably wonder if Islam forbids slavery, or allows it, or allows it in theory but forbids it in practice. I think we need to present up front that:
Slavery in Islamic lands was different from slavery in the American south (because most of our readers are likely more familiar with American history than Turkish or Persian history)
Muhammad thought a lot about slavery, and made some fundamental changes in the institution
The Arab slave trade was not an 'Islamic' slave trade, but the subjects are related
Islam today does not prohibit slavery (unless it does, then we need citations), and
Slavery is illegal in every Muslim country (though tolerated in one or two places)
I think these are excellent and balanced points. Yes, good to see that you are anticipating people's questions with some logic. Actually, many of these exact questions/issues are addressed in the BBC link in the section above.
As for your recent re-instatement of the 19th century change of opinions, while i do think that recent attempts to exclude it simply because it hasn't got it's own section is mischievous POV pushing and fact hiding, your recent points here are much better in a lead.Merbabu13:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note too that I said the subjects are related. It needs to be mentioned, but we have to be careful not to ascribe any evil act by a Muslim to the religion of Islam. Tom HarrisonTalk18:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This slavery was authorized and regulated by Islamic law all the way back to Muhammad. Your analogy with Christians fails. Arrow74018:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The Atlantic slave trade, started by the Portuguese, but soon dominated by the English, was the sale and exploitation of African slaves by Europeans that occurred in and around the Atlantic ocean from the 15th century to the 19th century." Of course that's just an online encyclopedia, but it seems to be born out by the American history references I have on hand. "My analogy fails?" Try again, and see if you can choose language more conducive to constructive collaboration. Tom HarrisonTalk19:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is called Islam and slavery. The slaves taken out of Africa to any destination were enslaved by Muslims. Islam recognizes slavery as part of the divine order and gives specific instances where enslavement is lawful, indeed "sanctioned by God as punishment for unbelief." There is no such parallel with Christianity. So when Muslims enslaved people, they were engaging in a practice that is part of their religion. When Christians engaged in slavery, they were not engaging in a practice that is part of their religion. Arrow74019:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
""[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America". Jefferson Davis, "Inaugural Address as Provisional President of the Confederacy," Montgomery, AL, 1861-FEB-18, Confederate States of America, Congressional Journal, 1:64-66.
Sorry for the off-article fork here but just some comments on Christianity being viewed as sanctioning slavery. It was a fact of life as such for centuries operating through instituationalized governments and the abolotionists were the odd men out in their interpretations of the bible during their day. African slave trade is based on the Curse of Ham through Canaan, Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave'. " Canaanites were reported as Africans and the entire race and descendants were cursed into slavery. Slavery is sanctioned and regulated in the Pentateuch and the old testament. Exodus 21:20-21 "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money." Mentioned in the new testament as well a fact of life without criticism. Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him." Note: a lot of the times that servants & maids is used in the translations it is actually referring to slaves. Also the council of Gangra, Pope Gregory among others issuing canon laws affirming or regulating slavery, Thomas Aquinas himself advising slaves on proper behavior. Neither Christ nor Peter in his epistles said anything against slavery either and it was quite a mainstream way of life. Granted there were dissenters but slavery was the norm and they were the exeptions. The holy roman empire was a slave based economy, a model that was socially inherited by the Arabs.--Tigeroo17:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Canaanites were African? I've never heard that one before. Lewis says that "Ham's descendents" were a particular tribe near ancient Israel. Arrow74006:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even fringe, I am sure you can easily look it up in greater detail; a quick google netted this as a college course material. While it may no longer be current the beleif was quite mainstream and a historical reality that shaped centuries of colonial slavery and racist attitude. The theological position underwent quite a transformation over time to lose slavery.--Tigeroo05:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt the slavers were doing something their religious leaders said was permitted, but that was the case of Christian slavers as well as Muslim. I imagine I could dig up a few quotes from ante bellum Christian preachers about God ordaining the status of the black slaves on the plantation. That does not mean growing sugar cane was a Christian activity. But maybe we are drifting off point. I would include in the lead a mention of and link to the Arab slave trade, mostly as it is now. Do you want to do something different? Tom HarrisonTalk19:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo Tom Harrison! All of your points here are very much keeping in line with non-villification as well as non-de-villification (I'm sure there's a word for that... escapes me right now... I think it should be understood). (→Netscott)19:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, if you think that slavery was anything near as integral to Christianity as it (was) to Islam, I'd like to see some evidence. Arrow74019:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said, "The Arab slave trade was not an 'Islamic' slave trade." What do you mean, Tom?" You responded with your reasoning, "Just as the Atlantic slave trade was not a 'Christian' operation, even though the slavers were Christians." I have shown that your analogy is incorrect, so your reasoning for your initial statement "The Arab slave trade was not an 'Islamic' slave trade." is wrong. I strongly object to any such statement in the article, because it is at best misleading. In a nutshell, certain kinds of slavery are Islamic, though slavery is neither explicitly Christian nor explicitly un-Christian. Arrow74020:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Granted that arguments by analogy are never the best, I think mine is accurate. I may be wrong, but until I am convinced otherwise, I maintain that the Arab slave trade was not something intrinsically 'Islamic.' You are right that the institutions of slavery in Muslim and Christin lands were distinctly different - male field workers vs. female concubines and eunuchs, for example. But, if neither of us is proposing a change to the page, I do not see the need to persue it. I will read what you have to say about it, but probably will not reply further in this thread. Tom HarrisonTalk20:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Modern interpretation of slavery
Arrow, can you please stop your taggings. Here are some quotes :
EoQ:
"The great slave markets of Cairo were closed down at the end of the nineteenth century and even conservative Qurʾān interpreters continue to regard slavery as opposed to Islamic principles of justice and equality. This dramatic shift in Islamic attitudes toward slavery is a prime example of flexibility in interpreting qurʾānic norms."
M. Troutt Powell in (A Different Shade of Colonialism), University of California Press:
"Interestingly, despite his erudite defense of Islamic slavery within Egypt, Shafik concluded his discussion with the point that prominent contemporary Muslim scholars and judges condemned slavery within the Islamic world." (P.S. Ahmad Shafik was a French-educated lawyer)
EoI:
"Nevertheless, contact with the realities of the modern world and its ideology began to bring about a discernible evolution in the thought of many educated Muslims before the end of the 19th century. They may be fond of emphasizing that Islam has, on the whole, bestowed an exceptionally favourable lot on the victims of slavery. Yet they are ready to see that this institution, which is linked to one particular economic and social stage, has had its day... that the Quran (xlii, 4) forbade the making of new slaves... Without going so far, his illustrious compatriot Ameer Ali includes slavery among the pre-Islamic practices which Islam only tolerated through temporary necessity, while virtually abolishing them: man-made laws were later to complete the abrogation of it, which could not have been done formerly by a sudden and total emancipation.This thesis gradually found its way, to a varying extent, into the circle of the Ulama, already open to the older arguments of the Tunisian muftis, which were more restrained and more legalistic.But obviously it could not gain the support of the Wahhabis of Arabia, those uncompromising restorers of the sunna of the Prophet; up to the present day they have vigorously maintained their downright antagonism towards abolition."
Ah, I said it is widely accepted. EoQ says: " even conservative Qurʾān interpreters continue to regard slavery as opposed to Islamic principles of justice and equality." --Aminz07:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is and has always been a difference between the Islamic law and legislation, especially nowadays when in many countries sharia is no longer the main source of law. BeitOr14:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The Koran says that it is lawful to have sex with those "that your right hand possess" (women captives) according to translations by Yusufali, Pickthal, and Shakir. Although Islamic law does not put an exact limit on the number that can be kept in bondage, according to an interpretation by Maududi it strictly forbids keeping female slaves as a means of sexual enjoyment and luxury.[4] Historically, children of such women could also become slaves.[5]"
These are already mentioned in the article elsewhere.
"On the treatment of slave-girls James Arlandson writes "Muhammad himself endorses not only the entire institution of slavery, but also sex between male owners and their female slaves within this institution. No devout Muslim can criticize the Prophet", "Maududi says in his comment on the verse that is it lawful for Muslim holy warriors to marry women prisoners of war even when their husbands are still alive", and "It is one thing for some soldiers in any army to strike out on their own and rape women. All armies have criminal soldiers who commit this wrong act. But it is quite another to codify rape in a sacred text. Islam codifies and legalizes rape." [7]"
And again, American thinker is not a reliable source. Please check if Maududi's comments are not already there in the article and if not, add them in the proper place. --Aminz15:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting the Quran is recommended
I have raised this issue on the Policy's page here and people have said that "It is absolutely OK to quote from such texts, they are a perfect example of the proper use of a primary source.", infact it is a perfect example of a use of a primary text. To people who are preventing others from quoting the Quran on this article and others (this includes Itaqallah, Aminz, Kirbytime and others), please do not make any further attempts to do this. thanks. --Matt57(talk•contribs)16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Big quotes are unhelpful. Aside from these, quoting qur'an to make a point is original research. A secondary source should mention that verse in connection to something and then we can use it. --Aminz16:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. WP:OR is very specific about how primary sources should be treated; they should not be interpreted in any way without a secondary source to back up the interpretation, and that includes implying an interpretation via the placement of a quote. - Merzbow01:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stick to the original claim you're making which is "quoting the Quran is OR". If Quran is being quoted directly, thats the only issue here. Whether that is to make a point is irrelevant. As i have said, the people on the policy page said, that infact its a perfect example of a use of primary text. --Matt57(talk•contribs)16:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the secondary sources provide more than enough coverage of the Qur'anic verses, and if we restrict ourselves to them the article will be more stable. Arrow74020:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
indeed. we did have a list of verses in the Qur'an dealing with slavery, but the consensus was for them to be removed. ITAQALLAH22:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Itaqallh wrote "quoting qur'an to make a point is original research". As long as no interpretation is offered, and the quote is accurate and sourced, it is okay. To say the quote is used to make a point is a subjective opinion, and we cannot edit based on subjective opinions. NN03:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... of course we do. Every time we add or remove material we are rendering an editorial opinion that the article is better off as a result. If there is a consensus that a given use of a Qur'an quote implies a given interpretation not supported by a secondary source, then policy demands per WP:OR we remove the quote or find an appropriate secondary source. - Merzbow05:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite often actually. Mostly Wikipedia gets it right, although I've seen some pretty horrid examples of consensus against policy, reason, and common human decency (but karma always nails them in the end, the Threefold Law prevails). - Merzbow06:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope your optimism is justified and we are able to find a consensus that is consistent with Wiki policy. NN06:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The picture DavidYork added
While the picture may in fact be relevant to the article (at first glance it is), we must balance the goal of improving the article with the long-term, and more important to Wikipedia as a whole, goal of not rewarding banned users. So let's please keep that picture out and get it deleted. - Merzbow08:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some Wiki policy you relied on that says banned users should not be rewarded? A specific quote of a policy would be very helpful. NN08:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the technical answer is that the image in question will almost certainly be speedily deleted by CSD G5 (see [8]), so it shouldn't be linked now. But it can always be re-uploaded by a non-banned user. The reason I am opposing that is, well, because it would only encourage banned users to continue to edit in the hopes that something will stick; I'm not sure if there is a specific policy addressing this. If not, perhaps WP:BAN should be updated to make this explicit, but for the moment, I suppose WP:IAR applies (and yes, I'm a hypocrite for speaking out against WP:IAR in the past but invoking it now; I am not infallible). - Merzbow08:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP:IAR really applies, as you yourself said the pic improves Wiki, whereas IAR's goal is to improve Wiki. Also if the image is re-inserted by a non-banned user, then I would like to see some policy that says non-banned users cannot insert material first inserted by banned users. As for updating WP:BAN, go for it. I am always amenable to editors first changing Wiki policy to their tastes before they actually start applying it. NN08:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually current policy does give weight to my argument: WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take responsibility for their content by so doing." But it's not an absolute, so probably consensus should rule here. If a non-banned user wants to re-upload that image, and consensus is for including the image, then that's fine. I will argue against doing so on grounds of encouraging banned users, but won't argue that policy prevents it. - Merzbow08:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it says "generally expected to refrain", I would say that unless there is very good reason for doing so, it should not be reinserted. As for the "encouraging banned user" argument, we need to stick to Wiki policy. NN08:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A block is to stop an editor not a username or IP from editing wikipedia. It is thus a complete nonsense to say that we should consider the edit of a blocked user (operating thru a sock) and keep or remove based on the edit alone. If that was the case, how then does the status of a blocked user (who can would thus have his edits kept if they are 'good') differ from the rest of us? Particularly controversial edits/editors.
Anyone suggesting that such edits are legitimate are simply saying the editor is legitimate. This is self evident to us all - the fact that policy does not seem to actually disallow it smells of WP:LAWYER. Saying "I take responsibility for that blocked user's edit" is also a nonsense - it is saying, "I allow this blocked user" particularly when that person reinstating it would not have thought about it themselves. Merbabu12:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not nonsense. If an edit enriches the encyclopedia there's good reason to keep it. The picture itself can also be found in the French wikipedia where it is used in their Arab slave trade article. Maybe we can just link it from there? Arrow74016:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An obvious corollary of Merbabu's position is that suppose an editor really wants to keep something valid out of Wiki. Gets himself blocked and then inserts the material. As per Merbabu this material is forever rendered invalid. NN17:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what is the difference between a blocked user and a non-blocked user if we ignore the fact they are blocked when they make their edits? None. Long-term the encyclopedia is harmed more by allowing blocked users to "edit". - Merzbow17:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference should be obvious. Edits by blocked users can be reverted without discussion. Edits by users who are not blocked should be reverted only after giving reason. NN18:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Edits of a blocked user were reverted without discussion, but now we are here discussing the edit those edits - for some it is the merits of the picture, which means that a blocked user is now no different to a non-blocked user. If we give credence to blocked users a block is meaningless.Merbabu00:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is bad that editors are supporting an indefinitely blocked editor's edits by reinstating them. This indefinitely blocked editor needs to be discouraged from continuing to try to contribute to Wikipedia by having all of his edits flatly reverted and his uploads deleted without hesitation. So long as editors continue to act meatpuppetish for him by reinstating his edits he's going to continue to be trying to edit here and continue his disruption. (→Netscott)20:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may be harsher than you intend to call others meatpuppets for restoring something added by a banned editor. I can imagine circumstances where you might do that yourself, and object to such a name. There is no reason to impair the article just to discourage the banned editor. At the same time, there is no deadline. Maybe we will want the picture later, or maybe not. No great harm will be done if we leave it out for a week or so while we think about it. Tom HarrisonTalk20:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm certainly not calling anyone anything but I am certainly describing behavior. I agree however, that there is no rush, so best practice would be to discourage further disruption now by reversion/deletion until the source of that disruption has unmistakeably ceased trying to be a part of the project and then talk about the merits of the original edits. I agree with Merzbow's earlier commentary, it is not a right to edit Wikipedia it is a privilege. When editors who've lost that privlege see their edits supported by others they are rewarded for continuing to excercise the rescinded privilege. (→Netscott)21:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the picture so I don't have an opinion on it, but if it improves the article the question of how it got into the article is irrelevant. This stuff about not rewarding banned users is just so much legalistic nonsense, and any experienced, competent Wikipedian will tell you so. --Tony Sidaway13:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you just need to re-read the policy. Here, I'll help you:
Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban (emphasis mine)
There is no policy that says you have to reject all edits when they are useful, and if there was it would be a stupid policy and should be ignored with extra loud raspberries.
No-one has yet explained how discussing edits of block evading editor (let alone endorsing edits), doesn't make a mockery of such blocks. If someone is blocked from wikipedia, they can't contribute. Full stop. Why bother blocking if a blocked editor's edits are simply subject to the same scrutiny that any other non-blocked user is. What a joke. Merbabu14:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, that's just sarcastic distraction. Let's use our common sense and reason, please. If you must know, I have left one or two of Davids sock typo/format fixing. Merbabu16:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has more to do with the content of the edit than the identity of the editor. Like a spelling correction, if it improves the article it should be added. If not, not. And just let me point out again, there are worse pictures. She looks like an adult, has all her body parts and no visable scars, and does not appear to be in immediate emotional distress. Slavery was and is a nasty business. Representative pictures can only be expected to show that. Tom HarrisonTalk16:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i understand for you it might be about the edit, but once again, no one can has explained how discussing, even endorsing a blocked editors contributions doesn't make a mockery of a block. Who'sNo one is suggesting slavery is not a 'nasty business'? But this and the apparent inimitable and matchless ability for this pic to illustrate it, is not the point. Merbabu17:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a policy about reverting banned editor's edits because while any given one edit may appear good the reality is that just one edit is not a reflection of the entire editor's disruptive tendencies. The object of reverting and not reinstating a disruptive editor's edit (even if it appears beneficial) is to discourage that editor from editing at all thereby avoiding the rest of the picture (the disruptive side of things). (→Netscott)17:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The blocked/banned editor's contribution was reverted. I said above that there was no deadline, and I have not at this point come down on the side of restoring the picture, which is after all on Commons. It is simply not the case that this picture can never again be used just because it was added by a blocked editor. I don't intend to spend the afternoon picking through Irishpunktom's or His excellency's edits and comparing them to what was later restored to particular pages by well-respected contributors. I expect we all know what I would find. Tom HarrisonTalk18:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
^ abCite error: The named reference eois was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference L1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Slave_market.jpg){kind=link}
