Talk:Islamic views on slavery

Chronological Archives
1 2

Introduction

The introduction is written in a psychologically well developed breaching manner. This needs to be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.35.124.146 (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Missing Fact

An important Islamic view on slavery is left out in this article. It's that female slaves are not allowed to cover their breasts. This is a well known fact accepted in the Islamic Sharia law and argued only by a few. Actually argued only by Al-Albani. But no references are available in English, of course. English Islam is nothing like Islam believe me. I just want to clarify that I'm a non-religious ex-Muslim so I'm mainly trying to clarify some of the misleading points and missing facts in the article that I know are meant to be there by internet Islamists, because I would have done the same a few years ago honestly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.35.124.146 (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Potential references

Potential references

• 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.
• Antislavery Campaigner Wins Mauritanian Presidency, Published 2007-03-27 11:30 (KST)
• Slavery 'still exists' in Mauritania, Published Date: March 22, 2007
• Words of caution, Cameron Duodu, March 27, 2007 8:00 PM
• Slavery Lives on in Mauritania, Aug. 28, 2001
• 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.
• {{cite book

|last = Davis
|first = Robert C.
|year = 2004
|title = Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500-1800  
|publisher = Palgrave Macmillan
|id = ISBN 978-1403945518

Incorrectly cited existing reference (edit request)

• Patrick Manning, author of Slavery and African Life, is Patrick Manning (professor), not this guy: Patrick Manning
• Source: http://www.history.pitt.edu/faculty/manning-cv.php
• Isaaccurtis (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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.Merbabu 13:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

i concur with Merbabu, these points are all very good. ITAQALLAH 15:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"The Arab slave trade was not an 'Islamic' slave trade." What do you mean, Tom? Arrow740 18:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as the Atlantic slave trade was not a 'Christian' operation, even though the slavers were Christians. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually the people doing the enslaving were Muslim. Arrow740 18:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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 Harrison ^Talk 18:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This slavery was authorized and regulated by Islamic law all the way back to Muhammad. Your analogy with Christians fails. Arrow740 18:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"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 Harrison ^Talk 19:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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. Arrow740 19:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

""[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.--Tigeroo 17:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The Canaanites were African? I've never heard that one before. Lewis says that "Ham's descendents" were a particular tribe near ancient Israel. Arrow740 06:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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.--Tigeroo 05:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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 Harrison ^Talk 19:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Whitewash? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the word may be "exculpation". → As in false exculpation. (→Netscott) 19:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that works. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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. Arrow740 19:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If I wanted to add that to Christianity and slavery I would provide it. What change do you want to make to this article's treatment of the Arab slave trade? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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. Arrow740 20:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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 Harrison ^Talk 20:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

To answer "The Arab slave trade was not an 'Islamic' slave trade.": Because Islam never organize such slave trade. At the time Islam no longer belong to Arab people only, therefore it was their choice (the Arab) to organize such slavery trade and it did not related with Islam as religion. To make it clear, they did it not because Islamic obligation to do slavery, but simply because it (slavery trade) was their own act. Just because Islam has law about slavery, it doesn't mean that Islam encourage or give order to build such trade organization. They did it because it was their Arab Culture, majority people who did that put their identity as Arab first and latter, coincidentally, their believe as Muslim. C'mon, you read the article, capturing free man and sold them as the slave is against Islamic Law. There for in the term of sharia, they broke the law. They know that, that's why they conducted their operative in secretive organization (sometime their receive unlawful status depend on the ruler of the region) and produce justification for customer in the market. In a nutshell, certain kinds of slavery are not Islamic, it just happen in Islamic Civilization. In a nutshell again, that kind of slavery is Arabic, because it full with Arabic characteristic. I write only to persuade your point of view. But if you can not be open minded, than I also will not pursue this conversation. --210.48.222.7 (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

To answer "So when Muslims enslaved people, they were engaging in a practice that is part of their religion". Once again, there is no obligation for Muslim to do slavery. There no such thing as an "authorized and regulated" slavery in Islamic teaching (except for war, but that's another topic) because there is no order to form Institutionalize slavery thing in Islamic teaching . The Islamic court do not initiate nor gave order for a Institutional body to engage in slavery, but the court observe the slavery practice and punish the unlawful act. "So when Muslims enslaved people, they were engaging in a practice that is part of their religion." seems like an absurd comment. For example, when Muslim eat, Muslim are not engaging in a practice that is part of Islamic teaching just because Muslim eat with Islamic rule. The practice is not the part of Islam Religion. We, human being, engage in that practice. Islam only demand Muslim to engage in that activity only and if only following certain law, but Islam never demand Muslim to do that practice in the first place. --210.48.222.7 (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Subject Evaluation

This article is so fundamentally flawed. The majority of references are based on a couple of books (Lewis, Segal etc), where the authors are not considered to be experts in their fields and their information is not corroborated evidence of a primary source.

The opening statement states that Islam is anti-slavery. This is a statement that is NOT found on other unbiased Wikipedia pages. It is a very strange sentence to start this page, be it true or not.

The article does not mention the incident in Baltimore in 1631, where slave traders from the Islamic world forcibly enslaved hundreds of free villagers in Ireland.

Please edit this article so it is based on FACTS. If this offends people, then thats another matter. Wikipedia's reputation is severely affected by allowing articles of this substandard to be published — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.201.64 (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

A very through, rich & acurate research...Thanks for effort

Nasser

Source 56

Ok, this talk page is terrible, but relating to the topic itself: Source 56 is not a source... it's just not... look at it. The statement it is backing up is an important one: "As slaves are regarded as inferior in Islamic law, death at the hands of a free man does not require that the latter be killed in retaliation", and source 56 just says "Except according to Hanafis, who make a free man liable to retaliation in cases of murder". That, I'm fairly sure, is not the name of a book, person, film, documentary, etc. It's the second half of a sentence... 213.132.45.37 (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like that text should be in brackets with Hanafi linked to the appropriate article. I wouldn't know what to replace the citation with though. 109.77.29.14 (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Almost this entire article is referenced to Bernard Lewis

This article relies almost exclusively on the works Bernard Lewis, one of few Islamic historians to have sought evidence of Arab denigration of Africans. None of the more prominent names in Muslim history are cited, nor are the anthropologists who are experts on these cultures. The truth is many of Islam's great political leaders, artists, writers and poets were clearly identified as African. Al-Mustansir is probably the most well-known Fatimid Caliph. The Fatimids reached the zenith of their power during his reign in Egypt. He was the son of the Caliph al-Zahir and a Nubian concubine. His father and grandfather had been notorious for their human rights violations. His grandfather al-Hakim made laws forbidding women to leave their homes, killing women who resisted or even objected. His father al-Zahir shut 2,660 young women in a mosque, where they died of hunger.

Scholars describe the Moor as originating in the Senegal River valley in Southern Mauritania as Almoravides, and gathering followers from many ethic groups before overwhelming the Iberian Peninsula. The Almoravides were a group of devout Muslims also responsible for the destabilization and eventual demise of the Kingdom of Ghana, in and around the same timeframe as the Iberian siege. Of the three Moorish kings killed in the battle of Alcazar in 1578, two were mulattoes and one, an unmixed "Negro", Mulai Mohammed “the Negro.” (Chenier L. Recherches Hist. sur les Maures, V 3, p. 328. 1787. Muley Moharnet qui fut surnomme’ le Negre parce qu’il ‘etait fils d’une Negresse).

A passage from the thirteenth century “Primera cronica general” (Wolf, 1990: Chapter 559 General Chronicles of Spain) describes the events of 711, what is understood to be the fall of Spain in that year: “...Their faces were black as pitch, the handsomest among them was black as a cooking pot, and their eyes blazed like...”

I am removing the Bernard Lewis passages until there is more emphasis on reliable historical accounts. Bernard Lewis is not a prominent historian nor is he an Anthropologist, and thus, he is not a reliable source.... I also note that Bernard Lewis references are strategically place in attempts to make Islam appear particularly hostile toward Africans; indeed, THERE ARE NO OTHER RERERENCES PROVIDED!

References:

Chenier L. Recherches Hist. sur les Maures, V 3, p. 328. 1787

Wolf, Kenneth Baxter 1990. Conquerors and Chronicles of Early Medieval Spain. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

The Bible Leviticus 25:44-46,NOT the Qur'an [9:60] that accepts the institution of slavery

Islam does Not only forbid taking or keeping slaves,but also by NOT freeing them is a SIN that defy Allah’s commandment

[9:60] {In fact, the A sadaqat /alms is meant for the needy and the poor, as well as for those appointed to collect and distribute it,to win hearts over (to Islam), to free slaves and those in debt, (to wage a struggle) for the sake of Allah, and to help the wayfarer. It is an obligation imposed by Allah(Fareedatn min Allah فريضة من الله ); and Allah is well aware, the Wisest}.

Thus freeing Slaves as well as removing poverty and debts from the Alms is not a matter of Choice or an option it is an Obligation imposed by Allah himself (Fareedatn min Allah فريضة من الله ) as i it is strongly been stated in verse 9:60 , just like any other obligation duty imposed by Allah ( Fareedatn min Allah فريضة من الله ) be it, establishing prayer, fasting Ramadan , and making Hajj.The state Has the obligation to take Muslims Sadaqat/Alms to free slaves.

Quran [9:60] The State must Collect the "Zakat alms" to free the slaves Muslims and non Muslims,eradicate poverty,and free those who are in deb

If this was true, why was Muhammad himself a slave-owner? Didn't he understand the quran himself?

It seems to me that this article is totally wrong and white-washing Islam's view on slavery. Muhammed had slaves, had sex with slaves and encouraged the same in his men. Verse 33:50 (and others) condones and encourages slavery: 'We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.72.204 (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

while the Quran 9:60 prescribe to free slaves as a Command duty ordained by Allah (Fareedatn min Allah فريضة من الله). The bible itself prescribed to take slave Leviticus 25:44-46 and accepts the institution of slavery

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." Leviticus 25:44-46

Happy haytham (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad was a slave-owner and Jesus wasn't. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.44.119 (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So what? You guys are engaging in religion hatred war. Beside, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) "WAS" slave owner, he freed all of his slave in the end. Also, How do you know for sure? You have no historical evidence/source at all regarding Prophet Isa live (Jesus, if you may)--210.48.222.7 (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

What the bible has to say on the subject of slavery has no relevance to the subject of this article. 109.77.29.14 (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comparing Muhammad to Jesus is like comparing George Washington to Mickey Mouse, one is a real historical figure and the other is a figment of someone's immagination, a fiction. Having said that, history tells us that Muhammad did not own slaves but he recieved slaves as gifts or as prisoners of war and he then set them free. When he died he did not own any slaves, and was generally poor by any standard, having to pawn his armor in order provide for his household (even though he was the ruler of all of Arabia at the time). The writers of the story of Jesus, on the other hand, did not provide him with a full life and we have no idea of where he stands on anything other than some polemic about the kingdom of God being near. If anyone knows of what the authors had in mind for the Jesus character (like from a TV, radio or magazine interview with Paul, Mark, John, Luke or Matthew) regarding concrete issues, then please let us know.173.74.22.141 (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Not that I think it's relevant to this article but you should check out "historicity of Jesus" and "historicity of Muhammad" here on Wikipedia for more info. And, by the way, what does the Bible have to do with Islamic views on slavery? There's no reason why this talk section shouldn't be deleted.95.169.243.210 (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is fair to describe Mohammed as the figment of someone's imagination, or to compare him with Mickey Mouse!203.184.41.226 (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The definition/introduction is largely about the release of slaves. It would be more balanced to have started with an examination of the institution of slavery in Islam, not the release of slaves. Despite what some have said, Mohammed justified/supported the institution of slavery. Slavery remained widespread in the Moslem world until the 1960's, and hasn't disappeared yet.203.184.41.226 (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request from Tariqsalam, 14 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Quran (47/4) says (People’s opposition has transgressed to the extent that a clash seems imminent.) Therefore when you face them in the battlefield, you too should kill them. And when their strength is broken and you have fully subdued them, the remaining should be taken into your custody as prisoners of war (8:67). Then (as the circumstances demand) set them free either as an act of grace* or after taking ransom (monetary reward or by exchange of your own prisoners ~ 38:39), till all possibilities of waging war are eliminated (and peace and order returns). (It is for this purpose that you are permitted to raise arms.)

• Arabs used to enslave the men prisoners of war and the women were made concubines. The Quran closed the doors to slavery forever by this command.

Tariqsalam (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Saladdin19, 1 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Original Article Text: "The Qur'an also recognizes concubinage. A master may make his female slave as his concubine and, if she is a Muslim, he can marry her. Abstinence however is said to be a better choice."

Replacement: Whereas a master may marry a female slave, concubinage is strictly prohibited in Islam. However, the practice of concubinage among the elite (most notably with Harems) is well-known but outside the allowed practices of Islam (adultery).

Reasoning: Regardless, Qur'an 6:3 is irrelevant to this topic, as the surah does not address ownership of slaves (following the original citation link is sufficient to prove this point). In terms of concubinage: the Qur'an, and Islam, accepts nothing of the sort. Ayat 23:6, 33:50-52, and 70:30 (used for the concubinage reference) are clear in describing marriage to slaves, not sex with slaves. In fact, those ayat are governed by the laws set in Surah Nisa (Chapter "Women"), specifically 4:25 which states: " If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. " {http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/004.qmt.html#004.025} That is, if you are unable to pay the dowry for a (free) Muslim wife, you are allowed to choose a woman "whom your right hands possess" and which fulfill the specific guidelines for choosing a wife set forth here. Moreover, sexual relations outside wedlock (adultery) are strictly prohibited in Islam. {http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/024.qmt.html#024.030} Saladdin19 (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Obsidi♠n^Soul 13:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The new version is not supported by the citations, and is contradicted later in the article. 33:50 clearly states "We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses". The claim that this is talking about who it is lawful to marry makes no sense. 23:5-6 and 70:29-30 make a similar distinction between wives and slaves, stating that it is not necessary to "abstain from sex" or "guard their chastity" with either of those two groups. Again, the claim that this refers to marriage, rather than sex, is nonsensical, because you cannot marry somebody who is already your wife. I see no reason why 24:30, which is a less targeted exhortation to modesty, would override the three other verses. 109.77.29.14 (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have reverted the requested changes I made earlier as this is clearly contentious. Please discuss if needed As I'm not familiar with the subject, I won't get involved, but I am willing to insert whatever the results of the discussion are. Thank you.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 18:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a note to the effect that current Islamic thought does not condone concubinage (or slavery, for that matter) would be appropriate, though I can't provide a reference to support that view right off the bat. It may also be more appropriate elsewhere in the article, I think it would seem a bit tangential to this part of it. 109.77.29.14 (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is already a "Modern interpretations" section. It does not specifically address concubinage, but would seem to be the appropriate place for claims such as those that you were asked to insert (if they can be supported). 109.77.29.14 (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I can't word them myself, heh, being a completely uninvolved editor. If you or anyone else can put something together about that view, I will insert it. You'd need to be very specific about the text to be inserted though.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 19:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will see if I can dig anything up on that over the next few days. I should point out that Saladdin19 did have one valid point: the reference to 6:3 from the original text doesn't have anything to do with slavery or concubinage. 109.77.29.14 (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is a little biased

This article is a little biased presenting the attitude of Islam toward slavery as being better than it actually was.

First, there is too much of an emphasis on what the Qur'an says and the attitude Islam is supposed to have toward slavery IN THEORY. In practice, there was a lot more cruelty. Even if this cruelty was against the Qur'an, a truly objective article needs to be more revealing of what Muslims did in practice in regard to slaves.

Second, the choice of quotes and references tends to be quoting and referencing biased opinions. For example, "Brockopp writes: "Other cultures limit a master's right to harm a slave but few exhort masters to treat their slaves kindly, and the placement of slaves in the same category as other weak members of society who deserve protection is unknown outside the Qur'an. The unique contribution of the Qur'an, then, is to be found in its emphasis on the place of slaves in society and society's responsibility toward the slave, perhaps the most progressive legislation on slavery in its time."" This quote and reference is not objective and therefore should not be included in an objective article. Other cultures did treat their slaves kindly. They didn't exhort masters to treat their slaves kindly because they didn't have to exhort masters to treat their slaves kindly. There were cultures in which treating slaves kindly was the norm and therefore an exhortation to do so was unnecessary. It is biased for Brockopp to claim that the Qur'an is perhaps the most progressive legislation on slavery in it's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bejjinks (talk • contribs) 15:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• What you are asking for here you will never get. Although I totally agree with you, this entire Wiki project has been infiltrated by Islamo facists such as Halaqah and others whose desire is to conceal the facts of history and to decapitate anything that paints Islam in a negative light irrespective of the brutal acts done in the name of Islam and encouraged by the Quran itself which details how to deal with slaves, encourages slavery and performed by the Arabs and their agents. To make matters worst, their are also couple of liberal do-gooders on Wiki who fear being painted as anti-Islam or fear Islam period and would never rock the boat even when they know the true facts of history. As far as I am concerned, they are worst than the Islamic facist that have infiltrated Wiki. When you speak the truth, they always quote you that old adage assume good faith. Yes, assume good faith but a spade is a spade.

Tamsier (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please edit the article not the editor. the time spent complaining about who is who is time not spent editing in a constructive manner. Think about it. the best way to fix a NPOV is to discuss the issue and fix it, not run conspiracy theories about Muslims on wiki. You were warned about this by other "liberal" editors. But redirecting Arab slave trade to Islamic views on slavery is an issue which scores no points and has no gains. If you have issues with Islam which conflict with the policy of wikipedia take it to a forum, not this talk page. You have policy at your disposal, so just work within the rules.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Although I agree with the OP that that sentence doesn't seem to be very objective or concrete, the rant by Tamsier is unwarranted. If you don't like interacting with editors from other cultures and religions, I suggest joining Conservapedia instead. Wikipedia is global.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised that to this day no one has created an article calling Muslims hypocrites for not following their faith properly. Slavery being one of the many many examples. Additionally, the article is about the "Islamic View on Slavery", that is the guidelines set by Islam. If we were to write about the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom", we wouldn't mention whether or not it was upheld all the time. A different article would have to be created for that.BrYounus (talk) 07:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Slavery in the Quran

In the section slavery in the Quran.

This part: "There are many common features between the institution of slavery in the Qur'an and that of neighboring cultures. However, the Qur'anic institution had some unique new features.[14] Bernard Lewis states that the Qur'anic legislation brought two major changes to ancient slavery which were to have far-reaching effects: presumption of freedom, and the ban on the enslavement of free persons except in strictly defined circumstances." It says that the Quran had a ban on the enslavement of free persons except in strictly defined circumstances. Actually this is not correct. The ban is on enslavement of free "muslims". The word persons should be changed to muslims. And then it can say something else about circumstances of enslavement of non muslims afterwards, if necessary.

it is deceptive to say the Quran banned slavery of free persons. That is not true. It only exempted free persons who are muslims, from being enslaved. The other non muslims who lived in muslim countries had to pay a freedom tax, to remain free, otherwise they too could be enslaved. Only muslims were exempt from slavery by muslims.

It presents slavery in Islam as happening less than it did. And that is not honest. It happened obviously a lot, and mostly to people defeated in battles. Which was many people. While the main populations of countries conquered, but who had not actually fought on the battle field were just forced to pay the freedom tax to remain free, or otherwise could also be enslaved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.231.247 (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously that is your personal opinion and I am sure you are not an authority because your presumptions are full of factual errors. If you have reliable sources that support your claims then enlighten us with their wisdom.173.74.22.141 (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You conveniently leave out that only those who could afford the Jizya had to pay it. If you're poor and broke, you were not expected to pay it.BrYounus (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A Master killing his slave

This matter was debated between scholars, and they did not settle on an opinion. But now they agree that if a master kills a slave he should be killed. Anyway you should present all the views. Abu Hanifa, Ibn Taymia, and Ibn Othiemeen agreed that a master should be killed for a slave. I have the topic in Arabic, but I can't find one in English. Here is the Arabic original. And a side note: I think the laws should be written referencing Muslim theologians not orientalists. Besides we are writing Islam's view on slavery not what the Muslims did. This article is practically the summary of Bernard Lewis's writing.--BelalSaid (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Singapore

Singapore was a British possession from 1824. I therefore doubt the accuracy of the statement that "In 1891 there was a regular trade in Chinese slaves by Muslim slaveowners, with girls and women used for concubinage"203.184.41.226 (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The Quran is categorically against slavery

All attempts to show that slavery is supported by the Quran are false, as will be shown in this argument. The following verse commanded Muslims who were still in possession of slaves (a relic of the pre-islamic era) to set them free: "And if any of your slaves ask you for a deed in writing (for emancipation) give them such a deed; If ye knew any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you…"[24:33] Not only are the believers required to set them free, but to send them off with provisions. This is supported by the documented historical evidence of the prophet and his companions who did not own slaves and were active in freeing slaves from bondage.

All the verses which have been used to support slavery via the Quran have been grossly mis-interpreted. Such as the following: 16.75: "Allah sets forth a parable: (consider) a slave, the property of another, (who) has no power over anything, and one whom We have granted from Ourselves a goodly sustenance so he spends from it secretly and openly; are the two alike? (All) praise is due to Allah!" This verse has been used to support a case for slavery, and yet this verse is actually saying that slavery is a pitiful and wretched state of being. It is not condoning inequality, but highlighting the reason why there should be none. G.A.Pervez interprets this verse thus: "The most appropriate example is given by Allah; there is a slave possessed by his master having no control over anything and a free man whom Allah has given the best of provisions which he gives out to others both secretly and openly according to his discretion. Are the two to be held equal? The course adopted by such a free man is worthy of Allah’s Hamd but those who look at things superficially do not understand this."

Prisoners of war are also not allowed to be taken into slavery, as is clear from the following verse: "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates…"[47:4] So the case on taking POWs into slavery is also closed, as far as the Quran is concerned. As a sidenote, this verse and all others which speak of war are limited to defensive wars, as no aggression is allowed for Muslims.

One of the most misinterpreted terms in the Quran is also used by those who try and support a case for slavery, that being "those whom your right hands possess". While an analysis of the Arabic and the context in which it is used in the Quran proves that "Ma Malakat aymanikum" (literal translation: "whom your oaths posess" wrongly translated as right hand possession) is a phrase used for the poor humans whom an oath has been pledged to be taken care of. These are not "slaves" at all. In fact, the level of care and attention that should be given to this group is the same as that given to one's parents, relatives, orphans etc. (Quran 4:36). "Ma malakat aymanikum" are therefore people in society who are weak and unable to provide for themselves. Corrupt interpretations via sources outside the Quran have turned this term into slaves, when all the evidence in the Quran points to the opposite. "During the period when the Quran was revealed, the slaves (captives), both men and women, were part of the Arab society. The Quran closed the door of slavery, and captive women who were part of the household, were either made a part of the respective families (were taken into wed-lock) or were gradually freed. The words whenever they occur in the Quran, mean 'those captive women who were present in those days.' Now the question of slave women does not arise."

In light of this evidence, this article should be completely revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vassal77 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Your interpretation of Quran[24:33] is clearly wrong because you do not see the context. It is about giving conditional consent to marriage of someones slaves and delivering a document for it. And your assertion that Muhammed didn't possess slaves is also clearly disputed by all Sira and Hadith literature, where he is described enslaving people in war, trading with them and accepted them as gifts. --STTill (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Sexual Intercourse, Concubinage

1. Perhaps these two sub-sections should be merged as they seem pretty similar
2. I'm moving the "concubinage" section to directly follow the "sexual intercourse" section for now since they seem very heavily interconnected.
3. I'm moving several sentences from the opening paragraph of "concubinage" to "sexual intercourse" since they talk about sex with slaves and therefore seem more connected in terms of subject nature to the intercourse section. Daniel De Mol (talk) 09:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologetic tone

The article seems to be written in an almost apologetic tone, so as to sound favourable to Islam (or to depict Islamic view of slavery as something very beautiful/desirable) rather than with a neutral POV. Hence tagged the article with POV template. Needs to be edited by non-muslims to make it more neutral and un-apologetic. Srkris (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, it is written with far more NPOV than [Jews_and_the_slave_trade]. And to be helpful please get specific so we can deal with specifics as opposed to sweeping statements about a lot of content. BTW I am a Muslim, are you suggesting we are incapable of NPOV? Next step is to reply here with specifics or the tag will have failed its rationale and we will have to take it down. --Inayity (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse with slaves

The article states "According to Muslim theologians..." men can have sexual intercourse with their slave women "regardless of whether or not the slave woman gave her consent" - with the only source cited the controversial site islamqa. This is a salafist site based in Saudi Arabia which is largely discredited by mainstream islam. The claim (that sex with slaves is permissible without consent) is overwhelmingly rejected by mainstream muslim scholars - and certainly attributing the claim to "muslim theologians" is outright dishonest.Gandalf7877 (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

To say the lead needs work is an understatement

The lead needs work. What has happened it it is failing to summarize the topics but in effect discussing them (at length). It is not easy to fix and I suggest people spend sometime on the lead.--Inayity (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 October 2013

Please change Bruschvig to Brunschvig. The name of the author is Brunschvig and it is spelled correctly in the footnote but not in the article itself. Please change "The Quran urges, kindness to the slave" to "The Quran urges kindness to the slave" by removing the unnecessary comma. ```` Lcauvin (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Al Qaeda-leaning movements use abolition and emancipation as a successful recruiting tool. How to find sources?

In Somalia, Al-Shabaab had a disproportionate number of fans and recruits in 'lower class' Bantu (Somali Bantu) and Rahanweyn communinities. Because in Al Shabaab, the ideology was that in the original Islam , all people are equal before Allah. In effect, Al Shabaab, wherever they took power, they tried to protect the poor and darker skinned / more Bantu looking people, also women, against massive abuse, plunder, rape, eviction and illegal taxation by the Somali 'upper classes'. And they often treated 'lower class' Somali's as fully equal in all aspects, including politics. And they often demanded 'upper class' Somali's to do the same. (I heard numerous complaints and compliments about that.)

The same counts for the war in Northern Mali, where a large percentage of dark skinned, Tuareg (and Arab) speaking people were still living in (near) slavery conditions, being economically and politically totally disenfranchised. Here, the Islamist movement quickly grew out of the blue, because they recruited these lower classes often in their entirety (like the Ifora), promising them full and equal citicenship. Also here, the Islamist basic creed is that god created all equal, and that therefore the traditional Tuareg (and Moorisch and Arab) Sufi-attributed division of society in casts, is bad and should end immediately. In effect they forced 'noble' Tuareg and Arabs and Moors to accept the full emancipation (including all economic and political rights) of all the darker skinned people.

In Somalia, one of Shabaab's founders was Robow (Sheikh Mukhtar Robow), a Rahanweyne. In Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda's number three was Al Libii (Abdullah Said al Libi), a black skinned scolar from Libia. Also in Mali, the Islamists have black skinned top leaders.

Basically, Al-Qaeda related islamists propagate and practice abolition of slavery and slavery-like conditions, and use it as a powerful recruiting tool. They treat black skinned or Bantu or slave decedents people as fully equal citizens, also having them in power in the top ranks.

That is how they could grow so quickly in Somalia and Mali and all those other countries where a caste system with racial undertones keeps large percentage of Muslims disenfranchised and on the brink of starvation.

This also explains why in Saudi-Arabia, some Salafists openly started to re-defend some forms of slavery: because the Al-Qaeda-leaning ideologists had started to preach against the Saudi caste and class system, drawing large support from the low classes, in effect 'stealing subjects' from upper class families. Under current Saudi law, these upper class families cannot do much about it. So they reclaim Islamic law to justify their cling to (near/)slavery.

So basically, most branches of current Islam feel ashamed but keep silent, deny, condone or defend (near)slavery, and other branches (Al Qaeda linked islamists, maybe also other branches) practice abolition and use forced equality as a successful recruiting tool. This is what I picked up, working in Somalia, Sudan and Mali, and now working with refugees in Netherlands. But I can't find English sources for it.

Do we want it in the article? Then how do we find sources?

Pieter.Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)