Talk:History of concubinage in the Muslim world

List of useful references

• Two Classes of “Marriage”: Race and Sexual Slavery in Al-Shabaab-Controlled Somalia ~ Lindsay J. Benstead & ORCID Icon & Daniel Van Lehman, tandfonline.com 18 Jun 2021

• Gendered and Ethnic Captivity and Slavery in Safavid Persia: A Literature Review by Ladan Rahbari 14 January 2021

• Gender and modern-day slavery in Nigeria: A critical analysis of baby factory and terrorism ~ Mary Juachi Eteng & et alia May–June 2021

• A Treatise on Zinā in the Early Sokoto Caliphate Muḥammad Bello’s al-Qawl al-Marham＊ ~ KARIYA, Kota 40C-BYht0pts:/YBtYBctsp-/rYBteaCc/i:vto0m101,

• Yesterday is not Gone, Memories of Slavery in Zanzibar and Oman in Memoirs, Fiction, and Film ~ Emily Jane O’Del, Brilll

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

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

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

A 'list' article will help ?

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

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

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

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

Defining the scope of this article

The scope of this article should be the history of concubinage in the Muslim world because that is what meets WP:GNG. (Concubinage is defined, in the Islamic context, as the practice of men having sexual relationships with their female slaves)

WP:GNG is met by these sources: Concubines and Courtesans covers pre-modern concubinage in the Muslim world across 7th-18th centuries, Queens, Eunuchs and Concubines in Islamic History, 661-1257 covers it for a shorter period; there is an entry for concubinage in the following encyclopedias: Medieval Islamic Civilization, Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, Encyclopaedia of Islam, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Women, Islam: A Worldwide Encyclopedia, Historical Dictionary of Women in the Middle East and North Africa.

By contrast Mcphurphy insists that the scope must be "all the historical instances of sexual slavery practised by Muslims, including more modern cases". Does Mcphurphy realize just how broad that topic is? Here are some of the forms of sexual slavery practised by Muslims:

• Sex trafficking in Malaysia, in Indonesia, in Kygyzstan, in Brunei, in Kazakhstan etc. Forced prostitution in the Middle East.
• Forced marriage (a type of sexual slavery) happens in many Muslim-majority countries (see also Vani). Child marriage is practiced in several Muslim-majority countries (some have connected it to age of Aisha at marriage).
• Muslim men had sexual relations with their male slaves in Turkey[2], India[3] etc.
• Grufo said bacha bazi, a form of sexual slavery in Afghanistan, should be included in this article. Other forms of child sexual slavery: child sex tourism which happens in Muslim countries too; and Muslims were involved in Kasur child sexual abuse scandal and Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal. 

Where are the RS that conflate all these into a single topic? I have seen sources cover various forms of sexual slavery in a specific context (eg this covers various forms sexual slavery during Indonesian genocide). But "all the historical instances of sexual slavery practised by Muslims" no more passes WP:GNG than "all the historical instances of sexual slavery practised by Christians" (or Hindus, or atheists, etc). In fact the only "Sexual slavery in X" article that exists is Sexual slavery in China, which is a stub and limits itself to modern China. So sexual slavery in Islam is a glaring exception, and given that it fails WP:GNG, it seems like an WP:ATTACK page. 

Previously, Persecution by Muslims was deleted due to WP:SYNTH and non-notability (even though instances of persecution by Muslims are individually notable, like Armenian genocide, persecution of Bahais etc). Pederasty in the Middle East and Central Asia was similarly deleted for WP:SYNTH and POV-pushing issues.VR _talk 02:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Clarification: Grufo only supported the inclusion of bacha bazi, but did not refer to other forms of child sexual slavery, as they pointed out here.VR _talk 18:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, I think it is pretty sensible to draw the line for the examples in this article at the close of the Ottoman Empire. Concubinage and sexual slavery are both archaic terms for archaic practices, and, following both abolition, and the nation-building and nationalism of the 20th century, it makes more sense to define most 20th to 21st-century examples of kidnapping and sexual enslavement in the Middle East and wherever as, just as you say, "Sexual trafficking in XYZ country" - even then, some of the example here would not qualify, such a that of Boko Haram references: you wouldn't even use these in an article called "Sexual trafficking in Nigeria", because it would be stupidly imprecise. It is only really relevant to: "Sexual trafficking by Boko Haram" or simple inclusion on the Boko Haram page. Anyone who thinks Boko Haram is even tangentially useful as an example of long-term practice in Islam is a moron. For a start, Nigeria has a Muslim-led government that is waging war against it as the terrorist cult that it is. Secondly, it's ridiculously fringe - it's founding preacher discourages reading any book other than the Qur'an, including the Hadith and Sunna, believes the earth is flat and that evaporation as a concept is fake news. Boko Haram is the worst example, but all of the examples in the "Modern/recurrent manifestations" section are ridiculously tangential. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Nishidani, Toddy1 do you have any opinions on the scope? VR _talk 13:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer that this article were renamed to a title that made it clearer what the scope is. I would prefer something on the lines of: The practice of sexual slavery in Islamic societies. Where sexual slavery is practised by criminal gangs that should be out of scope unless it is part of the normal in that society over a long period.

If you want cut-off date(s), then I think that cut-off date(s) should be in the title - for example The practice of sexual slavery in Islamic societies before 1973. [1973 is a not intended as a suggested date.] I do not care whether there is a cut-off date, as long as it is clear.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: practices like child marriage has been practiced in Muslim countries for centuries, human trafficking has been practiced for at least decades now, vani and bacha bazi are old too. But I just don't see RS that connect all these practices together across the entire Muslim world.

What is your opinion on narrowing the scope of this to only the premodern practice of a man having sexual relations with his female slave? That is clear and well supported by RS.VR _talk 16:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not see any connection between child marriage and slavery. For example, Isabella of Angoulême she was 11 or 12 years old when she married King John of England, and Aisha was 6 or 7 when she married the Prophet Muhammad. I think we would count both cases as child marriage, but neither bride was a slave. Some societies give men and women a choice about who they marry, and some do it another way such as the families deciding - but that does not make a woman a slave.

Human trafficking has always gone on. If you watch a TV programme called Interpol Calling made in 1959-60 there are two episodes that deal with slavery in the then present day: episodes 7 ("You Can't Die Twice") and 13 ("Slave Ship"). Episode 7 is about the trafficking of refugees from Eastern Europe to the U.S.A. where the criminal gang that trafficked them insists on receiving a huge proportion of their earnings; it is a very good description of what modern axctivists call "modern slavery".-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that child marriage shouldn't be covered here. But that's exactly what will happen under the broad scope of "sexual slavery" (here is a scholarly source that says "child marriage is a form of sexual slavery..."). That's why I think its import to limit the topic to "men having sexual relations with female slaves".VR _talk 17:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I have talked about bacha bazi, but I did not say anything about “Other forms of child sexual slavery”. I have split your bullet list to make this clear (please check the diff). --Grufo (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

'Female slavery in Muslim world'

Slavery in Islamic world in general and female slavery in Islamic world are distinct phenomenon, which deserves some credit and some accountability both (as available in source–able content), hence do deserve distinct articles.

Though mostly it is historical but attempts and apologetics favoring revivalism has been observed time and again in some of global pockets.

Hence I suggest broader topic 'Female slavery in Muslim world'

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I think this is thinking in the right direction, but making the subject even broader like this may not be entirely helpful. For example, he category of "female slaves" would also include women enslaved purely for labour, such as domestic chores. The wider problem with this article is that it currently covers both concubinage (which depending on the epoch of history could involve concubines who were enslaved or free), sexual slavery more broadly, up to an including fringe terrorist groups and cults, as well as other weird examples and a litany of other abusive scenarios involving rape and kidnapping that do not necessarily fit into or act as useful examples of long-term historic practices. I'm thinking it would be more appropriate to use the slightly wordier title of Concubinage and sexual slavery in the Muslim world, which I think would more adequately cover the range of examples that we have on hand here. The broader and sometimes rather generic material on Islamic views on concubinage and slavery should all be split off/copied into Islamic views on slavery and Islamic views on concubinage, with this article only containing brief summaries of such content, with redirects to the main articles. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

See what I have gone through some recent research books, in middle east agriculture slavery was very small but it was there. Usually what has been happening is elite slavery in Turkey in Ottoman times had been taking all the lime light but slow but steady research in non–elite Ottoman times Muslim world slavery beyond Turkey is coming up.

Female slavery in Muslim world was much more complex phenomenon. At some times African female slaves were used just for domestic duties and European and Asian female slaves were used for sexual to concubinage to marital levels, again it's very fluid nothing is hard and fast. So in some cases domestic and sexual female slavery might appear distinct but again complexity is Islamic law does not distinguish between slaves as sex slaves concubines or domestic duty slaves. Again takfiri was too simple to claim a Muslim tO be non Muslim and give treatment like Kafir women in conflict times. So situation for individual females was much fluid. So accordingly we need to have a article title IMHO.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Medieval Muslim literature and legal documents show that those female slaves whose main use was for sexual purposes were distinguished in markets from those whose primary use was for domestic duties. They were called "slaves for pleasure" or "slave-girls for sexual intercourse". - this sentence in the intro (possibly from Pernilla), seems to suggest that there were discrete concepts for domestic and sexual roles - albeit, it's one sentence from where I know not. Regardless, it certainly does seem that, at least conceptually, there is a separate body of Islamic legal thinking about the dilemmas entailed in sexual intercourse with a slave - all the points about when it is permissable, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

We will need to check what individual scholars say, but prima facie, if that would have been strict case then percentage of Zina cases vis a vis female slaves would have increased exponentially in historical records, but I sincerely doubt that. At the first opportunities British consulates provided we see records of flights of slaves including female ones. If female slaves and even formally married women have had easy way to bring in Zina charges against their masters or husbands, they would have exploited that course of action in their benefit at least to an extent but that does not seem to have happened.

Even if one keeps matter of consent aside, basic scripture is sort of clear that woman possessed by right hand is okay for sexual intercourse. So even if one buys a female slave for domestic purpose but later if he feels to have to do religious scriptures unlikely to stop.

What would have happened in those cases, where female sex slaves did not bear any child? If the story was true then the case of Anarkali is quite intriguing. Jahangir is religious enough fellow to inscribe gods names on cenotaph, writes freely on love in memoir, builds a tomb but skips naming the woman officially, Akabar too punishes Anarkali but does not do any thing to Jahangir, one possibility is possible fluidity in case of female slaves not having master's child, even in cases of emancipated female slaves.

Other than Turkish elite female slaves other cases including female slavery in early Islamic period including Al Andalus, middle east, South and central Asia, Persia, is not thoroughly researched and whatever available adequate note has not been taken in WIkipedia. For example article on Islamic marriage contract in Wikipedia is under covered even for contemporary purposes then historical marriage contracts and mentions related to slavery in them is later step. Article Umm Walad has not gone beyond couple of paragraphs, and we don't have any article on Tedbir at all.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Bookku: would "female slavery in the Muslim world" cover the modern enslavement of women through forced labor and debt bondage? Can you provide some sources that broadly cover all these forms in a way that is specific to women? VR _talk 13:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

IMO in just forced labor and debt bondage there is nothing specific Muslim about; "female slavery in the Muslim world" (Partially of Islamic cultural character) is a distinct fluid phenomenon.

• Women (specially of other religion or other sects or declaring their families Kafir)

• Either taking them captive in conflict zones,
• Or Purchasing selling or sharing them as gift
• Considering them available for sexual pleasure without marrying and reducing their consent to irrelevance or less relevance
• Not considering their (non–marital) sexual relationship equal to Islamic Nikah (marraige) wife.
• Making normalizing claims like if women from conflict zones or purchased or gifted slave women remain alone will cause Zina (But captivating/ purchasing/ gifting/ watching or manhandling them sans veil; establishing non–marital sexual relationship when aquired them as property then is not Zina); there after putting or condoning conditions (tedbir) for their emancipation;
• On credit side some of the slave women may be eventually consenting to sexual demands or slavery in anticipation of better life standard or by stockholm syndrome, taking some of them in marriage if eventually they agree for religious conversion and so on, 'genderedly' equal right in property to children of female slaves (with comparatively lesser social stigma for children of female slaves) if slave owner accepts paternity.

All of above features are complex enough to explain I do not know how to put them in most brief manner amount to distinct female slavery of Islamic nature. This has happened in pre modern times and fewer but certain cases in modern times.

If any modern community at certain time and place behaves like premodern then whether to club them or not is the question we are dealing with. rather than answering it I will leave it for other users to reflect upon.

Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The problems in a range of articles are deep and not easily ironed out. As noted, the title is anomalous, and the anomaly recapitulates one of a congeries of deep prejudices in Western civilization: sex and slavery. We have articles on Jewish and Christian views on slavery but, with the third member of the Abrahamic religions, we have specific articles on 'Islamic lubricity', the salacious sexual opportunism of the Muslim world. Norman Daniel wrote a great pathbreaking books on this a half century ago (Islam and the West: The Making of an Image (1960), documenting how deeply grounded confessional enmity against a rival faith was for Christians for well over a thousand years. Coming across this, I felt that it harked back to that tradition, despite using the modern scholarship that, in the wake of Daniel's lesson, grappled with Islam's less censorious approach to sex, and, in some regards, its more refined attempt to secure legal definitions finessing types of slavery to include rights to emancipation, or social mobility, a scholarship that dispensed with the condescending and hypocritical hauteur of Western tradition, which had a longer and arguably far more violent history of carceral enslavement than was the general case in Islam. The two articles here one on concubinage, and this lurid POV mess, should, in my view, be merged in to something like Concubinage and female slavery in the Muslim world, which would have two aspects, the legal tradition stricto sensu and actual practice. The topicalization of 'sexual slavery' in the title, uniquely for Islam, attracts prurient eyes looking for an itchy sexual angle on Muslims, fully in accordance with ancient prejudices rooted in religious rivalry. Daniel remarks, 'By misapprehension and misrepresentation an idea of the beliefs and practices of one society can pass into the accepted myths of another society in a form so distorted that its relation to the original facts is sometimes barely discernible.' (p.2)-

Whatever the title choice made, covering the topic requires considerable hard, persistent and focused labour by several hands. We can talk all day about the niceties of language, but only practical rewriting of at least two long texts from top to bottom is going to remedy the fixated POV pushing we have ended up with here.Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: the first step in this long process is determining a reasonable scope, as that will establish organization, WP:DUE-ness and relevance of content. The propose here isn't about title change (that would require a WP:RM) but about establishment of scope. Any feedback is appreciated.VR _talk 15:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Neutral and well informed of religion people like you do not write on Wikipedia separate articles on subjects like 'Women's rights in Muslim societies', 'History of marriage contract in Islam', Tedbir and do not complete articles like Umm walad then how western people will know all the greatness?

You also do not write articles on 'Slavery in Mecca and Medina', 'Female slavery in early Islam', 'Female slavery in middle east', 'Female slavery in Al Andalus', 'Female slavery in Central Asia' then how western people will know all the greatness? And yes we need not forget Female slavery in Persia too! But unless written articles what is point in not forgetting and talking of just greatness.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I second Nishidani's idea of "Concubinage and female slavery in the Muslim world" - for two reasons: first, the big problem with "sexual slavery" as a term is that it is fundamentally anachronistic, as a term not really formalised or widely used until the 1998 Rome Statute. Female slavery already conveys the implicit lack of volition that such an individual had over their destiny, sexual or otherwise; secondly, this framing partially resolves the medieval/modern dissonance by better framing the article in terms of pre-modern terms. Slavery came to the end in most places somewhere between the late 19th century and the post-WWII 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is therefore pretty possible and practical to draw a distinction between pre-modern concubinage/female slavery and modern iterations, particularly those lingering on into the 21st century, which might be better termed sexual slavery or sex trafficking in line with the contemporary terminology. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I support concubinage as part of the scope. But "female slavery" would cover women in debt bondage, forced labor, forced begging, which all happen in the Muslim world (see this map). Hence I recommend limiting scope to concubinage.VR _talk 17:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see female slavery as covering those three other practices at all. These types of thing are sometimes called "modern slavery", which is a term that specifically distinguishes itself from the slavery of yore. Modern slavery typically involves some sort of coercion, typically either related to debt or the threat of violence, in contrast to pre-modern slavery, which was the simple, contractual ownership of another human being. That graphic uses data from 2013, so clearly modern. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: I think as soon as you put the word "slavery" in the scope or title, people will automatically assume it also covers modern slavery. Why not just leave the scope at "Concubinage in the Muslim world"? What does "female slavery" convey that "concubinage" does not?VR _talk 19:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Two reasons: some of the sources clearly discuss the issue of sexual intercourse with female slaves without reference to the word concubinage, which means you would be somewhat decontextualizing these sources by only reflecting "concubinage" in the title. Secondly, some systems, like the Ottoman one, were highly complex and had multiple different institutional layers, including free concubines, slave-concubines and also female slaves more generally. On the other point, I can't overemphasize how distinct a term modern slavery is. It is hyper-specific to the modern era, and also includes sex trafficking and the use of child soldiers. However, if you really think this would be a legitimate source of confusion, I would suggest a comprehensive top-of-the-page disambiguation would solve it. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: which sources refer to this phenomenon without using the term 'concubinage'? Still we could use the term "slave-concubine" which would exclude free mistresses. Finally, it is really not necessary to have just one article to cover every sexual relationship that happened in 1,400 years of Muslim history spanning three continents. It is better to have separate articles for different kinds of relationships, for different time periods, for different places. Trying to fit everything into a single article will lead to issues like GNG vio.VR _talk 20:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

a) All female slaves were not automatically concubines, Some owners used to marry their female slaves to some third person in that case those female slaves were official mistresses of third persons and not concubines.

b) Some female slaves would have been usually just domestic workers but available for sex on demand and did not bear child. So blanket use of word concubinage does not cover them and would misrepresent actual fluidity

c) There are reports of instances from early Islamic times that 'a ruler used to reprimand female slaves for using veils or dressing like free women and on the other hand some clergy used to express disapproval for female slaves moving around bare chested and complaining ruler not taking action as expected by clergy' (I suppose RS would be available for such instances where discussion is just about female slaves and not about concubinage. Where would one put those instances if wording concubinage is used in blanket manner?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

As per Encyclopedia of Islam concubine refers to a female slave who is her master's sexual partner[4], which includes those who didn't bear a child. In any case, the WP:ONUS is on you to show how your proposed scope meets WP:GNG. You have so far provided no sources, whereas I have provided several showing the topic of concubinage across 7th-18th centuries meets GNG.VR _talk 03:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

IDK which Arabic, Persian and Turkish words are translated as concubines even when Islam had no third official category other than wife and slave and how any such fundamentally wrong authorship are being elevated to reliable.

At least spare the article title with more neutral term by using just 'female slavery in Muslim world' which can incorporate all kind of possibilities and difficulties suffered by ancestral X (feminine) chromosome of modern Muslims as sources become available.

See I don't have Phd in WP technicalities, I do understand simple logic and simple merit. No doubt Wikipedians can restart discussions as and when sources become available but first it involves lot of time of writers. Many writers write as sources come before them, starting with narrow scope unnecessarily discourages them. I prefer curators and censor friendly enthusiasm does not suffocate an article in the bud itself.

Encyclopedias deserve space for summary style articles too. I would be okay with taking the whole article to draft space again rather than suffocating it in the name of scope.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The reason why I agreed with Nishidani's suggestion of both terms is that it bridges the inherent ambiguity and confusion between the different sources. You have cited an encyclopedia definition of a concubine as a female slave, but evidently this is not definitive, as we know there could be free concubines even in the Islamic world. I agree with Bookku that the fluidity of many master-slave relationships is key, as a slave might in practice readily by a domestic servant one day and a concubine the next, or vice versa, or both, as Bookku points out, where female slaves could become concubines (or even wives!) of men other than their masters. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I checked the Encyclopedia of Islam entry and it covers concubine being wife of one man, but a domestic servant for another. And this book does have a chapter on 'free' concubines but it says it was relatively rare, and most were slaves. So sources are using the term 'concubinage' pretty broadly. I think we're on the same page in terms of scope - as long as the scope is treated coherently in RS (and is not being constructed by synthesizing RS on entirely different topics).VR _talk 12:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Agree that the title is too broad and misleading. I suggest restricting the scope to the conubinage and move the out of scope content to other pages like Islamic views on slavery. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• Sexual slavery in the Islamic world would be a good compromise. We can also include some content on child marriage in Islam - a practice which all traditionalist ulama permit. Mcphurphy (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

You are conflating entirely different concepts, so-called "child marriage" and slavery.
Regarding so-called "child marriage", English law was changed in 1929 - before then a marriage was only valid if the boy was at least 14 and the girl was at least 12 - but from 1929 both the boy and the girl had to be at least 16. In addition, since 1929 the consent of parents was required for people getting married under 18. (I think at one time the consent of parents was required for people under 21.) There was absolutely no connection between slavery and 12 year old girls getting married before 1929.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

As Toddy1 notes, child marriage is unrelated to slavery as a theme and primarily a matter related to national laws. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

First part of this specific comment is without any religion or people of any religion in mind. I do not insist bringing child marriages in blanket manner under slavery. But consider following points a & b:

a) Any child's consent for any sexual relationship would be immature need to be considered void if at all existed, is matter of common sense and most would agree and RS would be available from psychology and medical sciences side that it ought to be considered void. In a way, child's consent for any sexual relationship with an adult within marriage too is sexual slavery by grooming but for a while we keep this point aside.

b) Consider a case child's consent is clearly absent. If any – emphasis to word 'any', so pl don't do whataboutery– if any child marriage is consummated by an adult without child's consent then technically that would be clear example of sexual slavery–irrespective of child's parents consent exists or not. Here what is important is availability of reliable sources. Here is a little irony, we humans are less likely to insist for reliable sources in case a where sexual consent would be assumed as part of –even child– marriage but do all of the children consenting to marriage would be aware of concept of sex and implication? We are more likely to insist for reliable sources in case b. If not getting the point pl. do read a and b points again understand RS need to be asked for availability of consent in individual cases of point a, where as if we ask for RS in case b that should amount systemic bias on part of encyclopedist because even where supposedly consent exists can not be valid enough then in those cases where consent is doubtful or absent is necessarily sexual slavery

Second part of this comment, with the association of religious background:

Now let us come to one example of the case of 'Jilfidan' where reliable reference is available. A captive child has been bought and added to so called concubinage. Later behaviour of Jilfidan before her child and society would seem as if relationship of so called concubinage was consensual or was groomed for the same or accepted as fate, once you have child or because any way a slave can't marry without masters permission with some third person, later no one would know. So it is total fluid we can not determine in modern times without clear source to that effect.

( Also pl do not do whataboutery on point that whether Jilfidan or her daughter took services of other slaves because controversy of they clearly not objecting to slavery do not erase memory of their own relation in to slavery as a slave narrative.)

Emily Ruete's description of kidnapping and enslavement of her mother 'Jilfidan' becomes one of closest available testimony about a captive female slave. Until Ruete's mother did not get sold to her father she was a common (non-elite) slave but purchasing by Ruete's father made her an elite slave (concubine) later.

Emily Ruete about captivity of her mother 'Jilfidan'

"...My mother was a Circassian by birth, who in early youth had been torn away from her home. Her father had been a farmer, and she had always lived peacefully with her parents and her little brother and sister. War broke out suddenly, and the country was overrun by marauding bands ; on their approach the family fled into an underground place, as my mother called it — she probably meant a cellar, which is not known in Zanzibar. Their place of refuge was, however, invaded by a merciless horde, the parents were slain, and the children carried off by three mounted Arnauts. One of these, with her elder brother, soon disappeared out of sight; the other two, with my mother and her little sister, three years old, crying bitterly for her mother, kept together until evening,when they too parted, and my mother never heard any more of the lost ones as long as she lived.

She came into my father's possession when quite a child, probably at the tender age of seven or eight years, as she cast her first tooth in our house..."

Translation from books original language German as available on archive.org There is a minor difference in translation available on Google books.

Now one can excuse child captivity and slavery can happen without religion or with other religion too but a) it's likely religious sanction in the pattern it works associates with the given religion. b) The pattern in case of Muslim societies due to given religion is unique so encyclopedic association with pattern of Muslim kind of slavery becomes valid.

She came into my father's possession when quite a child, probably at the tender age of seven or eight years, as she cast her first tooth in our house..." Here Jilfidan had no parental support to see she bears at least age of puberty is being taken into account again sans record ironically one needs to consider captors and buyer took due care. In any case if a Sultan had dozens of concubines wording concubine instead of sex slave is just being shy and not calling spade a spade?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Put very simply, marriage does not involve ownership or possession, unlike slavery, which explicitly involves ownership. As long as this article is entitled slavery, material on anything short of examples of explicit ownership arrangements is misplaced - hence the need to actually decide on the right title and scope of this piece as a matter of priority. If this article were entitled Concubinage and female slavery then discussion of the age of concubines in concubinage arrangements, which often blurred the boundaries between slavery, servanthood and wifehood, might be appropriate - although I would be expecting some slightly more substantial academic backing for this sort of content than anecdotal Ottoman examples. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

A reverse approach

I would like to propose a short brainstorming using a reverse approach; instead of asking what the article should be about, or what its name should be, I would like to ask: What would an article named “Sexual slavery in Islam” talk about if you, as a Wikipedia editor, had to write it? My question does not imply that you will have to write it, or even that Wikipedia should have one (although my personal position about it is known), but aims only at knowing whether the current title maps what the editors think a similar title means. We can still agree on what “Sexual slavery in Islam” means but disagree on the fact that Wikipedia should have a page named as such, but we would at least make one point clear. Each of you could be asked by a friend “Tell me all you know about sexual slavery in Islam”; what will your answer be? As I had previously written, the answer for me would be “How Islam addresses/addressed the topic of sexual slavery” – where by “addressing” I mean scriptural interpretations, laws and practices. This page has generated a WP:POVFORK; obviously the authors of the WP:POVFORK claim that it is not a WP:POVFORK, and for doing that they must defend something similar to “The scope of Sexual slavery in Islam – not just the current content, but even the best possible version of it, the one that I would write – diverges from what I want to do with this other page”. So how do they define the scope of a “Sexual slavery in Islam” article? --Grufo (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The question is not how you and I define such a topic but how sources define that topic. Without sources, answering your question would be an exercise in WP:Original research.VR _talk 21:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The scope of an article does not need to be supported by sources, only the content needs to be supported by sources. Wikipedia has plenty of articles that are not findable in any source “as such”. I couldn't find much on Wikipedia guidelines (you are welcome to quote it in this discussion if you find anything), but there is an essay, WP:SCOPE, which does give some advice (emphasis mine):

“Article scope, in terms of what exactly the subject and its scope is, is an editorial choice determined by consensus.”

“Artificially or unnecessarily restricting the scope of an article to select a particular point of view on a subject area is frowned upon, even if it is the most popular point of view. Accidental or deliberate choice of a limited scope for an article can make notable information disappear from the encyclopedia entirely, or make it highly inaccessible. Since the primary purpose of the Wikipedia is to be a useful reference work, narrow article scopes are to be avoided.”

So my question still stands: how would editors describe the scope of this page (independently of how it is currently written)? --Grufo (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:SCOPE is not policy; WP:GNG is policy and requires "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." VR _talk 22:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam#Defining the scope of this article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I believe you are misinterpreting the guideline. This article is covered by reliable sources (even too many someone was complaining). But as that essay suggests, the scope of an article is an editorial choice determined by consensus, and the broader topic should be favored over the narrower one. I believe that this comment by Anachronist was trying to enforce these principles (@Anachronist: any comment is welcome). Look at the sources of Christian views on slavery: is there any source named “Christian views on slavery”? (Answer: NO). --Grufo (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Further addition. WP:PAGEDECIDE (official guidelines) goes also in the direction of favoring broader topics rather than narrower ones. And WP:MERGEREASON gives good reasons for merging the current POVFORK into this page:

“Context: If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. For example, minor characters from works of fiction are generally covered in a "List of characters in <work>" article (and can be merged there); see also Wikipedia:Notability (fiction).”

(In the specific case of Islamic views on concubinage a reader would need to contextualize the meaning of “concubinage” and embrace an unusual meaning compared to what they are used to, while the broader topic, Sexual slavery in Islam does not require that). --Grufo (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:GNG requires the topic of every article to be covered in depth by several reliable sources. This source covers the topic of slavery in Christianity; where are the sources that cover sexual slavery in Islam? The fact that you can't find sources to answer your own question "How Islam addresses/addressed the topic of sexual slavery" is telling.VR _talk 23:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The topic of this article is covered by reliable sources (even too many). The scope of this article instead is something we must decide about. And no, the voice “slavery” in an encyclopedia of Christianity is not “Christian views on slavery”. --Grufo (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Please list 2-3 sources that cover the topic and lets examine them (only 2-3 sources please).VR _talk 23:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned by Slywriter, with 273 cites source coverage is really not the problem. I will go random:

• Pernilla, Myrne (2019). "Slaves for Pleasure in Arabic Sex and Slave Purchase Manuals from the Tenth to the Twelfth Centuries". Journal of Global Slavery. 4 (2): 196–225. doi:10.1163/2405836X-00402004. S2CID 199952805.
• Brown, Jonathan A. C. (2019). Slavery and Islam. Simon & Schuster. p. 70.
• Ali, Kecia (30 October 2010). Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-05059-4.
• Afary, Janet (9 April 2009). Sexual Politics in Modern Iran. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-39435-3.

--Grufo (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I took a quick look at all 4 sources: all of them cover the topic of men having sex with their female slaves (which they all call either "concubinage" or "slave concubinage"). None of them covers "sexual slavery" as a topic. Afary simply covers everything related to sex in Iran: marriage and concubinage, heterosexuality and homosexuality, temporary marriage, child marriage, polygamy, adultery, fornication, birth control and abortion. Ali covers marriage and concubinage (heterosexual) in early (600-900CE) Islamic theology. Pernilla uses the term "sexual slavery" and "concubinage" interchangeably, but she's only referring to relations between free men and slave women, I didn't find anything on child marriage, child abuse, or sex between free and slave men. Brown also only covers heterosexual concubinage. Of these 4, only Brown's topic is Islam in general, everyone else has a narrower topic. This means that even if Afary covered sexual slavery, it could only be used to support Sexual slavery in Iran - one cannot extrapolate from Iran to the entire Muslim world.VR _talk 02:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, everything looks pretty normal. You are describing a situation similar to what happens in Christian views on slavery (on a different topic). --Grufo (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I was baffled by your claim saying "The scope of an article does not need to be supported by sources". When the title and the content of a page is based on the reliable sources, the scope is automatically defined by the reliable sources as long as they are not ORed. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The scope of an article is an editorial choice and does not need to be supported by sources, only the content does. Think that for Wikipedia even having an article that is too big can be enough of a reason to split it, even when all sources treat it as a single topic. And as per WP:PAGEDECIDE, broader topics that do not require contextualization are to be preferred (for instance, Islamic views on concubinage is an example of a page that requires contextualization, even just for its title). --Grufo (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

What context is required at Islamic views on concubinage that is currently not already there?VR _talk 04:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The unusual meaning of concubinage in that context requires specialized knowledge. --Grufo (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I was pinged above, so I'll just make a comment. I have no objection to two articles if they are about obviously distinct topics. One article about the history of sexual slavery in Islam and another about current Islamic views, if the topics can be separated, can be fine. I don't really care if it's called slavery or concubinage or sexual slave concubinage or whatever. However, I observe that a concubine isn't necessarily a slave, and if the topic does entail slavery (concubines being forced into nonconsensual sex acts), then we should refer to it that way, per WP:SPADE. Concubinage might imply slavery in an Islamic context, but a reader unfamiliar with the topic wouldn't know that. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: thanks for your input. I agree that the body and lead of the article should clarify the slave nature of concubinage in the Islamic context. But the title should be based on WP:COMMONNAME used by RS, though an alternate suggestion was made by Wiqi55 to use "slave concubinage" in the title, which is also supported by RS. Finally, as an aside, do consider the fact that marital rape wasn't criminalized in most countries until the 20th century, as married women were regarded as the property of their husbands[5][6].VR _talk 06:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent:

• “Used by RS”: That gives zero information about whether it is a specialized usage of the word “concubinage” or not. Are you aware of any other context (not Islam) where concubinage needs to involve slaves?
• “Marital rape wasn't criminalized in most countries”: You are free to write an article on Corinthians 7:4 (I will support you). But if you use this instead as an argument to remove the issue of consent from Sexual slavery in Islam, it is whataboutery.

--Grufo (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC) ----

Back to the original question. What would a page named “Sexual slavery in Islam” talk about according to Wiki editors? Please post your answers below. Please do not post below unrelated discussions.

• “How Islam addresses/addressed the topic of sexual slavery” – where by “addressing” I mean scriptural interpretations, laws and practices. --Grufo (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC) comment deleted by Grufo 01:25, 9 November 2021

• So what you are saying is that you (Grufo) would like this article to be Islamic views on sexual slavery. If that is the case, why do you not propose a WP:RM to that title? I do not know if you have read the many comments at Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam#Defining the scope of this article, but if you have, you will know that some editors disagree with you. But perhaps it would be best to have a WP:RM to resolve this.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

As explained in the introduction, this section is not dedicated to what we think this article should become, but to what we think “Sexual slavery in Islam” means. You are free to post your answer in the paragraph below. --Grufo (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This is general comment to all. IMHO we same people are discussing same points again and again. Again lack of substantial participation from women in itself brings in systemic bias. Rather present people take a break from discussion for a some weeks let some fresh users with some fresh perspectives come in.

In mean while I would urge present learned and concerned of women issues guys (I mean users) to update articles like Draft:Sexual politics, Draft:Women, conflict and conflict zones, Umm walad, Islamic marriage contract (including historic perspective vis a vis female slavery), Draft:Women's rights in Muslim societies, Draft:Slavery in Mecca and Medina, Draft:Comparison of rights and limitations of Muslim wives, female slaves and concubines; then we also need to have article Draft:Tedbir, Draft:Women's agency.

I would urge any discussion closing users not to close any discussions at least for six months since we lack sufficient participation from women projects, and present users need to give some more time on actually reading the sources thoroughly even those presented by others. Some one is presenting a source and we respond without reading in minutes would not give justice to the subject. Then lot of fresh academic research is coming up who is going to read new research that too needs time. What sort of hurry we are in to own and shape article in limited time among limited people without sufficient women' project participation?

I am voluntarily delisting this article from my watch list for 3 weeks from now.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The question

Back to the original question. What would a page named “Sexual slavery in Islam” talk about according to Wiki editors? Please post your answers below. Please do not post below unrelated discussions.

• “How Islam addresses/addressed the topic of sexual slavery” – where by “addressing” I mean scriptural interpretations, laws and practices. --Grufo (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Fun facts

Just out of curiosity, I googled “concubinage iran”, and the first result I got was:

• Can Iran 'control' its cohabiting couples? - BBC News

I don't know why Google did that, the BBC page does not even contain the word “concubinage”. I guess “concubinage” for meaning “sexual slavery” is not WP:COMMONNAME for Google servers (for which “concubinage” indeed simply means “concubinage”). --Grufo (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Impressive straw man Grufo - part of the reason for you not getting hits for "sexual slavery" in relation to "Concubinage" is because "sexual slavery" is not, in of itself, a common name for anything. Sexual slavery is barely used as a set term in academic literature, largely because it is redundant. A slave has no free will, so can be used for domestic chores, gladiatorial combat, sex, whatever - their usage is somewhat irrelevant and secondary to their status as a slave. The optional use of slaves for sex was almost universal in slave-owning society, so "sexual slavery" is a fairly redundant term. As Nishidani has pointed out, a more precise term might be "female slavery", because that appears to be the focus. (The sexual use of male slaves is not clearly in evidence.) "Sex slave" is a modern and fetishized term more than it is anything related to ancient slavery, where the term "slave" encompasses potential sexual applications. On the subject of Concubinage, you are literally the only editor here that thinks your ramblings about Roman cohabitation are the main meaning, in a modern sense, of Concubinage. That Iran article link doesn't even use the word Concubinage. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• As an allegory for the mild absurdity of the naming of this article, it's a bit like me going over to the pages on gladiators and calling it "Death slavery" or "Mortal combat slavery" - somewhat explanatory, but totally off piste relative to common names, most sourcing and the language of the times. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Calling every female slave to be either sex slave or concubine for that matter is plain insincerity. Even women used to buy female slaves in fair numbers for domestic core– they were too humiliated but until they were resold one can not label them as sex slave nor as concubine. But as I said earlier this state of being domestic slave is fluid since many of them were resold in the market if the owner did not like slave and again slave could end up in slave market. Again any male buyer could physically touch and examine their private body parts– visible sexual gratification of naked female slave was there and again physical examination of sexual organs not sex slavery? again can get sold to some rich fellow for longer term sexual relation. Too fluid the situation was.

Since sex slavery was there in other parts under other religion some how validated Islamic sanction underplaying importance consent and marriage also sounds unreasonable and insincere. The great religion could have allowed couple of more marriages with war widows with due consent.

May be self claimed great so called great sources if fail to take above simple logic into account can not be called reliable in any sense what so ever. Religions were insincere to humans, humans were insincere to religion, humans were and are insincere to humans, is my sincere opinion.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, if English had the category of “death slavery”, gladiators would definitely be categorized as such (who else!). But that is not the case. English possesses the category of “sexual slavery” though – although it did not have even that until not long ago, which explains in the first place why the word “concubine” started to be used for harems' sex slaves, as it was the closest word in the English vocabulary back then. If you went to Shakespeare and said something like “sexual slavery” he might understand all kind of weird things, from “slavery of the genders” to “slavery of your own genitalia”, to I don't know, but hardly what we mean today. If you said to him “concubine” instead, maybe he would not realize that you are talking about a sex slave, but he would get some closer picture. You may read some comments of mine from the old dispute about this, or you might check the etymology of the word “sexual”, whose modern meaning is that of “related to the sexual intercourse”, but whose original meaning was that of “related to the sex of a person, the gender, or the genitalia” – and that was the meaning of “sexual” when the West first described Islamic sex slaves. --Grufo (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• I am new here, but what about something like "History of sexual slavery in the Muslim world"? This way we can separate topics according to different periods and circumstances. Iraniangal777 (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Iraniangal777: Welcome here. The page separates quite well already; and most importantly, before proposing a renaming you should explain how the current title is problematic, as for several editors that is not the case – anything different than WP:IDONTLIKEIT will do. --Grufo (talk) 07:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 10 November 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to History of concubinage in the Muslim world – there are a few strands of consensus in the discussion that lead me to this close. First, there is a consensus to move to a "History of X in the Muslim world"-style title, which also makes the article consistent with Islamic views on slavery/History of slavery in the Muslim world. Secondly, the matter of the use of the word slavery in the title – from my analysis of the discussion, I don't see anything to suggest against the assertion that "concubinage", by itself, is the primarily used term. While I agree on a personal level that it may be euphemistic, that in itself shouldn't be a disqualifier if the use of the euphemism is widely used (q.v., famously, toilet). For these reasons, I believe the balance on which X to use is "concubinage" by itself. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Sexual slavery in Islam → Female slavery and concubinage in the Muslim world – Following extensive prior discussion on the talk page, I think the time is ripe for broaching the long overdue renaming of this page to something more precise and representative. The proposed change in the switch from "in Islam" to "in the Muslim world" has been advocated for on the basis of the fact the article is largely composed of historic examples in specific places, i.e.: within the Muslim world, whereas "in Islam" suggests some sort of purely religious discussion, which is already covered by the likes of Islamic views on slavery, Islamic views on concubinage, et cetera. The proposed shift from "sexual slavery" to "Female slavery and concubinage" follows the logic of a number of experienced Wikipedia editors, such as Bookku and Nishidani, who have noted, among other things, that: Female slavery was a a fluid concept within the historic Muslim world, so there was little distinction between female slaves in general and slaves specifically used for sexual purposes. In many sources, it is almost impossible to distinguish between statements about female slaves in general and those referring specifically to female slaves used for sex. In other sources, the term surriyya is often commonly translated as "concubine", and there are numerous sources that mainly use this term, particularly for the later history, such as regarding the harem structures of the Ottoman Empire, where concubinage took on quite a different meaning from simply "female slaves used for sex". The two terms are therefore both common names for different aspects of the topic and with subtly distinct meanings in many historical settings. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
— Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Addendum Ok, so I'm clearly terrible at articulating these things, so I'll just add an addendum framing the key points in terms of WP:TITLE, since that is ultimately the guiding criteria, i.e.: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Concision and Consistency. First, the current title is not a natural fit: Sex slavery is a highly modern term linked to modern prostitution and sex trafficking that is rarely used in sources in reference to historic practice [7]. It is also not precise, as it makes no mention of gender, as this article is entirely about female slaves, and does not use the most common form of academic terminology, which is "concubinage". Female slavery and concubinage in the Muslim world on the other hand, is recognisable on account of the "female slavery" part, which is also consistent with articles such as Female slavery in the United States, as well as natural in relation to the sources, which largely use "concubinage", which is also consistent with the likes of Concubinage in China. Both terms are required to be precise, because not all concubines were female slaves and vice versa. The title is also recognisable overall, because who could not understand, between the two terms, what the article is about? Concubinage is ultimately more precise, but female slavery is probably more recognisable for non-native English speakers, of which Wikipedia has many. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Second addendum In a further note on the subject of Consistency, I earlier failed to note the existence of History of slavery in the Muslim world as an extant article, which throws weight behind the alternative title supported by a number of editors of History of concubinage in the Muslim world, which would parallel Islamic views on concubinage in much the same way that History of slavery in the Muslim world parallels Islamic views on slavery. I would happily support either. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support. My preferred title would be either History of concubinage in the Muslim world or (History of slave concubinage in the Muslim world, as suggested by Wiqi55), but I think Iskandar323's title is better than the current one.VR _talk 11:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Concubinage" is the WP:COMMONNAME that is used by most (if not all) sources in the article, as shown here and here.VR _talk 11:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  That too. For the uninitiated here, while numerous sources clearly use the terms concubines and concubinage in reference to the general topic of female slaves, servants and sex, Grufo stoically defends the rigid ideological position that concubinage can only refer to "Concubinage (law)". Iskandar323 (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Concubinage is completely absent from the scope of the article – I wish Wikipedia had an article on actual concubinage in Islam – while what is presented is slave concubinage. Furthermore, “Muslim world” is “Islam” by definition. I do not oppose keeping the current title or renaming the article to Islamic views on sexual slavery. --Grufo (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Comment: I fear I may be going over old ground, but most of the article is history and historical examples, so how can it realistically be called "Islamic views" on anything? The title of an established article should ultimately reflect what the article consists of, not what one might like it to consist of. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  We talk about religions through their concrete manifestations (interpretations, laws and practices). As for the extensive history present, exactly the same thing happens in Christian views on slavery. The only argument in favor of Islamic views on sexual slavery would be the fact that it would be WP:CONSISTENT with the various [RELIGION] views on [WHATEVER]; but I believe that Sexual slavery in Islam is also well phrased. --Grufo (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  We have History of slavery in the Muslim world so the proposed title would be WP:CONSISTENT with that.VR _talk 12:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  I somewhat wish you hadn't shown me that: yet another article that is way too long and confusing. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  “History” emphasizes the chronological variation, while other important variations that exist in sexual slavery in Islam are geographical and theological, and there are no reasons to emphasize the chronological dimension above the other two. Btw, not everyone seems happy with the title at History of slavery in the Muslim world. --Grufo (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  What I want the article to emphasise is what actually happened, i.e. the practice of sexual slavery. Lots of societies have nice value systems in their propaganda (e.g. communist regimes) but in practice routinely commit crimes against humanity. So let us focus on the reality of ruined lives, rather than nice-sounding theological statements. A "history of" title focusses on practice.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. History of slave concubinage in the Muslim world would be a better, more exact title. Surely an article on Female slavery and concubinage in the Muslim world also include female slavery that did not involve the master having sexual relations with the slave - for example if the slave were employed as a cook or a cleaner.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Comment. Good point about “female slavery”, I hadn't thought about it. One of the consequences of using “history” in the title will be that we will have to drop all the “interpretations” – as these are only theology, not concrete history. That means that if someone practiced “A”, but a Quranic commentator said that “A” is incorrect but with little impact on the history, we will have to omit that Quranic commentator. --Grufo (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Toddy1, you're right, but that is somewhat the point. In most historical circumstances, there was little distinction between a female slave used for domestic chores and one used for sex, and a master could change the way in which they used their slaves in a fluid way. This fluidity is the point that Bookku made under the talk header: Female slavery in Muslim world", when he suggested that title. It is also a matter of sourcing. Most sources talk about female slaves or concubines, and what their masters could or could not do or did or did not do to them. The sourcing does not support statements about "sexual slaves" (13 mentions in this article), it supports statements about the treatment of female slaves (40+ mentions) and concubines (100+ mentions). "Sexual slavery" is not the terminology of this article. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  I agree that slave concubinage is probably quite a good term, but the fact is that few sources use this terminology, so sadly it would ultimately an exercise in WP:SYNTH to try to construct or reconstitute an article along the lines of that terminology. We should use the terminology of the sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  I've suggested "female slavery AND concubinage" principally because there are two warring camps in this subject area: those that think concubinage or something related to concubinage is the only appropriate terminology, and others who think this is hopeless WP:EUPHEMISM for slavery when you could just say slavery. I've proposed a halfway house both because that seems like the option most likely to generate consensus, and because the sources also use both. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Although any female slave could be used for sex, the Arabic word used, surriyya, does not translate as “any slave who happens to be a woman”, but translates as “a female slave whom one takes as a possession and for concubitus” (i.e., a sex slave) (@Wiqi55: this is definitely your territory). Furthermore, as long as what we use is backed by sources, we can choose in total freedom and we should not count what is used more often (it is ultimately an editorial choice). As I have said a zillion times, “sexual slavery” is broader, less specialized and more WP:COMMONNAME than “concubinage” (not just the odd “concubinage with slaves”, but “concubinage” in all its meanings). --Grufo (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  What is the difference between a concubine and a sex slave? M.Bitton (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  A sex slave is a sex slave in every context, a concubine is a sex slave only in Islam. --Grufo (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly, which makes the use of the term "concubinage" all the more relevant. M.Bitton (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  I don't follow. It makes the use of the term “concubinage” more specialized, not relevant. When we can avoid specialized terms that require context in favor of non-specialized terms that don't require context we should choose the latter. --Grufo (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  The context here is the Islam and your answer to my question proves that concubinage is what should be used. M.Bitton (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  You have strange ways of proving things. The context is Islam, but the knowledge that “concubinage” expresses a peculiar meaning in that context would become specialized knowledge that Wikipedia would require from its readers. You might want to have a look at WP:PAGEDECIDE and optionally read WP:SCOPE. --Grufo (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  I asked you a question and your answer says exactly what the subject is all about. There is nothing specialized about the term concubinage and this is not some children's encyclopedia where basic terms need to be avoided. M.Bitton (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  There is nothing specialized about the term concubinage A term that appears with a particular meaning only in one single context is among the most specialized things we can think of. --Grufo (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Utter nonsense! If the term is good enough for other encyclopedias, then it's certainly is good enough for Wikipedia. M.Bitton (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  The term is definitely good for Wikipedia too. However it is not to be preferred for a page title, as there are better (less specialized) options. --Grufo (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Says who? M.Bitton (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  WP:CRITERIA, WP:PRECISION, WP:PAGEDECIDE. --Grufo (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Again, utter nonsense! WP:CRITERIA, WP:PRECISION apply to the term "concubinage". M.Bitton (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  My words will not become “utter nonsense” simply by you repeating it. This from WP:CRITERIA works with “sexual slavery” but does not work with “concubinage”:

  “Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.”

  (Translation: If a reader is curious about sexual slavery in Islam it is very unlikely that they will search for concubinage in Islam)

  This is instead show how we should ignore the “popularity” of a term among reliable sources:

  “Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names.”

  I could go on with quoting the guidelines, but I will stop here. It is your turn now to quote the guidelines to support the proposal of using “concubinage” for meaning “sexual slavery”. --Grufo (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  works with “sexual slavery” but does not work with “concubinage” That's a baseless assertion that will remain so until it' substantiated using RS. Until then, I'd say that what you quoted applies to concubinage and is what is practised by every tertiary source out there (see the examples given in the above discussion by Vice regent). M.Bitton (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Now I can say “utter nonsense”! Look at all the disputes about the name of this page and count all the editors who actually did not know that Islamic “concubines” needed to be sex slaves. Now try to compare that to how many editors would not know that sex slaves needed to be… sex slaves. And we are talking about editors… imagine the readers! Na na, I can definitely say: “utter nonsense”! But if you really think that “concubinage” for meaning “sexual slavery” is an expression of naturalness, well… we can happily stop here. --Grufo (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Your reply is pure baseless WP:OR, therefore, what I said above stands. M.Bitton (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Ok, if we're talking reliable sources, "Natural disambiguation" definitely supports concubinage - if one of the terms were to be considered more obscure or made up in the context, it would be 'sexual slavery", which simply isn't a term that anyone routinely uses to refer to anything medieval. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  “Natural disambiguation” defines three categories: 1) alternative name used in few sources, 2) preferred-but-ambiguous name used in many sources, 3) made-up name never used in sources. Out of the three it invites to use the first one. --Grufo (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  WP:Criteria says:

  Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject.

  which in this case would have to be concubinage. M.Bitton (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  All the options we are discussing here are backed by reliable sources. What we choose though does not depend on its popularity. --Grufo (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Your previous cherry picked nonsense has been duly noted and ignored as such. M.Bitton (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Please mind WP:CIVIL. --Grufo (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Plenty of other cultures have practiced concubinage with slaves. For example, Abraham's concubine Hagar was a slave. See also Concubinage#Concubinage and slavery.VR _talk 14:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Sure, but in all of them but Islam a concubine could also be a free woman, which means that everywhere but in Islam “concubine” cannot be considered a synonym of “sex slave”. --Grufo (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Best stay away from tales of Ahraham as a frame of reference - didn't he also live to the age of 200 years? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I would support History of concubinage in the Muslim world as "concubinage" is what is used by the scholarly sources. M.Bitton (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  So I agree that concubinage is broadly speaking more precise, but I also appreciate that a case can be made that A) the term concubine could be interpreted as a little bit of a WP:EUPHEMISM, particularly given the slightly gentrified modern usage of concubine to mean free-spirited courtesan or mistress, and that B) Islamic concubinage was a product of but not always identical to other forms of female slavery at any given time. Think Ottoman Harem versus slave prostitutes. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Not only is concubinage more precise, it is exactly what is used in other tertiary sources. What those who have an axe to grind could interpret it as is irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  While I hear you, I would suggest that it's not quite so simple here, as while concubinage was the preferred academic terminology certainly right up until the end of the 20th century, a growing number of scholars in the 21st century abandon it in favour of the terminology of slavery, particularly those engaged involved in the study of Islam and gender, such as writers like Myrne Pernilla and Kecia Ali - female voices on the topic that ought to be heard. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  The tertiary sources haven't abandoned it. Concubinage in Islam has a specific meaning that hasn't changed, and while the fringe theories can be cited as examples (some concubines became queens), they in themselves do not represent primary topic or how it's covered in the overwhelming majority of RS. M.Bitton (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Iskandar323: the term concubine appears 25 times in Pernilla Myrne's work (including 15 instances of "slave concubine"), and concubine appears 181 times in Kecia Ali's Marriage and slavery in early Islam.VR _talk 16:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Oh ... have they been grossly mis-paraphrased in the article then, or do they use the terms interchangeably? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  If enough people swing behind History of concubinage in the Muslim world, I can totally roll with that. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Toddy1 How would you be with History of concubinage in the Muslim world, minus the "slave" - I personally see slave concubine as a bit tautologous given that slavery as a concept is largely (though not entirely) self-contained in the Islamic concubinage concept. I've also realised that there is a rather better term to be found for any "free concubines" in the term "courtesan", as per this source:[8] Iskandar323 (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  In 20th Century English, a "courtesan" is a woman who sells her favours, i.e. a paid girlfriend, who may have more than one man who is paying her. It can be used to describe a girlfriend/mistress who is financially supported by her man. It is also used as a euphemism for a prostitute.-- Toddy1 (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  The book Concubines and Courtesans: Women and Slavery in Islamic History by Matthew S. Gordon and Kathryn A. Hain is probably using the word "courtesan" in an older sense - a woman of the court, to mean female entertainers (though I have not read the book).-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I presumed so, as I also have not read the book. It was just the first book I had seen that used both of those terms in the title. I assume that it is probably referring to Qiyan, female slaves that were artistically trained as entertainers. In hindsight I realise that the distinction here is probably not between free and not free, but between female slaves used for sex and entertainment. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  You guys really like re-inventing meanings. A courtesan is a woman of a royal or noble court, or a lover of a noble man. As of course this cannot apply straightly to the book's context, it is used there for an exceptionally high status sex slave, almost half unfree, half free. From the book review that Kecia Ali made (p. 255, emphasis mine):

  Some, as I have tended to do in the past, use “slaves” and others, as I try to do now, make a point of using “enslaved person.” The latter phrase highlights that enslavement is not a natural state but something that is actively done to one human being by another, who is not simply a “master” or “mistress” but a “slaveowner.” English terms such as concubine and courtesan (or borrowed terms such as geisha) connote varying levels of status and agency; Nielson argues that “the ambiguity” attending prestigious, highly trained qiyān carved out “a liminal social and legal space between free and unfree” which makes courtesan a more accurate term than ones conveying “concubinage or servitude alone”. Reynolds, while noting “myriad” divergences, suggests that “the geisha of Japan are perhaps the most comparable form of socially institutionalized female companionship and entertainment for male patrons”.

  --Grufo (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe we're not guys, but anyway, seems like that quote confirms what we were saying. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Arguing, arguing, arguing… Pronouncing a “thank you” from time to time will not kill you. If I hadn't read this sentence of yours I wouldn't have bothered intervening: In hindsight I realise that the distinction here is probably not between free and not free, but between female slaves used for sex and entertainment. --Grufo (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Vice regent: How on earth did you do that search? - I can't even find searchable google books for these. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Vice regent: I get only 28 occurrences of “concubine” in Kecia Ali (and they are most of the time mixed with “sex”, “sexual”, etc.). --Grufo (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Grufo: When I click that link I see "Showing 48 results in this book for concubine," so it is not consistent. But that only counts the number of pages that reference the term, whereas I looked at every single usage of the term (a single page can have more than one usage of the term). I also included search results for "concubines" and "concubinage" into "concubine" - sorry for the lack of clarity.VR _talk 17:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  I mean, whatever way you look at it, the book uses the term A LOT. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Iskandar323: You should look at the last number I posted, in which “sexual slavery” [bugfix] wins over looks better than before compared to “concubinage”. But this is anyway the wrong way to look at the problem. Even if one of the two were way way less represented than it is, we would still make our own independent editorial choice based on several factors, including clarity and ambiguity. --Grufo (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Your last numbers were wrong and after you corrected them, you have a result that says the exact opposite. The editorial judgement should be based on tertiary sources (those that establish DUE). M.Bitton (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Google scholar results for usage of "concubine" vs "sexual slavery" were provided by Toddy1(table1,table2,table4) and Grufo(table3). Every table shows "concubine" being most commonly used by reliable sources. VR _talk 20:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support the move, though History of concubinage in the Muslim world is probably preferable. We could also go for "Islamicate world" too as recent sources have moved towards using that term, but "Muslim world" is perhaps more clear and used in many sources. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• A suitable title would be Sexual slavery in the Islamic world or alternatively Sexual slavery in the Muslim world. Mcphurphy (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• The change from "in Islam" to "in the Muslim world" seems like a change of scope. What is the justification? Srnec (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Srnec: Indeed. --Grufo (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Srnec: this is for WP:CONSISTENCY; for example slavery is divided into Islamic views on slavery (theology and law) and History of slavery in the Muslim world (actual historic practice). We already have Islamic views on concubinage so the counterpart would be History of concubinage in the Muslim world. The reasons for the split in both cases (slavery and concubinage) are WP:SIZESPLIT (because the material is too big) and because what Islam preached and what Muslims practiced are often quite different.VR _talk 13:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  When you split on the basis of WP:SIZESPLIT you split different topics. This page and your POVFORK talk about the same thing, which is why the editor who closed the renaming dispute at your POV-fork (Spekkios) said the exact opposite of what you are saying: “There does appear to be some basis for a discussion on merging articles”. --Grufo (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Well, fine. History of (slave-)concubinage in the Muslim world is fine by me. There are limits to how long discussions can drag on.Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Original comment copied here based on this message by @Nishidani:.VR _talk 14:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a good topic with many relevant references. It should be a non-POV overview of the several ways that sexual slavery exists and has existed in an Islamic setting. There is room for several other articles on more specific topics, such as what constitutes concubinage and whether or not it constitutes or overlaps slavery... and even more sensitive topics. This will always be a struggle, and offensive to some, but Wikipedia is not censored and so eliminating the topic from Wikipedia is not justified. Andrewa (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Andrewa: Hi, I'd just like to point out that no one is trying to substantially alter the scope of this topic, but instead, better align the current title of the article with the terminology used in the reliable sources that it references - there are many discussions about this on the talk page, both above and below this move request, that seek to address this. Sexual slavery is a modern term that is only used widely in connection with articles about Isis specifically, and this usage is already covered extensively in more specific articles such as Sexual violence in the Iraqi insurgency, Genocide of Yazidis by the Islamic State and Slavery in 21st-century jihadism. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  That is not the way it appears to me. If sources say that sexual slavery has not occurred in Islam up until recently, then the article should say that. But they don't. There is a lot going on... the practices that would today be regarded as sexual slavery were once common to most if not all societies. But the particular interest in and notability of sexual slavery in Islam is that there is still significant practice of it in modern times, and worse, that this is claimed to be part of the tradition and even essence of Islam by those who continue the practice. Again, if this is rejected by most Islamic authorities today (as I think is the case and that sources do indicate), then the article should say that. Andrewa (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  Depending on the exact definition of "sexual slavery", it can cover the topic of this article (which most RS call "concubinage", see this), along with forced marriage ([9][10]), child marriage ([11]), bacha bazi ([12]), forced prostitution etc. WP:Precise requires we use the most specific term for article title, not an umbrella term.VR _talk 14:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  We do not go by any person's exact definition but by the common meaning of the term, and yes it does include most if not all of those other more specific topics. Concubinage may be a synonym for sexual slavery in some contexts, and yes it has been strongly argued that this is one such context, but whether or not that is the case (I am still a bit sceptical) it is not recognisable as that by many English readers. Andrewa (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'd just like to point out that no one is trying to substantially alter the scope of this topic: Leaving intentions aside, the proposed renaming will substantially change the scope of the article. All religious views on sexual slavery will become out of scope. --Grufo (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  This table shows that the sources used in this article prefer the term "concubinage" over "sexual slavery".VR _talk 14:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  And here we go again repeating ourselves… We don't choose a title based on its popularity. WP:QUALIFIER defines three categories: 1) alternative name used in few sources, 2) preferred-but-ambiguous name used in many sources, 3) made-up name never used in sources. Out of the three it invites to use the first one.

  “Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names.”

  The usage of “concubinage” and “sexual slavery” in the sources amounts to the same order of magnitude, and probably some corrections will be necessary too, as sources that use slavery-related titles might still use “concubine” in the body and be counted for both, although they would need to be counted only for “sexual slavery” – as “concubine” would not constitute WP:QUALIFIER. I believe will not be necessary to explain in this comment also why using “sexual slavery” is less ambiguous than using “concubinage” for meaning “sexual slavery”. --Grufo (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Andrewa: Can I ask two clarifying questions please:

  Do you object to the article title starting "History of..."?

  Do you object to the article title saying "in the Muslim world" instead of "in Islam"?

  -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  I oppose both.

  I can understand sexual slavery, and particularly the current practice of it, being an uncomfortable topic for Muslims, but it is one of great interest to many. We should not descope the article to restrict it to historical practice.

  And I see no advantage in talking of the Muslim world here rather than Islam. In practice those two titles have much the same scope, but with different emphasis. That proposed change would shift the emphasis to the practice. The current title puts the emphasis on the basis or claimed basis for the practice. Both are relevant, each to the other. We could even perhaps justify two articles, but I doubt a split is necessary. So I would stick with the more concise title, which may even have a slightly wider scope. Andrewa (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  The reason for "Muslim world" is to include concubinage practices that occurred in the Muslim world, but had no roots in Islam. (This book covers several such examples) It also due to WP:CONSISTENCY with History of slavery in the Muslim world, Timeline of science and engineering in the Muslim world, Female labor force in the Muslim world, Science in the medieval Islamic world, Medicine in the medieval Islamic world etc. Note how we have "Medicine in the medieval Islamic world" as opposed to just "Medicine in the Islamic world", even though there's still medicine in the Islamic world today. This is because medieval Islamic medicine is unique enough to be a topic. Likewise historical concubinage is a unique topic that has been covered by many RS[13][14][15] (and many more).VR _talk 23:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  The reason for "Muslim world" is to include concubinage practices that occurred in the Muslim world, but had no roots in Islam. So, as I thought, you are proposing a change of scope, not a renaming. A renaming is done to better reflect the scope, not to change a scope without a consensus. It is actually a big change of scope what you are requesting – basically another article. You and Iskandar323 should definitely find an agreement. --Grufo (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  What VR refers to is the fact that many of these current "in Islam" example practices were a complex product of both religious precedent and other social and cultural pressures within muslim civilizations. Take for example Ottoman practice, where a concubine could become a wife, when theologically it is quite clearly outlined that a concubine could not juts "become a wife". And then of course we have the Sunni-Shia schism and all manner of other denominational splits and cult formations - meaning that in any one time and place, what one person may claim is Islamic practice might be another's heresy. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Andrewa: If you look at the article, you will find that it already emphasizes practice. Part of the reason for the change is that "in Islam" somewhat implies a theological approach, whereas this article is largely a compilation of historical and geographical examples of practice. In any case, the split you mention has already occurred. Islamic views on concubinage is its own article now (discussing the "claimed basis for the practice"), and Islamic views on slavery has existed as an article for an age. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• oppose the wording in Muslim world, support a title with wording in Islam. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  We should keep the article where it is. That is my opinion. The scond preference is to "Sexul slavery and concubinage in the Islam". What I am going to say next is original researchc, but it is true: followers of Islam interpret the Kuran, sharia, and religion differently. A few followers believe that unless the slave shows signs of manhood, till then he is not a male (beard and other signs). Under such cirumstances, the slave owners are permitted to have sex with the slave, as they are not having sex with a male technically. That is one interpretation. Like I said, this is OR, but true. Even though the article doesn't include the male slaves, I believe we should keep it gender neutral, and we should not limit it to "female slavery". —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  Do you have any particular reason for expressing that opinion? In my personal experience, there is a very important distinction between the teachings of a religion and the societies in which those who profess to follow that religion are living. The article appears to have a scope that includes a description of some practices that are not directly a part of the religion itself and would even be considered contrary to the religion by most of its modern adherents. I therefore support replacing "in Islam" with something different, at least unless the scope of the article is very strongly restricted to the teachings of the religion itself. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  The scope is restricted to the teachings of religion. What a religion teaches however is subject to interpretation, and this will lead to contrasting examples. But the article does not talk about examples of sexual slavery that are unequivocally alien to the religion but still happen “in the Muslim world” – or otherwise the article would also talk about prostitution, child pornography, etc. (as these happen in the Muslim world – like everywhere else – but in spite of the religion). Thus the article's scope is not “the Muslim world”, but “Islam”. I would further argue that associating a religion (“Muslim world”) with something unrelated to a religion (e.g., “child pornography”) is questionable in general, and we would usually prefer more neutral geographical names in these cases. --Grufo (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  What is "alien to the religion" is a controversial and a POV judgement. For example, the article includes ISIS though it has been condemned by most Muslims. Grufo similarly supported inclusion of bacha bazi (which involves men having sex with other men) even though most Islamic scholars have disapproved of homosexuality. Saying this is Islamic in wikipedia's voice violates WP:NPOV.VR _talk 00:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I do think that when something is justified using religion it must be presented as such, and this probably includes bacha bazi, although it constitutes a minority in that religion, more or less like we present the Mormons' opinions in Christian views on slavery, as I said in this comment (anchor). However the current article does not mention bacha bazi, so it makes no sense to even talk about bacha bazi in a discussion that is about what title best reflects the current scope (and we would probably need to discuss before inserting bacha bazi in the article). The latter does mention ISIS and Boko Haram, however the fact that the latter are not Islamic extremist organizations, but only extremist organizations would require a debate on its own – most of the Islamdom does not consider them as an expression of Islam, but a minority does (see Collaboration with the Islamic State § Groups expressing support for ISIL). Whatever the answer to the latter question is, it does not influence the scope of this page, but only the inclusion/exclusion of ISIS and Boko Haram from it. --Grufo (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  This has been gone over a thousand times Grufo - as BarrelProof notes, there is an obvious distinction between what a religion teaches and what a society does. The burden of proof of a practice being "unequivocally alien" is not a bar that you get to set by yourself, but in any case, the article DOES includs examples of practices that were "unequivocally alien" to Islamic teaching, such as the enslavement on Circassians after the 17th century, when most of them had converted to Islam. The enslavement of fellow Muslims was unambiguously against Islamic teachings, but Ottoman society overlooked it. That's not currently written anywhere on this page, because details like this are a bit too encyclopedic and informative and don't really fit with the selective, saucy gossip column contents that the page currently contains. However, there is the whole section on "Sexual enslavement of Muslim women by Muslim men" that rather well illustrates the same point. All of this is content that would be fine in an article titled "in the Muslim world", but represents an odd disconnect between content and titling in an article labelled "in Islam". Iskandar323 (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Expecting reasonable effort towards at least reasonable participation of Women users in women related discussions and not to hurry up discussion closures til then.

• • Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
  • Demand women's participation in decision-making at all levels
  • Equality of women and men under the law; protection of women and girls through the rule of law
  • Recognition of the fact that distinct experiences and burdens of women and girls come from systemic discrimination
  • Ensure that women's experiences, needs and perspectives are incorporated into the ... social decisions.

Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is about terminology and sourcing, and this articles cites numerous eminent academics and scholars who are women, many of them specialised in gender studies or even more specifically gender studies with respect to Islam. A discussion of the sources is inclusive of these voices. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support: I think the discussions at the Google scholar results section is itself explaining why the current title, containing "sexual slavery", is not suitable and a move should occur. The statistics show "concubine" is used far more than "sexual slavery" by the reliable sources. Also, I have previously explained my thoughts here and here. Among the numerous sources supporting the move, I would give more weights to sources like highly credible Encyclopaedia of the Quran and Encyclopaedia of Islam both by BRILL and The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Women. Finally, I think History of concubinage in the Muslim world is a good suggestion, given the exchanged comments in this discussion. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • That discussion did not establish that concubinage and sexual slavery are synonyms, and they clearly are not. And even if they were, there would still be the question of recognisability. Andrewa (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

    You will not find them used in a manner like synonyms, because the two terms are not used interchangeably in the same works. You have books talking about "concubinage" and the use of "female slaves", which included as dancers and entertainers, but not solely as "sex slaves", because that wasn't really a concept. "Sexual slavery" itself is a very distinct post-1970s to 21st-century term, that is applies largely to events moving forward (for example, Isis-related sexual violence) in a world after abolition and slavery conventions. However, if you look back at, for example, Ottoman history, the use of female slaves, for among other things, sex, was embedded in a global landscape of slavery. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

    • Btw, Iskandar323, Concubines and Courtesans refers to qiyan as "musical concubines".VR _talk 04:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

      Yes, they seem to fit into a sort of societal niche not unlike Geisha - it's interesting. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

      • @Andrewa: Who said they are synonyms? --Mhhossein ^talk 08:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Could you please explain how they are not? How does a sex slave in Islam differ from a concubine in Islam? What are the two different Arabic terms used? --Grufo (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Well [16]. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You cite a comment of yours (anchor) in which you use Kecia Ali's book in support of the fact that according to you “concubinage” means “intercept of marriage and slavery” while “sexual slavery” means “type of slavery is meant for sex”. Does Kecia Ali make this distinction? No. In Kecia Ali's book a concubine is a slave for sex; not even a particular type, as Kecia Ali makes it clear that every unmarried female slave is at the owner's disposal as a concubine (p. 177). Please show how sources make a distinction between “slaves for sex” and “concubines”. --Grufo (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The entire article about "qiyan", which were a class of female slaves trained in the performing arts, shows that. These "musical concubines" or "courtesans" were not always restricted to harems, sometimes participated in public performances, and the emphasis was clearly on their artistic talents, not sexual activity. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that the English word “concubine” is used for translating “qiyan” while “slave for sex” is used for translating “surriyya”? You know it is not like that. A qiyan is not a concubine, but a female slave trained to entertain, and is usually left untranslated in English. Once again, please show how sources make a distinction between “slaves for sex” and “concubines”. --Grufo (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with Andrewa. The topic is a good one and there are many references available. The topic can be expanded to other articles if there is need for that, but Wikipedia is not censored and no grounded justification has been provided to change the name of the article. Iraniangal777 (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I also believe that the proposed titles are more accurate than the current one. Besides "concubinage" is more commonly used in sources. Ghazaalch (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  Hi @Ghazaalch: Thanks for your interest in this discussion. Please could you clarify if your support is for: Female slavery and concubinage in the Muslim world, the alternative suggestion: History of concubinage in the Muslim world, or either. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hello Iskandar323; The History of concubinage in the Muslim world is a better suggestion. Ghazaalch (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose the proposed article title adds length and is less clear. The current article has a clear scope and is a notable topic, so it should be kept as is. A separate article on concubinage can be created if desired. I agree with Andrewa's comments above. (t · c) buidhe 08:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  Can you explain how, in an Islamic context, an article on sexual slavery would differ from an article on concubinage? Because if you can't, then you're proposing the creation of a WP:Content fork.VR _talk 08:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Vice regent: I believe you should first justify the WP:POVFORK that your have created after failing to rename this page to “Concubinage in Islam” one year ago before telling other editors to do the same. --Grufo (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  My understanding is as follows:
  VR believes that historically in mainstream Islam sex between slave owners and their slaves has been concubinage. i.e. If a slave-owner had a slave for sexual purposes, that slave was a concubine. Having said that, historically there have been some Muslim states where in some cases women freely entered into a state of concubinage – such women were only nominally slaves.
  From VR's point of view, the article on Islamic views on concubinage deals with the religious laws and their basis.
  But some editors see a continuity between the behaviour of modern (non-mainstream) terrorist groups who claim to be Islamic and the behaviour of Muslim societies in the past and those editors wish this article (Sexual slavery in Islam) to cover both the behaviour of mainstream Muslim slave-owning societies in the past and non-mainstream slave-owning terrorist groups in the present.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  I think that pretty much sums it up. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Toddy1: There is a continuity (in the practice, the justification, in the fact that relics of the institution were still alive in the 20th century – and beware, I said relics, not revivals) – although I agree that today it comes only from extremely traditionalist fragments of the Islamdom. As for other points, see this answer of mine (permalink) to Iskandar323. --Grufo (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  It's not a fork of any kind - the article Islamic views on concubinage is about the theological approach; this article is about historical examples: just like History of Slavery in the Muslim World is the counterpart of Islamic views on slavery. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Iskandar323: This article (Sexual slavery in Islam) is about the theological approach, with historical examples in support. Being only about historical examples is what you would like to make it become via renaming. But your proposed change of scope still does not explain the apologetical removal of “sexual slavery” from the title, which is the elephant in the room of this discussion. Furthermore, Vice regent's POVFORK is not about concubinage, but about concubinage with slaves, and it does not even mention one single word about concubinage between free people, not even for saying that it is forbidden and constitutes zina. --Grufo (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  This article is not about theology, it is about history. About 80% of the text is about historical practices and attitudes. There is no section here on the Quran, unlike Islamic views on concubinage#Qur'an. How do you talk about theology without Quran? One of the sources cited says historic Muslim concubinage was not rooted in the Quran. There are many other sources that discuss the divergence between Islamic theology and Muslim practices on concubinage ([17][18][19][20][21][22]). But historic Muslim concubinage practices - no matter how un-Islamic - have received significant coverage in RS. Eg an entire chapter is given to a concubinage practice that was condemned by theologians.VR _talk 19:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  You cannot measure how much space is given to history for judging the legitimacy of a scope, or I would ask you why Concubinage is not called History of concubinage. This page spends plenty of words about theology, the Quran is mentioned plenty of times even if there is no paragraph called “Quran”, and if we feel that the page grows too big we can always split the history to another page called History of sexual slavery in Islam, as we always do – and I would add that your WP:POVFORK should be probably merged to this page before we decide anything in that direction. Split or not, the fact that the topic “Sexual slavery in Islam” is more than worthy of an article has been stressed out many times by multiple editors. --Grufo (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• There are many precedents for separating legal and historic matters into different articles: History of prostitution and Prostitution law; Slavery in Britain and Slavery at common law; History of alcoholic drinks and Alcohol law; Marriage in Islam and Islamic marital jurisprudence.VR _talk 19:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support There is the [[[Islamic views on concubinage]] article. This article here focuses more on the concubinage in the Muslim world, including a much larger section in the history (so not really "Islam" since the behavior of empires/dynasties in Islamic history don't necessarily represent what Islam actually teaches), even if it gives an intro to Islamic legal rulings. The term "concubinage" is also more commonly used in sources. (Google scholar shows double the results when using "concubine" instead "sexual slavery"). WatABR (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@WatABR: Thanks, do you think you will be also OK with History of concubinage in the Muslim world as supported by some users here?--Mhhossein ^talk 07:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. WatABR (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• History of slave-concubinage in Islam. Avoids WP:EUPHEMISM problems, while also ensuring the the content meets WP:Recognizability. "Islam" rather than "Muslim world" as "Muslim world" is too broad in scope with the article not discussing practices in the Muslim countries of South-East Asia, which tended to differ from what is discussed here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal: I don't see how, from the particular perspective you have mentioned, Muslim world is a broader scope than Islam - surely Islam could also cover Muslim countries in South-East Asia too. The meanings are indistinguishable in that sense. You incidentally touch upon other discussions that have been had on whether the subject is altogether generally too broad in a geographical sense and might be better focused on tighter geographical regions, such as "Middle East", or discrete political entities, such as "Ottoman Empire", "Mughal Empire", etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  As I see it, something can be a component of a religion, but not practiced across the entire "world" of that religion. In Islam, the obvious modern day example would be Sharia, with it being a part of the religion but not being practiced across the entire "Muslim world", and I believe this separation also applies to this concept, with it being part of Islam (I note this is disputed, but there does seem to be a scholarly consensus on the matter), but never practiced across the entire "Muslim world".

I would agree with splitting the topic into regions, as it is too broad and the practices too different to cover the entire topic in a single coherent article. Working out where to make the splits, however, could be difficult. BilledMammal (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

What you're proposing is to restrict the scope to the religion of Islam; the current scope of the article clearly goes beyond that and includes examples from across the Muslim world. Furthermore, where is the scholarly consensus that sexual slavery (which includes forced prostitution, includes child porn, includes men sexually enslaving men) is a part of Islam? Your assertion seems rather POV (likewise the current title is a WP:POVTITLE). What sources do say is that pre-modern Islam allowed the practice of concubinage with female slaves subject to certain conditions and "concubinage" is the overwhelming majority name of that practice according to RS (this and this). Sources point out that most concubines in history across various cultures (not just Islamic ones) were slaves[23]. Sources that cover concubinage broadly (across history and anthropology) also refer to the Islamic practice as "concubinage"[[24] as does The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology[25]. There is no "euphemism" here unless you say that most scholars across multiple disciplines (history, anthropology, women's studies, Islamic studies etc) are all somehow wrong.VR _talk 23:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I would disagree that the current scope of the article goes beyond that, because the examples as I understand them are within the scope of the Islamic practice.

I would note that my preferred term, and the term under discussion in this conversation, is "slave-concubinage", not "sexual slavery", but I will mention that I don't understand the purpose of your examples, as they are examples of sexual slavery, not requirements for something to be classified as sexual slavery. I would also note that your examples support my proposed title; many of the quotes you provide describe concubines as slaves, as do the sources themselves for many of the others such as "Concubines and Courtesans: Women and Slavery in Islamic History" which describes "concubinage" as "sexual relations with slave women" and states that "Concubines in Islamic society, with few exceptions, were slaves".

Finally, it is a euphemism because the modern definition of concubine does not include slavery, and so the average reader will not recognize from the title that this article is discussing slavery. BilledMammal (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:RECOGNIZABILITY is based on RS usage, not personal opinion. I have shown again and again that English-language RS describe this as concubinage. All these sources were published in the last 20 years, so they are modern enough. The book you mentioned "Concubines and Courtesans" was published in 2017. I don't think there are any definitions of concubinage that preclude slavery. I looked up the term "concubinage" or "concubine" in several general encyclopedias (anthropology, women's studies, social history etc) and most of them explicitly state that a concubine was often a slave:

• "The concubine ...is often a slave or a freedwoman" Women's Studies Encyclopedia
• "a concubine was part of a formal system that, depending on the historical and geographical context, resembled either marriage or slavery." The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology. The source goes onto give examples of Ottoman and other Islamic societies as places where concubinage was practiced.
• "Not all concubines were slaves, but most were." [Note this is talking about general, worldwide context] Historical Dictionary of Slavery and Abolition
• "Voluntary concubinage should be distinguished from involuntary concubinage. In the latter the woman is sold, usually by her family. As a concubine she is rarely a slave, at least legally...yet in practice, the life of an involuntary concubine may look very much like a slave." The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History
• "Concubinage was one of the social features of slavery which existed concurrently with the institution of marriage in both Muslim and non-Muslim societies in Africa and the Middle East." Encyclopedia of Social History
• "A concubine is a term used to described a free or enslaved woman who was kept as a partner..." Enslaved Women in America: An Encyclopedia

I have also listed 22 sources that use the word "concubinage" to describe the Islamic practice in question table of 22 sources. Also the term "sexual slavery" fails WP:PRECISE; "sexual slavery in Islam" could be referring to Islam's relationship with child porn, forced marriage, or men sexually enslaving men - but this article is talking about none of those things.VR _talk 03:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Dictionaries from Merriam Webster, Cambridge, and Collins do not mention slavery in their definition of "concubine", and as such, to refer back to WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, the average reader will not understand from your proposed title that this article is discussing slavery. I would also disagree that a title including "sexual slavery" would fail WP:PRECISE, as the forms you have provided by way of example are examples, and not requirements. Indeed, by your logic every article we currently have at "Slavery in ..." would fail WP:PRECISE, as none of them include every possible form of slavery.

I also note that you aren't arguing against the title I proposed, which is "History of slave-concubinage in Islam", and does not include the term "sexual slavery". As such, can we return to discussing the actual proposal, rather than one you seem to believe that I am making? BilledMammal (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a lost battle, BilledMammal. You can have a look at how Vice regent bombed the Concubinage article pushing slavery-related content for understanding that they have a problem accepting the meaning of an English word – see also Talk:Concubinage and User Talk:Andrewa § Separate section.

Addition concerning this: “they are examples of sexual slavery, not requirements for something to be classified as sexual slavery” This is also a classic for Vice regent. Repeating the same arguments separately with different editors, despite each single editor shows the fallacy of the argument. I had literally told them that they “should stop defining sexual slavery on the basis of what it can include” (diff, anchor), but obviously I am not you, so Vice regent can repropose the same fallacy to you, who are a “fresher” here. --Grufo (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

If the article Slavery in Spain only included certain types of slavery in Spain, but excluded other types of slavery known to have occurred in Spain, then that title would indeed fail WP:PRECISE (eg if it only included Christian slavery in Spain, but sought to exclude Muslim slavery or Roman slavery).

None of those definitions say that concubines can't be slaves. I think what you mean to say is that all aspects of the subject must be reflected in the title, which is unreasonable. Many features of a subject won't be in the title, but the body of the article. In fact, the term "sexual slavery" doesn't reveal that this article is only talking about male-female relationships.

And maybe I'm confused, but I thought you said you were ok with "sexual slavery" - if you're not, please clarify. I was the first person in this RM to suggest "History of slave-concubinage in the Muslim world", but good luck convincing others.VR _talk 04:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

In such a case you might have a point, but this article isn't such a case, as the scope is defined as "in Islam", and the examples you have raised are not part of Islam. However, you do make a good argument against changing from "in Islam" to "in the Muslim world", as the latter could be interpreted as a geographical region which would make the title imprecise.

As for the definitions, while they don't say that concubines can't be slaves, they do say that the current definition doesn't include slavery, and that is why we need additional context.

As for the article title, I do support those titles over the ones that omit mention of slavery, for the reasons mentioned in this discussion, but that is a discussion that we should be having where I mentioned that, not here. However, on the topic, I will note that I've struck my support for #7 and #8; the fact that they could be talking about geographical regions makes them insufficiently precise. BilledMammal (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Re this comment: "At "Shooting of Oscar Grant", [a reader] will correctly expect to find a shooting. At "History of concubinage in the Muslim world" they will expect, based on modern definitions of concubinage (...), to find an article about the practice of keeping mistresses in the Muslim world, when in fact they will find an article about slavery." Again, you're implying that concubinage and slavery are mutually exclusive in this context, whereas they are not. Just as "Shooting of Oscar Grant" and "Killing of Oscar Grant" refer to the same event (even though "shooting" and "killing" are not synonyms), likewise the practice of keeping a concubine in the Muslim world was (mostly) the same as a man having sex with his female slave. Because sometimes concubines were not slaves, the term "concubinage" is preferable to "slave concubinage", but I'm OK with both.

You haven't yet explained why your interpretation of WP:RECOGNIZABILITY clashes with most RS on the topic. If "sexual slavery" is such a recognizable name for this topic, how come most RS don't use it? If "concubinage" is such a poorly recognizable name, why is it so widely used by RS? (Table of RS preferred names)VR _talk 12:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Note concerning Concubines and Courtesans (book):

• As the name suggests (“Slaves in Name Only”) the concubines in the Timurid dynasty were still sex slaves. The only difference is that they were free women who decided to accept to turn themselves into sex slaves – a very exceptional case in the Muslim world
• What happens in the Muslim world does not necessarily influence what happens in Islam. The fact that Islam forbids the enslavement of Muslim women still remains, and the Timurid case would be forbidden in Islam (but not in the Muslim world) – but this article is about Islam.

Therefore, like for the other fallacy concerning what sexual slavery is supposed to include and citing the lack of child porn for it, please do not keep repeating this fallacy too. It should end now, as it concerns something that is inherently out of scope (Muslim world ≠ Islam). --Grufo (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The article as it stands definitively strays outside of practices that are permissible from an Islamic perspective, and which are only connected to Islam by virtue of a broadly Islamic society or self-proclaimed Islamic group. Good examples of this scope beyond Islam include references to Muslim women being enslaved as concubines, which is clearly un-Islamic. There is also the somewhat tendentious material about Islamic extremist groups, which have been roundly condemned by groups such as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, which is the closest thing to a collective voice of the Muslim community. It is a considerable stretch to maintain the inclusion of groups that are considered in violation of Islamic law, if not heretical, by the mainstream religious community under the umbrella of Islam. It is akin to using examples of the beliefs and practices of Christin doomsday cults under articles simply titled "in Christianity". Iskandar323 (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I've moved your reply down Iskandar in line with the break VI put in; I hope you don't mind.

To address your reply, I wouldn't agree that it goes beyond the scope in that example, as the forcing of enslaved Muslim women into sexual slavery was permitted, and how these women came to be enslaved is directly relevant and in scope, even in cases where Islam did not permitted the women to be forced into slavery. As for whether a group should be included or not, that would have to be determined by how they are classified in reliable sources - to determine how controversial inclusions are handled elsewhere, though noting that they are generally not classified as a doomsday cult (though I also note that Joseph Smith did arguably predict that the apocalypse would come by 1891 - incidentally, that article is in desperate need of WP:POV cleanup), I find that Mormons are mentioned on most "in Christianity" articles, a classification that is controversial.

I would however agree that there are two sections that are likely out of scope of the current title; "Sexual enslavement of Muslim women by non-Muslim men" and "ISIL", but as currently written they are not in scope for any of the proposed titles, and so are not material to this discussion - though a separate discussion on them is needed. BilledMammal (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose the current article is clear and interesting to the reader. The proposed new article title is too long and condufsing.--Lambrusquiño (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Summary table

This table contains the number of users who explicitly said they found a particular article title acceptable, not including those who didn't express preference for a particular title. Often users found more than one title acceptable.VR _talk 02:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

We cannot ask them, however we have to assume that Mcphurphy was in favor of the current title as well (anchor) – they are the ones that created the page and chose the current title, and they said that alternative titles were only acceptable “compromises” (anchor). I am going to add Mcphurphy among the supporters of “Sexual slavery in Islam” as well. If you have objections, please write them here. --Grufo (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

That diff is a comment by Mcphurphy that google scholar gives more hits for sexual slavery than concubinage. But there was a technical error, as Iskandar pointed out, and the results actually show that concubinage gets more hits than sexual slavery. They were indef blocked shortly after that comment. Anyway, I've left their vote but with an asterisk.VR _talk 23:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not possible to enter into the details of a discussion that never took place, and if the discussion had ended there by choice we would still count Mcphurphy's bare vote as not opposing “Sexual slavery in Islam”. --Grufo (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

While I support #4 as the "best" option in my opinion, I would also support #3, 5, 7, and 8see comment above over the options I have not listed, as I believe they have the least issues. BilledMammal (talk) 02:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Thank you. Table updated. --Grufo (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Titles and !votes

Title	Number	Users
Female slavery and concubinage in the Muslim world	6	Iskandar323, VR, Jushyosaha604, Mhhossein, Ghazaalch, WatABR
History of concubinage in the Muslim world	8	VR, Iskandar323, M.Bitton, Jushyosaha604, Nishidani, Mhhossein, Ghazaalch, WatABR
History of slave concubinage in the Muslim world	4	BilledMammal, VR, Toddy1, Nishidani
History of slave-concubinage in Islam	1	BilledMammal
Sexual slavery in Islam (current title)	7	Grufo, Andrewa, Iraniangal777, buidhe, BilledMammal, Lambrusquiño, Mcphurphy*
Islamic views on sexual slavery	1	Grufo
Sexual slavery in the Islamic world	1	Mcphurphy
Sexual slavery in the Muslim world	1	Mcphurphy

• See above discussion

Proliferation of POV-forks

Slightly more than one year ago Vice regent attempted to rename this page to “Concubinage in Islam”. After the rename attempt failed they created a WP:POVFORK of this page at Islamic views on concubinage. Now something similar is happening again. Although Iskandar323's move request has not been closed yet, they have just created a new page at Concubinage in the Muslim world. --Grufo (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• One thing that unites both "support" !votes and "oppose" !votes (except Grufo) is that there should be an article on "concubinage" in the Muslim world. Two "oppose" !votes (andrewa and buidhe) said it should be created separately, while the "support" votes wanted to move this article to (some variant of) "concubinage in the Muslim world". At heart of the debate is whether "sexual slavery in Islam" and "concubinage in Muslim world" constitute the same topic. This is not an easy question because, while most sources cited in this article use the term "concubine"/"concubinage", few use the term "sexual slavery" (see this table). (As table1 shows, most search results for "sexual slavery" and "Islam" relate to ISIS). Grufo pointed out this source that uses the terms "sexual slavery" and "slave concubinage" interchangeably. Andrewa presented a source; it too used "concubinage" and "sexual slavery" interchangeably. VR _talk 18:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:POVFORK:

The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article.

— WP:POVFORK

Both your page and Iskandar323's page are like textbook examples of POVFORKS born after renaming attempts. As for whether “sexual slavery” and “concubinage” can be differentiated in Islam, this discussion favors the idea that “concubinage in Islam” is a subset of “sexual slavery in Islam”, and my personal opinion is that even a page that focus solely on concubinage in Islam should be have “slavery” or “slave” in the title, as the institution we are talking about cannot involve free women. --Grufo (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I would say that "a page that focus solely on concubinage in Islam" may include some mentioning of "slave" or "slavery" in the body (not the "title"). What's that insistence of having in the title coming from? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Addition. To bring further arguments to the WP:POVFORK nature of these spin-off pages and on the fact that the current rename proposal was in fact a re-scoping from the beginning (despite who proposed it always claimed differently), it might be worth reading a recent comment left by Iskandar323 on their Talk Page concerning Concubinage in the Muslim world:

I don't see why you are arguing against the article I created - it is essentially what a boiled-down Sexual slavery in Islam might have looked like if re-scoped.

— Iskandar323 (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC) (diff, permalink)

--Grufo (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Notes

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Google scholar results for Islam and sexual slavery and/or concubine

-	all	excluding "Islamic state"
"Islam" and "sexual slavery"	7,510	3,490
"Islam" and "sexual slavery" excluding "concubine"	7,220	3,300
"Islam" and "sexual slavery" and "concubine"	285	181
"Islam" and "concubine"	14,900	14,000
"Islam" and "concubine" excluding "sexual slavery"	14,700	13,800
"Islam" and "concubine" and "sexual slavery"	285	181

-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Nice analysis - wise to do it with and without the Islamic State: very revealing as to how big a share of the usage that accounts for. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Ditto. The terrorist group ISIS does not represent all of Islam, but because it has "Islam" in its name, results can be misleading.VR _talk 16:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't have the energy to add another box, but I would note that "Islam" and "female slaves" also generates about 10,000 hits, retaining 7,000 of them when excluding "Islamic state" - so also a major term, and certainly more so than "sexual slavery". I could certainly be persuaded that it should be "Concubinage and female slavery" rather than the reverse though, given the almost 2:1 ratio of sources weighing in on behalf of concubines and concubinage. That was my first hunch actually. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution. We all agree that historically, especially in periods where “sexual slave” could not even exist as a term, “concubine” was the word most often used in the English language to refer to an Islamic sex slave (but you should also take into account this comment from Iskandar323 about recent research trends). However in the choice of a title considerations about popularity vs. ambiguity can play a decisive role (see previous section). --Grufo (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see Vice regent's reply to Iskander's comment. M.Bitton (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I had seen it, as I had also looked at those sources before this discussion even started. What should I see in that comment? --Grufo (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

My comment wasn't meant for you, so don't touch it again. M.Bitton (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I apologize. I understood it as such, as I am the only one who mentioned Iskandar323's comment. Out of curiosity, for whom was it meant? --Grufo (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

-	all	excluding "Islamic state"	including "female slave" excluding "Islamic state"
"Islam" and "sexual slavery"	7,510	3,490	161
"Islam" and "sexual slavery" excluding "concubine"	7,220	3,300	105
"Islam" and "sexual slavery" and "concubine"	285	181	51
"Islam" and "concubine"	14,900	14,000	979
"Islam" and "concubine" excluding "sexual slavery"	14,700	13,800	1,150
"Islam" and "concubine" and "sexual slavery"	285	181	51
"Islam" and "female slave"	6,530	4,790
"Islam" and "female slave" excluding "sexual slavery"	6,330	4,680
"Islam" and "female slave" excluding "concubine"	5,220	3,800
"Islam" and "female slave" excluding "sexual slavery" excluding "concubine"	5,090	3,730

-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

If we remove also “ISIS” (not just “Islamic State”), a few articles will go away too from “sexual slavery” (3,200 hits for “sexual slavery”). But if we do the same with “concubine” and “concubinage”, the hits will drop drastically (6,020 hits for “concubinage” and 10,200 for “concubine” – for the last two I set the language to English, as these words appear also in other languages):

search terms	excluding "Islamic state" and "ISIS"
"Islam" and "sexual slavery"	3,200 hits
"Islam" and "concubinage"	6,020 hits
"Islam" and "concubine"	10,200 hits

--Grufo (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

EDIT I have corrected an error due to using the apostrophe instead of the double quotes. --Grufo (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd be careful with the acronym "Isis": there is always a risk there that you are sweeping up references to the ancient Egyptian goddess Isis, who was incidentally a concubine of Thutmose II - there is a not non-existent risk that such mythology may be mentioned in Middle Eastern histories. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

If that were the case, the goddess would be removed equally from all three results. --Grufo (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• As predicted, this is just another circle in the making. That's why I mentioned the fact that all tertiary sources (that's what we used to establish DUE) use the term concubine. M.Bitton (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Not really a circle - even in the most pessimistic reading, we have 4,000-6,500 hits for concubines/concubinage versus 3,200 for sexual slavery - and that's assuming that the Goddess Isis definitely isn't messing us about. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  I know, but everytime you leave a small window, someone will somehow manage to turn the exit into a circle (this has plagued this article's discussions from the start), that's why I insist on using the tertiary sources. M.Bitton (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton: By tertiary sources do you mean only encyclopedic definitions? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Iskandar323: By tertiary sources, I mean other encyclopedias (see the ones mentioned by Vice regent). M.Bitton (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Grufo: In your some of search terms you did -'islamic state' instead of -"Islamic state" This makes a lot of difference:

search terms	excluding "Islamic state" and "ISIS"
	q=	lr=lang_en&q=
"Islam" and "sexual slavery"	3,200 hits	3,070 hits
"Islam" and "concubinage"	8,210 hits	6,020 hits
"Islam" and "concubine"	13,000 hits	10,200 hits

I think what you do when you use -'islamic state' in the search is to change the search such that it must include the word "state'" but exclude the word "'islamic".-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC) modified to show the effect of the language modifier, which Grufo is now using, but did not originally use.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: I had made a mistake with the double quotes. Should be fixed now. Addition You should set the search language to English as I did above, as “concubine” is used both in French and Italian. --Grufo (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Searches for Islam without the word Islamic certainly would cause some problems ... Iskandar323 (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

If you quote “Islamic State”, as I did, it will find “Islamic WHATEVER” but it will exclude “Islamic State”. --Grufo (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the table I posted, we should consider all possible periphrases for “sexual slavery” (such as “sex slaves”, “slaves for pleasure”, etc.), while “concubine” / “concubinage” have no periphrasis. --Grufo (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Depending on context, terms like harem girls and courtesan could be analogous, without of course forgetting the Arabic "surriyya". Iskandar323 (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

“Harem girls” is very far from concubinage. “Courtesans” is closer – but is it used with the same meaning of “slave concubine”? --Grufo (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Grufo, you need to stop thinking about Roman law. Harem girls is basically the academic definition of concubinage. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

…Or… of sexual slavery. I honestly was not thinking about the meaning of concubinage. “Harem girls” simply points to the girls who lived in harems. Whether you want to call that concubinage or sexual slavery it is definitely not “harem girls” that will tell. --Grufo (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I would also note, however, that while sex slaves is certainly a periphrasis of the same dubious applied modern term, "slaves for pleasure", while no doubt a sexual euphemism, is not explicitly so. Slaves for pleasure could conceivably include dancers, musicians, et cetera - in other words slaves with all sorts of potential talents, in much the same way as many courtesans (or Geisha in Japan) were multi-talented. Sex slave, by comparison, is a reductive and objectifying term. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It is impossible to give en exact estimate of the numbers. However we are talking about the same order of magnitude. I also believe that “sexual slavery” was an almost impossible term to find in literature (in any field) before the first decades of the 20th century – the modern meaning of “sexual” is… pretty modern. --Grufo (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe it's because it is a bit redundant. Where you have slaves you have sex. Show me a slave culture without sex. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I also believe that is true. The anomaly here is not the sex with slaves, the anomaly is the fact that the only sex allowed outside marriage was with slaves (thus, the only possible “concubinage” was with slaves). This anomaly is so unique that it does not allow to define sexual slavery using the stand-alone “concubinage”, as the latter defaults to something else. --Grufo (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• There already is an article about Islamic views on concubinage. I think anything about concubinage should be going to that article, and any thing about sexual slavery should stay in this article. There is already an article about History of sexual slavery in the United States so I think something similar could be the scope in this article. Iraniangal777 (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  There's also Female slavery in the United States, but in any case it is an imperfect analogy, because there were essentially no laws of institutions governing the rights or treatment of slaves in the US - they were essentially treated as pure objects or sub-humans, in contrast to the centuries of legal, religious and societal frameworks around concubinage in the Muslim world, which were well developed and sometimes quite elaborate and multi-layered, such as under the Ottomans. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  There already is an article about Islamic views on concubinage. I think anything about concubinage should be going to that article, and any thing about sexual slavery should stay in this article. They are the same thing in the Islamic context. --Grufo (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  Not really. If these two article were together, I would be calling for a WP:SPLIT - Islamic views on concubinage is 40,000kB, and Sexual slavery in Islam is currently 130,000kB and really needs further splitting - it's entirely practical to cover theology properly in one coherent article and cover history in another, with a small section on theology linking to the main article. I frequently look around Wikipedia and wonder if people have just forgotten all about WP:SPLIT. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

A little addition to show that there is not really a chronological differentiation in the usage of the words concubinage and sexual slavery, and our choice is purely an editorial choice:

search terms	hits
(isis AND concubine) OR (islamic state AND concubine)	3,000 hits

--Grufo (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

of your search results, about 1,200 hits were articles about ancient Egypt that mention the goddess Isis and the word concubine.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I would lower your numbers if I were you:

search terms	hits	hits with lr=lang_en
islamic state AND concubine	2,690 hits	2,590 hits

Don't ask me how that is possible. Ask Google Scholar. --Grufo (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hahaha, wow Toddy1, higher than I could have imagined! I was half being tongue-in-cheek, but clearly the confusion is real! Iskandar323 (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no goddess here. --Grufo (talk) 12:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

More broadly Grufo, Isis went out of their way to frame their warped thinking in historical terms, so this is hardly a surprise. But the only people calling what Isis did "concubinage" are Isis themselves and those parroting what Isis said. It was plain and simple rape, sex abuse and modern sex trafficking. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the press that uses “concubinage” with ISIS is parroting them, as I also think choosing “concubinage” on Wikipedia for a page title about sexual slavery is parroting an apologetic view. For an average reader sexual slavery is not called concubinage. --Grufo (talk) 12:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

For an average reader of history, concubinage is not sexual slavery - that is extremely reductive. Concubines weren't just slaves for sex, they were secondary wives wielding often considerable power and influence: individuals operating in a restrictive legal framework, yes, but not just sex objects. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Whether they were secondary wives or sexual objects really depends on a lot of factors (epoch, region, status, etc.) – and something similar happened in ancient Rome, where many slaves were almost spouses (mostly husbands in that case, as contubernium was more prevalent between a free woman and a slave man). But a shared element of all the possibilities we are examining here was the fact of being private property. A reader does not expect that in “concubinage”, but does expect that in “sexual slavery”. --Grufo (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It's unwise to cite wiki articles as authoritative, esp. stubs like that on contubernium, which generalizes what was a very specific custom for a while in imperial households as though it were characteristic of Roman society.Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I would be cautious with poisoning the well if were you. I wrote that contubernium article (which is not a stub) and read the sources I used. The most important source – Treggiari, Susan (1981). "Contubernales". Phoenix. 35 (1). CAC: 42–69. doi:10.2307/1087137. JSTOR 1087137. – is quite impressive. The 260 contubernia analyzed come all from the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, which means not from literature (which is often unbalanced in favor of the elite), but from inscriptions made by common citizens (“It is my purpose here to discuss only those who are actually described as contubernales in the inscriptions of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum”, p. 44). --Grufo (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This is splitting hairs. Even if it's not a stub, it's still start class and overly reliant on the Treggiari source. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The Contubernium article relies on several sources, but the topic is not the most discussed topic. Most sources analyze Roman laws or at most anecdotes found in literature, while Treggiari is the only one I found that made the dirty job of reading inscriptions. It is also the most cited article specifically on the subject. --Grufo (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

As Bitton notes, you do expect that in Islam. However, the distinction you are making is also artificial. Concubinage typically involved slaves in ancient Mesopotamia, Assria, and often in Greece, China and Korea. They were also essentially a husband's property in Mongol society. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

And we go back to what I was saying earlier. If you need to “expect” something, it means that that the reader needs to contextualize. You can do that in an article body, but if you can you should avoid that in a page title, where you have no context. In an encyclopedia I expect that two pages named “Christian views on concubinage” (not existing) and “Islamic views on concubinage” talk about the same thing; but they can't, as in Christianity the actual meaning of concubinage is preserved. Wikipedia favors broader scopes that do not need context. --Grufo (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Any usage of Islamic terminology by Isis should be considered a non-mainstream (WP:FRINGE) take from the outset. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

We are not talking about the usage by ISIS here, we are talking about the articles that appear on Google Scholar. --Grufo (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• A Google Scholar search for "Sexual Slavery in Islam" returns 77,200 results [26]. A Google Scholar search for "Concubinage in Islam" only returns 11,000 results.[27] Mcphurphy (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  You need to put each word or phrase that you want to reference in a search within quotation marks, so, in this case, "Sexual slavery" in "Islam", which gets you 4,600 results [28] - otherwise you're just gathering every source that has the word "sexual" and the word "slavery" in it at some point. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I am going to request editors who have previously partaken in discussions on this article to comment. @Dr Silverstein:, , @Bolanigak:. Mcphurphy (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mcphurphy: You should check the template syntax of your pings. --Grufo (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

What is lacking

at the outset is a clear definition of terms. Concepts have a categorical order, and subsets. (a) Slavery→ (b)slavery in antiquity-(c)female slavery→(d)female slavery in Islam→(e)enslavement of women for sexual purposes in Islam.

This article ignores such encyclopedic order, and just runs in medias res the reduction of a complex sociological phenomenon of concubinage to sexual use. In antiquity - one can see it as early as Bk 1 of the Iliad, where Agamemnon offends the seer who wishes to redeem by ransom his daughter, enslaved by the king, by refusing the offer, stating that her stature and figure (sex) are more pleasing to him than his wife's, that she is clever (intelligent) and skillful at work. Three factors, and you find this all over ancient literature, the Islamic kind as well. Sexual availability certainly was important, but an enslaved woman was viewed also in other terms, and not just, as the modern use of the term 'sexual slavery' implies, exclusively as a source of physical self-gratification.

Among the many things to fix would be an introductory outline of the various key terms in Arabic denoting slaves in their functional roles, and their nuances: words like fatayāt etc. One requires this to avoid retrospective contamination of the history by the ineludible modern resonances of the terms we use. Once that is done, logical order would require that the legal definitions, in the Qur'an, and the sharia, for each condition be outlined.Nishidani (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It is truly a continuous moving the goalposts for who criticizes this article… Just a short comment on what you write. Giving a darker connotation to slavery when applied to modernity is done automatically by the reader, but we don't change the way we define slavery. Think that the word used in Latin for slaves was “servus”. The word was used both for free servants and slaves, because freedom was not the big deal it is today back then (today the idea of a slave would be scandal). Do we call Roman slaves “servants” because of that? Answer: No – we use the same scandalous term that we use today for modern dehumanized slaves. --Grufo (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes and no. There is the distinct term "Modern slavery" for more recent enslavement that is distinct precisely because its connotations are quite different from those of antiquarian and medieval slavery. Sexual slavery is a particularly bad term because it is explicitly modern and conveys a sense of meaning that is so overly simplistic that it does little justice to historic scenarios. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Your are basically debunking yourself: the page you cite (Modern slavery) is a redirect to Slavery in the 21st century (there has even been an unsuccessful move request). --Grufo (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Modern slavery is still a main term on that page: the title is less important. Again, you're somewhat missing the point, which is that people today already confuse modern forms of slavery, such as trafficking, forced labour and child abuse, with the legalised and normalised slave institutions of the past and view them through the framework of their modern understanding and cultural sensitivities. And it gets yet worse when you use thoroughly modern and reductive terms like "sexual slavery" to describe the far more complex societal institutions of the past. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The title is most of what we are discussing so far. Let's analyze the risks:

1. “Sexual slavery in Islam”: readers risk to think that it was more inhumane than it was
2. “Concubinage in Islam”: readers risk to think that there was no slavery at all involved (we saw that happening even with editors during the previous dispute)

As often it was inhumane and there was a huge human traffic in antiquity, I would say that we can tolerate risk #1 more than risk #2. For sure we cannot describe exactly what it was in a page title, but #1 is way more accurate than #2. Any proposed renaming should always keep in mind this sentence from Slavery in the 21st century's unsuccessful move request: “A disambiguation that introduces another ambiguity is a failure”. --Grufo (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I certainly agree that if consensus on Wikipedia meant saying the same things over and over until other people get bored and wander off, you'd have a winning strategy. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Grufo. I mentioned concrete things: like an appropriate description at the outset of Islamic classifications of female slaves. You ignore that, for one, and just talk back in protest about goalposts being shifted. You appear to be happy with the set of goalposts so wide any blind, one-legged rookie could score even with their back to them. You are not helping the process of collegial revision here.Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't ignore that, and I appreciate all possible improvements. But if you really want to enhance the collegial work you should go slow. People don't look at Wikipedia every second, and already the current discussions are many. Nobody hunts us. In the meanwhile, if you really think you have good proposals you can already add them directly to the article. I would like though that when we edit this article we are always able to write in a way that both who loves Islam and who hates all religions feels equally satisfied for the quality of the information. I know that many current editors involved are Muslim, while personally I am atheist/agnostic (I don't really spend much time in defining my beliefs). It would be nice if people from other religions were involved too. At the moment I would say that many of the motivations in editing this article come from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. When I contribute to Wikipedia I am usually amazed by what I discover in the process. The other way around (making Wikipedia discover my beliefs) is inherently more boring. --Grufo (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Archiving

​​​​​​​​​​​The current archiving arrangements are that level-2 sections are archived if the most recent post is 90 days old. The archiving instructions are that a minimum of five level-2 sections should be left on the page.

The talk page has become enormous, so I propose to change the archiving instructions to 28 days, and a minimum of three level-2 sections should be left on the page. Does anyone object?-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd say have at it! Be Bold! It can always be changed back at a later date. But while you're here, thoughts: [29]? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It's okay for me too. But I would wait that the naming dispute ends first, or we will have to repeat things to the newcomers (if any) – and we already repeat ourselves too often. --Grufo (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

^[Humor]:IMHO you are underestimating our present discussion teams capacities to repeat same old discussion with incremental effect. :) If we are going to just empty talk page by archiving it and same people discussing same thing over and over (with kinda CopyPaste in incremental propo) then 28 days is too big, I foresee, you shall need to reduce the time frame further and further with much faster pace.:))

Seriously speaking: IMHO presently discussing people, 'truly', need to take break and leave present discussion open for 180 days as is for new readers to read take their own time and reflect in due course. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Forced conversion

The section on "Forced conversion for concubinage" violates NPOV in two ways. The first is that it is sourced to a single author who argues Muslims accepted forced conversions. Yet in contrast there are many other reliable sources that say Islam prohibited forced conversion. This is based on the Quranic verse Al-Baqara 256 "There is no compulsion in religion." Many secondary sources interpret this to mean prohibition against forced conversion[30][31][32][33][34]. The second is that it gives undue weight to the debate of forced conversion which is not directly related to this topic ((WP:COATRACK). For example, multiple book length treatments[35][36] of this topic manage to cover all of it without even mentioning anything about conversion.VR _talk 23:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: The section meets WP:NPOV, notwithstanding WP:IDONTLIKEIT as its reliably sourced. The secondary sources you show about the interpretation of that specific verse do not deal specifically with the issue of forcing slaves to convert. They are generalist, not absolutist so don't cover everything. As we know slaves don't enjoy the same freedoms and choices which free people are entitled to in Islam. Secondly, it is due because there are different Islamic scholarly opinions on whether its permissible for a Muslim man to have sexual relations with a pagan or Zoroastrian slave-girl. So most Islamic scholars permit forced conversions of these women to enable the sexual relations. Mcphurphy (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Did you read the sources? They specifically refer to prisoners, slaves etc. Do you have any sources that say that Quran 2:256 didn't apply to slaves? Finally, you didn't respond to my assertion that pretty much no sources that are on the topic of concubinage mention this debate. So it is undue to give it a section here.VR _talk 23:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Of course I read the sources. Only one of them (an unreliable encyclopedia whose author hasn't even researched the matter in detail) claims that the verse applies to prisoners of war. None of your other sources make the claim you are attributing to them. On the other hand, here are multiple sources dealing with forced conversions of slaves and concubines in Islam and the Muslim world.[37] [38][39] [40][41] There's plenty more where that comes from. And the source we already have in the article deals with the various interpretations of 2:256 in detail. Do spare some time in reading it. Mcphurphy (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  None of your links above have page numbers, making it impossible to verify them. This link looks unreliable. On the other hand each of the books I presented was reliable. Which of my sources is not reliable? All sources say that Quran 2:256 prohibits forced conversion. Which one do you think doesn't say that? VR _talk 00:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Then go to a library and read the books. Meanwhile, you have not shown why your references which discuss the issue of forced conversions in passing (and only 1 of which was to do with forced conversions of prisoners of war/slaves specifically) should be given priority over a detailed scholarly analysis by Yohanan Friedmann on the topic of forced conversions of slaves? Not all sources are equal. Treating your passing references to an accomplished work by Yohanan Friedmann is WP:UNDUE. Mcphurphy (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  In addition to the 5 sources I gave above, all of whom write that Quran forbids forced conversion, there is also the book Conversion to Islam in the Premodern Age: A Sourcebook that says on pg 42 "Accordingly, the Qur'an rejects conversion by force." As the title suggests, the entire book is dedicated to the topic of conversion (meaning its not discussing it "in passing"). It is published by University of California Press. That particular chapter was written by Abdullah Saeed (professor), a professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Melbourne and its editors are also professors. Hope that is scholarly enough for you.VR _talk 03:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

This section is a bit undue for a couple of reasons - for one thing, it is a marginable issue in the grand scheme of concubinage, and the issue of whether Zoroastrians were people of the book or pagans (I believe it was ultimately decided that they were people of the book, and therefore dhimmis), was a time-limited one and more generally not particularly useful of an indicator of wider practice, given that it is Iran- and religious group-specific. As a non-core issue, it would be better placed on a page about Islamic views on the subject or about the Islamic conquest/governance of Iran. The other material appears conflicted/inconclusive, so hardly the stuff of issuing-defining solidity. Short of further sources/examples, it is hard to justify keeping this as its own section. The remaining early Islam conflict material would readily fit in another section. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I've spent the past day reading all these arguments. Frankly, the objections to retaining this section make absolutely zero sense. We have quite a detailed study from Friedmann discussing this. He is one of the foremost experts on Islam, Islamic theology and conversion to Islam. His source outweighs all the weak counter-sourced being presented.

Everyone knows that when the Islamic armies expanded outside Arabia they carried out their usual practice of taking conquered peoples' ladies as sex slaves. One of the first lands they took over was Persia. Its Zoroastrian character was bound to raise questions over whether women from outside the group of "People of the Book" can be used for sex and not just for slavery since Islam forbids Muslim men from marrying a woman who is not a Muslim, Christian or Jew. It would help readers understand how Muslims historically justified having sex with women who were neither Muslim nor "People of the Book." Dr Silverstein (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Wholescale reverts

This revert undoes nearly 2 weeks of work by several contributors without any sort of discussion. This is really disruptive.VR _talk 00:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree? Buy then what about this[42] wholesale revert earlier today? No one seemed to have taken an issue with my edits today or raised any objection on the talkpage yet you called them "disruptive," demanded that I seek consensus and did a wholesale revert despite me leaving clear edit summaries for each of my edits.

You then proceeded to threaten[43] me from any further editing on my talkpage, by making out my edits look like a 3RR violation (which they were not). In an obvious case of WP:GAMING you are trying to keep me off the article so that you, Nishidani and Iskandar323 can bulldoze through your own changes unchecked without obtaining the consensus of other active editors such as Grufo and myself. Mcphurphy (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The edits you made today were problematic.

• This addition states as fact something that is blatantly contradicted by Concubinage#Antiquity. You're misinterpreting Robinson. He specifically cites the cases of concubinage in Persia and Rome.
• This edit makes no sense given that the only women being referred to in that section are Muslim women.
• Why did you remove Suleiman being monogamous with his concubine? If the article mentions "Men were permitted to have as many concubines as they could afford" then we can also mention cases of monogamy.
• this edit adds something for which no reliable, secondary sources can be found (see this discussion).
• this edit removes something that we seemed to have consensus for.
• Why did you remove "in some historical periods"? I showed you here that there is debate over this issue.
• Here you added something partially false. You added "if a free man acknowledged paternity of his children from his female slave, they were considered free", yet this was only one opinion and other opinions considered concubines free even if the man didn't acknowledge the paternity (see Brockopp,2000,p=195–196).VR _talk 02:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I only didn't respond to more of the edits because it was too much of a headache and I didn't have the energy and rigour to do what Vice regent has done here: to list them all out. Your attitude that multiple editors are "bulldozing", not sensibly editing, is the principle problem here. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• It might be worth mentioning that Vice regent reported Mcphurphy at A3N. --Grufo (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

POV pushing

A lot of POV pushing has been going on in my absence. There are multiple issues in this new version. Let us first resolve the trouble around the opening of the article before we move on to the rest of this mess.

Lead sentence

According to MOS:LEADSENTENCE "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is." The subject is clearly sex slaves in Islam. So why does it begin with Mediterranean and who knows what culture? No need to write up nonsense by including the whole world in it. Focus on Islam. Certain editors are incompetent to understand that their feeling that they need to "defend" Islam is against WP:NPOV. Its tendentious editing.

Umm Walad

Nishidani's Barker source reads: "'Female slaves around the Mediterranean were subject to sexual and reproductive demands as well as demands on their physical labour. Focusing on the sexual and reproductive aspects of the shared culture of Mediterranean slavery reveals three things. First, though historians have paid more attention to the sexual exploitation of slave women in Islamic contexts, sexual exploitation was also common and well documented in Christian contexts. Second, the most important difference between Islamic and Christian practices of slavery had to do with the status of children. Under Christian and Roman law, children inherited the status of their mothers, so the child of a free man and a slave woman would be a slave. In contrast, under Islamic law, if a free man acknowledged paternity of a child by his slave woman, that child was born free and legitimate.' (Barker 2019, p. 61)"

Now how is this little quote from Barker used to justify this? Niishi's edit reads: "This is decidedly different from the case of enslaved women who bore children to their masters in Mediterranean Christian cultures: there the child retained the same slave status as his mother."

Verification failed. Barker clearly does not anywhere say "decidedly different." Further, Barker also notes that the child not inheriting the mother's slave status is conditional on the father accepting paternity.

Nishi's edit falls under source misrepresentation.

I will open up sub-sections below on the ever increasing problems with the zealous new editing. Dr Silverstein (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

23:52, November 12, 2021, you were pinged to this article.

00:09, November 13, 2021, you show up to the article (after more than a year hiatus) and make this revert.

This link shows you reverted to a version 132 edits ago. You went through 132 edits in just 17 minutes? Or is it that you're reverting others' edits without even reading them? VR _talk 03:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The phrasing "decidedly different" is a reasonable commonsense summation of the void between freedom and slavery. If that is the first and worst problem you have spotted then the issue is minor. Re: "zealous editing", as Vice regent notes: attempting to revert 132 edits in just 17 minutes = Pot. Kettle. Black. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

This is idle nitpicking, justifying an erasure on the grounds of one adverb in the paraphrase, 'decidedly' for 'one imporant difference'. One could use 'marked difference' or any of a dozen alternatives, but what is an important difference is 'decidedly' different in any reasonable view. And, drop the hammer about 'zealous' (a word with profound religious overtones) Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Global ping

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​I am pinging literally every user that has edited Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam and Sexual slavery in Islam (using template {{hidden ping}} – lists generated automatically here and here, from which I removed the IP addresses).

This article has never had an easy life. There are currently several issues opened. The most important are:

1. Title controversy: a new proposal to remove “sexual slavery” from the title has been opened (see Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam § Requested move 10 November 2021)
2. Content controversy: all edits that follow this Revision as of 15:42, 17 October 2021 from Vice regent, in which they add “The Arabic term surriyya has been widely translated in Western scholarship as "concubine"” are subject to controversy (I do not consider this particular edit controversial, although it reflects the editor's POV)

If you have time and you feel you can contribute constructively to Wikipedia, please consider participating in this discussion. --Grufo (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Lead image

Hurrem Sultan (Roxalena) was the "favorite concubine" of Suleiman the Magnificent and later his wife. Suleiman became monogamous with her, breaking Ottoman custom.

Nadia Murad, a prominent Yazidi human rights activist and survivor of ISIS sexual slavery, delivers remarks at the Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C.

Is it possible to think over image of Nadia Murad or may be a collage of images as a lead image for this article.

Unfortunately we do not have many original images of sexual slaves during Islamic rules, for both reasons first is in Islam imagery of any living being including that of humans was is strongly discouraged, secondly in many parts of the world once captured, even if successful in an escape these sexually slaved women used to be despised even in their original communities without any mistake of their own so putting them on a canvass their real plight did not occur to most artists many artist in modern times drew female slaves in oriental frames objectifying them. We need to have more representational images in a collage.

Hurrem Sultan (Roxalena) was a slave–concubine, though she was a war captive, history is not fully aware how many times she was sold and resold, and she was among fewer fortunate ones who could make to top of elite ladder. So she can not be considered full representative of a sexual slave in Muslim world. Rather image of Hurrem Sultan (Roxalena) is used to eulogize possibilities of material and power opportunities; in reality only few did have that chance and position of rest of most female slaves had to suffer through despicable parade of sexual exploitation.

Singularly eulogizing fortunes of Hurrem Sultan (Roxalena) and few consensual elite concubines in Muslim world creates untrue distorted picture of larger reality leads to condoning phase of captivity, resale and sexual exploitation and normalizing the same even to 21 century audiences. There is no mistake on part of Hurrem Sultan (Roxalena) hereself but it is untrue narrative that wishes to show every Umm Walad was a happy being detached from her original family and community sans explicit consent. These Umm Walads/ concubines and sexual slaves in Muslim world used to have little choice of their own but to not to succumb and adjust and accept to misfortune. Once one is raped had a child and no easy options to feed the child a raped slave even might ask not to have emancipation in spite not liking status of slavery. That kind of compulsion do we understand as human?

It is very insincere on part of those who can believe in narratives that state of female slaves of medieval and premodern Muslim World was much better than what happened to ISIS female slaves. If '...' religion is superior then their followers would have understood and reflected upon simple thing that there is no reason what so ever to captivate, detach and enslave non–combatant females is violation of simple humanism. If captured then return them without condition. And if any sexual relationship taking place then with full explicit consent as happens in regular Nikah marriage; but unfortunately that was not to happen in the history of Muslim world.

There was/is no individual, group or philosophy fully perfect. On part of every individual, group or philosophy to hide imperfections on own side and do whataboutism and push sanitized narratives giving status of reliability to questionable narrative sources is not only insincere to oneself; Consider only five percent of women were sexually exploited through slavery, whether one is Muslim or not, over the centuries every one of us would have part of X chomosome in their genes which might have been sexually exploited in some previous generation unknown to us lost in the history. I wish our editors are more composed before engaging in edit wars, single minded pushing own versions and dislodging competitive versions and competing editors is being insincere to our own unfortunate X chromosome gene passed on to us from generation to generation. Anyways I am looking forward to better and more representative collage images at lead picture of the article.

Rather than just spending time on edit wars here please do give thought to update any of following drafts.
Draft:Women's rights in Muslim societies
Draft:Women, conflict and conflict zones
Draft:Comparison of rights and limitations of Muslim wives, female slaves and concubines
Draft:Slavery in Mecca and Medina

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Giulio Rosati, Inspection of New Arrivals, 1858–1917, Circassian beauties

• I think a fairly coherent argument could be made that there is some cultural and moral relativism as work here, in the sense that medieval and modern practices were experienced very differently because the people in those times and places had different beliefs and expectations. Modern morals and social mores were not codified, and medieval people had the expectation that war often led to capture and enslavement.

However, these points aside, the most discernable different between historic practice is that while medieval slavery was sanctioned by mainstream religious scholars and society, the practice of the Islamic State sits firmly outside of today's mainstream thought and practice. Within a 21st century context, the Islamic State holds fringe viewpoints, and representing more than a millennia of historic practice with an image of practice by an unambiguous terrorist group with an only transitory hold on power would be a tad undue.

Might I suggest the picture that Mcphurphy actually quite helpfully added, in the form of a potentially more representative, but still historically couched image. Aside from being a rather spectacular piece by Giulio Rosati, it is somewhat more illustrative of a concubinage/harem type setup/experience than a mere portrait. As for the image of Nadia Murad, I would suggest that the first and foremost place to include this would be on the rather underwhelming and unillustrated Slavery in 21st-century jihadism page that the example caption leads to. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

See human behavior gives different experiences. At the height of COVID pandemic I was most happy with editor of COVID in Pakistan s/he did not shy away using sources fixing responsibilities be religious or non–religious institutions. While I found editorial behavior at general COVID & religion article quite disappointing. In the lead editors were mentioning all the creditable work in the name of religions same time not ready to include side of criticism at all while crores of people dying and suffering through the pandemic. I don't criticize behaviour on religion side only, even Wikipedian editorial behavior @ COVID related main article too was disinclined to mention need of mask and safe distancing with forceful criticism. General side misses point does not give free license to religious sides to be irresponsible.

See I have criticized others in above paragraph so I do not want to be unfair to fellow Muslims and Islam in appreciating and criticizing both 'where it deserves'. (emphasis on 'where it deserves')

There can be time scale related cultural and moral relativism to a limited extent only. One can see in ancient South Asian mythological wars hitting on some one's legs was frowned upon even in conflicts and wars, concept must have been better kill your enemy than leave him paralyzed in a way he would be unable to go asking for help for food and other assistance because that would have amounted slow and painful death. In modern times in conflict situation we prefer to save a life by shooting at one's hands and legs of a criminal or enemy in conflict situation. Since background of availability of post conflict assistance is changed. This example was just top of my mind at this moment while writing, similar other examples from rest of the world including that of Muslim world can be given no issues. For example until medieval times killing up enemy was better than converting him in disabled person who could not seek assistance for rest of life easily. They had to use stronger threat perceptions since other modes of investigation and community control were may not have been developed that we can understand.

But I find it difficult to accept any easy concessions for God and philosophies (whichever religious philosophies those may be) in his name and their agents that they could have been unfair in ancient or historic times. In spite of time scale effect some of humanitarian considerations can not be subjected to time scale when better alternatives were available then too. If God and philosophies (whichever religious philosophies those may be) in his name and their agents take credit about what good happens in their name, they also are expected to unreservedly admit to atrocities happening and religions and their agents looking other way. For example if scripture would have told clearly that just not encouragement of emancipation but every religious follower should not touch women in conflict zones many believers may have behaved differently and more positively. For this one can not give excuse saying that those times people were not aware, God and so their(his/her or whatever gender of God) scriptures had no excuse being all knowing fellow for all times, God had/ has no excuse of time scale allowing unfair things to happen. And if it is not God who was not giving wrong excuses then it is human beings giving those excuses for exploiting fellow humans in unfair atrocious manners. Whatever the time scale whatever times exploitation does not deserve accolades but deserves unreserved criticism and we Wikipedians afford to be more fair by using sources which duly fix responsibilities in sensible but unreserved manner. I can't force others to agree to my these points but IMHO sincerely said that; let us move on to–

Lead image:

I do appreciate your point Giulio Rosati, it is somewhat more illustrative of a concubinage/harem type setup/experience than a mere portrait. though nudity portrays female slave trade as is being objectified by traders but it does not intend to provide objectification to viewers of the picture. Same time traders were too diverse in color/ race religion and gender too. So may be we can short list some images to be rotated periodically secondly we can keep collage option too open.

Thanks for healthy discourse.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

As food for additional thought - WP:SHOCK suggests that:

1) "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic."

2) "Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred."

In my opinion, I would suggest that Islamic State-related images are not "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works", that anything Islamic State-related is not "least shock value", and also, possibly, "not having a lead image may be the best solution". Iskandar323 (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's see…

Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic

Now,

• Is Titian's painting of Roxalena – an exceptionally lucky sex slave – an appropriate representation of sexual slavery in Islam? No.
• Is Rosati's painting of generic Islamic sex slaves a more appropriate representation of sexual slavery in Islam? Definitely yes.

Issue solved. --Grufo (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

To provide fair opportunity and to improve women editor participation, an intimation of this ongoing discussion has been given @ WT:WOMRED, WT:WikiProject Women in Green, WT:WikiProject Women's History, Talk:Women in Islam, Talk:Sexual slavery. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Bookku, it would be a grotesque violation of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE to consider ISIS representative of Islam or all of Muslim history. We have many sources that show ISIS remains rejected in Islam [44][45][46]. And this scholarly paper concludes that ISIS has distorted the interpretations of medieval Islamic texts on female slavery so much that they are "unique within the history of Islam." Your proposal is as WP:UNDUE as putting the flag of ISIS as the lead image at jihad. By contrast, I have never seen a book on the history of Islam that doesn't mention the Ottomans. The two states mentioned in the "Concubinage" entry of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Women are the Abbasids and the Ottomans. Concubines and Courtesans has a chapter on concubines in the Ottoman harem. Although if we can't come to an agreement, then it might be best to remove a lead image. Lots of great articles do not have a lead image.VR _talk 12:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

For articles of this length, there are few pics, and rather than curtail them, additions are required.Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added that Nadia Murad image to Slavery in 21st-century jihadism, so thanks for providing that @Bookku. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I have also added it to Sexual violence in the Iraqi insurgency. Slavery in 21st-century jihadism and Sexual violence in the Iraqi insurgency are places where detailed coverage of ISIS atrocities are WP:DUE, not here.VR _talk 15:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Sotheby's catalogues may help with getting the name of paintings right.

• There is a painting by Giulio Rosati, entitled Choosing the Favourite, which they sold for £133,250 on 30 November 2012.^[47] This is similar, but not identical to the image on Wikipedia.
• There is a painting by Giulio Rosati, entitled The Favourite, which they sold for £212,500 on 11 December 2019.^[48] This is identical to the image on Wikipedia.
• There is a painting by Giulio Rosati, entitled The Favourite, which is listed as a "past lot".^[49] This has two of the same women and one of the same men as the image on Wikipedia in much the same setting.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Rosati is an Orientalist painter. This genre was well known for applying certain stereotypes against Middle Easterners[50][51]. For example, Ottoman women were depicted by Orientalists as sexual, lascivicious, and lazy[52]. Feminist and art historian Linda Nochlin went as far as to call these stereotypes racist[53]. Racist or not, these stereotypes were definite exagerrations. Fatima Mernissi, an Arab feminist, "adroitly deconstructs the myth of the harem as paradise, an exotic place populated by nude, voluptuous women, as perpetuated in Orientalist literature and paintings."[54] This is similar to what Nishidani pointed out earlier. And the stereotype of seeing harem women as sexual and lazy are plain to see in the painting too. If you read Concubines and courtesans, you'll see that these women were incredibly multi-dimensional people, whether royalty or commoner. VR _talk 23:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I don't know if you realize the level of clutching at straws you have reached. To criticize a particular painting you put its author into a category (Orientalism), search for flaws in this category, attribute these flaws to the particular painter, and consequently attribute these flaws to the particular painter's particular painting too. Your rhetorical fallacies are getting worse with time. You have just reached a recursive version of Argumentum ad hominem § Guilt by association. What's next? --Grufo (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a completely gratuitous personal attack, coming straight out of left-field, Grufo, and so yet one more warning is required to desist. VR's point is focused, on topic, and devoid of animus, and you appear to have jumped at it ('grasping at straws') ('rhetorical fallacies getting worse with time') to provoke the editor.Nishidani (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Unless you believe that Vice regent is a living rhetorical fallacy there is nothing personal in attacking a rhetorical fallacy. --Grufo (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Umm, "orientalist" is right there in the first line ... anyway, @Vice regent: Yeah, ok, they're cool paintings, but you probably have a point that they're all fairly contrived and certainly not based on firsthand experience: we don't have to guess about whether Rosati had actual access to these places. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

“Orientalism” is a term coined in 1978. Rosati did not know he was an orientalist. He just painted what he liked to paint. This leads to fallacy of division too. --Grufo (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

"Orientalism" is a term coined in 1978 - really?-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I think my mind just passed over that without even registering the absurdity of it. But once again, fantastic data @Toddy1 - I am totally making you my go-to guy/girl for data representation-related queries. I didn't even know about the Google Books Ngram Viewer. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Grufo's objection is misinformed. The French art critic Jules-Antoine Castagnary’s polemics against what he called the ‘orientalist’ painting genre go back at least 120 years before Said’s 1978 work. For the former, French painters who dealt in topics from the colonial world or the Orient in general were betraying an obligation to depict native French reality by an self-indulgent flight into fantasies of the exotic. In other words, the fact that 'orientalism' is lexically of relatively recent vintage would be irrelevant, since the concept itself was present in critical literature long before Said set the vogue. Nishidani (talk) 11:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You people are again working in circles, and once again just for the sake of contradicting me. The orientalism against which Susan Edwards argues is the 1978 patronizing term. Earlier, the term simply had the generic meaning of “appreciation of the East in the arts” – although the phenomenon was in large part what today we consider patronizing. In fact, Jules-Antoine Castagnary attacked orientalists for being too interested in the East, not for patronizing the East. The ignorance of the modern patronizing meaning in the 19th century is exactly what creates a hiatus. An orientalist 19th century painter could have been “patronizing” or not at all “patronizing”, depending on their personal attitude and background, while a modern orientalist can only be patronizing. The lack of patronizing meaning before 1978 is what creates the fallacy of division in Vice regent's comment: even if many orientalists were patronizing the East, as orientalism was not defined on patronizing the East, many other orientalists might not have patronized the East. And indeed there is quite some difference of attitude between this and this. --Grufo (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You people are again working in circles . . just for the sake of contradicting me

Oh dearie me! Isn't that an echo of what Gratiano caricatured as authoritative posturing in in the Merchant of Venice?

There are a sort of men whose visages

Do cream and mantle like a standing pond,

And do a willful stillness entertain

With purpose to be dressed in an opinion

Of wisdom, gravity, profound conceit,

As who should say, “I am Sir Oracle,

And when I ope my lips, let no dog bark!

Nice to see you are so thoroughly conversant, instantly, with the Jules-Antoine Castagnary I mentioned that you ignore the critical literature on him, which states exactly what I wrote: that he was an advocate of French realism as against escapist orientalist fantasy. More disconcerting is the fact that you can't get beyond a simple caricature of Said 1978 (and his follow up Culture and Imperialism (1993), which was a polemic about Western 'representations' of the Oriental other. Don't google wiki articles to grub up 'stuff'. Do some reading of the authors you apparently cite by second-hand unfamiliarity.Nishidani (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You claim of not arguing just for the sake of arguing, but yet there you are. All the modern meanings of orientalism are totally irrelevant when we talk about painters who perceived themselves only as having an interest in the East. That is the only thing relevant in my reasoning about fallacy of division; and any meaning that we might add today to orientalism is out of scope. About Castagnary you are saying exactly the same thing that I said, but arguing (on what?). --Grufo (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Have you read Jones, Jonathan (22 May 2008). "Orientalism is not racism. Edward Said's book on romantic views of Islamic art has the effect of promoting ignorance". The Grauniard.?-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

No, thanks for the link. Jones is an art critic, so he knows what he is talking about. Personally what I find problematic in loading “orientalism” of meanings is the assumption that the West is a single homogeneous bloc from where the East is observed. Although today we do tend towards that, it was surely not the case in the 19th and 20th century. But I would extend this critique to many superstructures and simplifications that we never stop creating. I'd rather keep thinking of orientalism as “appreciation of the East”, and add to that later, as a separate addition, “knowing the West, that means in most cases ‘patronizing the East’”. --Grufo (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

If that is also addressed to me, Toddy. I am on the public record as being critical of Said's book just after it first came out, and I do not accept much of its simplistic dismissal of a very complex record. Jones is undoubtedly correct that it has been hijacked as a cliché, but said is no more responsible for that than Nietsche is for the Holocaust, or Aristotle for what Bacon in his Novum Organum criticized late Aristotelians for. What Said wrote was more or less what modern anthropology stated of Victorian descriptions of primitive society. It was a very useful corrective to bias, and a reminder of how deeply the complacency of power is inscribed in much of our language about 'the other'.Nishidani (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Let me get this straight Grufo: When orientalist writers literally use the term "concubinage" in the Muslim world, you take umbrage at the use of the term and want to re-interpret this as "sexual slavery", but where orientalist painters create interpretive works, you see God's honest truth? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I am still undecided whether you and I have difficulties communicating or you just like to make people talk. Rosati was an orientalist. However Rosati being an orientalist + this comment left by Vice regent translates in:

• Argumentum ad hominem § Guilt by association, in the form of: 1. Rosati liked to paint oriental subjects 2. We associate Rosati with Orientalism, which has an unfavorable reputation 3. Therefore, Rosati's paintings are questionable.
• Fallacy of division, in the form of: 1. Orientalists “apply certain stereotypes against Middle Easterners” 2. We categorize Rosati as an orientalist 3. Therefore, Rosati “applied certain stereotypes against Middle Easterners”

(And I have talked only about Rosati, not even about this particular painting, which would require further recursion in the fallacies.)

The fact that the term is modern makes also a further tuning necessary. For example you can say that every communist wants to share the means of production, as that is part of The Communist Manifesto, but you cannot say that all orientalists apply stereotypes, as they did not adhere to any “orientalist manifesto for the application of stereotypes” back then. --Grufo (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You hardly need encouragement to talk, and VR may have been a little blusterous, but the reason to treat Rosati's work in a circumspect manner, regardless of the quality of the artwork itself aside, is that he almost certainly never actually entered the harems he depicted - and I think we can take this as wrote (given the whole point of harems is that they were, well, "forbidden") unless we see reliable sourcing to the contrary. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Before impressionism every single painting was made in a studio and based on the painter's memory, fantasy or other paintings – or a subject that could fit in the studio (e.g. portraits). After impressionism the old school still remained strong for many painters. There is really nothing peculiar about this particular painting, except your personal hate for seeing a sex slave depicted as such instead of wearing nice earrings and ruling a country. --Grufo (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Umm, I suggested this image in the talk, calling it "a rather spectacular piece by Giulio Rosati". Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Then I take back the last sentence. But then why are you arguing with me about this painting? Leave that to Vice regent, who objects against it. --Grufo (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Because discussions aren't about which side you are on Grufo. Wikipedia isn't about polarised positions. I can suggest something one moment before being swayed in a different direction another. I am also freshly mulling on WP:SHOCK. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You do the opposite of what you claim. You literally proposed a painting, saw that Vice regent took side against it while I was in favor, and made the discussion be “about which side I was on”. Btw, WP:SHOCK implies a selection between images that “accurately represents the topic”. Roxalena is not one of these. That aside, I find most of Rosati's paintings really beautiful (also unrelated ones). --Grufo (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:SHOCK implies nothing: all Wikipedia guidelines are open to interpretation, and intepreting it altered my opinion. Now, while you have free time, perhaps return to the question of why you reverted my edit on Islam and blasphemy in order to re-include a picture containing insults and a url to the website platform of a man characterised as "virulently anti-Islamic". Iskandar323 (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

When I created Concubinatus I chose this ancient Roman fresco for it. I did not even think about the fact that nudity can still be a WP:SHOCK after two thousand years. Indeed I also believe that interpreting Rosati's painting changed your opinion. But I believe the interpretation that changed your mind has nothing to do with orientalism or WP:SHOCK, but only with the fact that sexual slavery is represented in the moment of “enslavement”, which you would like to be removed from existence, as if slaves were born as such (and instead “enslavement” is a representative part of the topic, much more than the elite harems). As for Islam and blasphemy, I will not go further, I have really made my position as clear as possible. For as much as you like to argue with me, six editors have restored those cartoons, you can also try to convince the others instead of me. --Grufo (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, I would like to remind you that it was I who initially suggested the image. Changing my mind reveals nothing at all of the sort of deeply seated ideological position that you seem to keep insisting that everyone who disagrees with you on Wikipedia has. I changed it because I weighed arguments. Once again, I would encourage you to desist from your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and stick to the nuts and bolts of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, as well as WP:CIVIL. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• I completely agree with Nishidani that adding pictures to this article would be a good improvement to it. Iraniangal777 (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Women perform for the Mughal Emperor Akbar. From the Akbarnama, painted 1592-1595 by Kesav Kalan and Dharmdas[1]

• The wikipedia article on Giulio Rosati says "He devoted himself particularly to representations of the Maghreb, that he never visited himself" and "he never journeyed to the Middle East". Rosati is also chronologically far removed from the events he tries to depict. So why not consider artists who were both local and contemporaneous to the people they depict? The cover of the scholarly book Concubines and Courtesans depicts an image from the Akbarnama. This work is about Mughal India, by people who lived in India and during Mughal times. The exact painting that's on the book cover is this one and it seems to be public domain and is probably the best candidate for a lead image. VR _talk 13:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  Concubines and Courtesans's cover can certainly be added too. Choosing an image for the lead is ultimately an arbitrary choice. However no painting is as icastic as Rosati's painting, which is not more phyisically and chronologically removed from the events than the painting of Hagar that appears in the lead of Concubinage, against which the Roman fresco would be the “local and contemporaneous” competitor (see? “local and contemporaneous” now sounds inconvenient, doesn't it?) --Grufo (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  If you want alternative images for concubinage please start a discussion at Talk:Concubinage. We can find an image that is local and contemporaneous and that does not WP:SHOCK.VR _talk 14:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to @Iraniangal777: and all the participants in the discussions up til now. I am replying the discussion from VR's comment onward. Encyclopedist need to be used to long academic discourses need not complain of length of the response

• "Bookku, it would be a grotesque violation of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE to consider ISIS representative of Islam or all of Muslim history. We have many sources that show ISIS remains rejected in Islam.."

Pl. try to answer my few simple questions; Whenever an ISIS follower would die, which kind of burial was/will be accorded to them? A Muslim kind or a non–Muslim kind?

In almost passing by 2021 I have multiple times discussed point of using word Muslim' in article title instead of 'Islam' unless articles are particularly limited to Islam.

I have already explained and I repeat, question is not of cases of ISIS only. There are cases (mentioned in perfectly credible/reliable sources) where in at least few Muslims had flouted rule of not capturing and selling non–slave Muslim women into slavery, in one case a husband itself sold his wife, the wife subsequently successfully proved to Ottoman authorities that she was a perfectly free woman and should not have been sold in as a slave, and Ottoman authorities freed her.

What happens if any painter draws a painting of above said Muslim women's sold into slavery by Muslims (illegal as per Ottoman / Islamic rule) We will say those were female slaves (though Muslim by birth) in Muslim world need to have space in the article either in textual reference or pictorial form whatever. What you will say, No Islam did not sanction selling of Muslims raised since birth so article can not have space for them. Why that is happening simply because Muslims want to happily name/ define every thing as Islamic though every thing that Muslims do is not necessarily Islamic every time, and non–Muslims unaware of this systemic issue. Article title need to have phrase 'Muslim world' and not 'Islamic' since that has been leading to systemic bias, even against unfortunate Muslim women too as just discussed.

In case of Muslim women wrongly sold into slavery by their fellow Muslim individuals had an opportunity to seek justice, prove and get free again. Now my simple question is whether those captive or bought slave girls and women had equal agency to appeal to the authorities and get free? No not at all. What were their crimes? Being girls and women from enemy territories who lost wars? Were those women active combatants in those wars? Except few exceptions countable on finger tips usually they were not active combatants.

Were not they free before being captivated? Why discrimination on the basis of religion by birth? Which religious philosophies were facilitating selectivity in providence of equity in opportunity to freedom?

Do you think academic sources have not started asking similar questions? One academic very well in above lists of reliable clearly states we no longer consider 'Owned by right hand' was a fair thing. Another academic clearly states their some of earlier writings were mellowed down to take care of Muslim sensitivities (pointing toward Edward Said followers even discrediting critics and criticism which Edward Said himself would not have allowed to censor, the same scholar says but so and so book onward we have corrected and calling spade a spade. Then there is one more academic admitted in a public debate that there are some holes in standard (Muslim) narratives. Another scholar mentions scholars write but write in toned down mode worrying about backlash and blasphemy laws and worrying about discrediting by Edward Said followers and fearing rejection even editorial boards and publishers fear such rejection. Idk what would one call sources under fear as compromised or reliable?

Another editorial point of view: "..Within a 21st century context, the Islamic State holds fringe viewpoints.."

ISIS /AQ/BH/H@P/Brotherhood/Tea & company of Afghanistan are fringe, Wahabi are fringe, Salafi are fringe, Deoband are fringe, Sufi are fringe, Shia are fringe, Political activism are fringe, Politically not active are fringe, Shia are fringe, Ibadi are fringe, Ahmadiyya are fringe, prioritizing Sunnat are fringe, prioritizing different Hadith are fringe, abrogating some verses and some Hadith are fringe, prioritizing main scripture are fringe, remaining aqidah are fringe; So ultimately who remains in main stream, above discussed human fearing (not God fearing) phoney compromised academics represented by hardly few among Muslims?

One more important logical fallacy: Is Nadia Murad is representing ISIS or female slaves to oppose her image? "To the minimum Murad was a female slave of some self declared Muslims". At a female slave level how she is different from any other female slave captured or bought or owned by any previous Muslim regimes? Minimum at captivating, buying and owning female slavery culture whether Medieval or up to this century seems same. If you do not want image of Nadia Murad get drawn a sketch –from worlds most famous painter get it passed from your most preferred academia and publication– of a free Muslim woman being attempted to be sold in Ottoman times and getting justice but rest of the female slaves not having same agency.

"...Although if we can't come to an agreement, then it might be best to remove a lead image. Lots of great articles do not have a lead image.." Partially agree image in the article is not so important since "every one in the humanity has part images in their own 'X chromosomes' just they are not aware about it." Just be bold to put this statement in the article, truly then we won't need any other image for the article, I would agree then.

Again am I criticizing Muslims only, not really, to avoid whataboutism I did not discuss Caroline Blyth and Jane Davidson-Ladd's article (Chapter 9) A Theology of Rape: Plundering the Woman’s Body in Deut. 21:10–14 and Louis John Steele’s Spoils to the Victor earlier. This feminist article will let one know connection from Deut. 21:10–14 until IS. The article focuses more on Bible, but just reading of Deut. 21:10–14 and replacing later scriptural names in same article will help one giving exact deconstruction for debate on discussion happening here. If feminists and academics have not touched this topic there in that article other scholars will be toned down out of fear but will be exposing the flaws this way or that way. Censorship are not sustainable for ever.

IS ideologies are not necessarily most ideal, is a thing to be taught in Madrasas and preaching to the fellow community. Scholars and Encyclopedia job is to present analysis of things as they stand.

I will come back to the image of Rosati in a short while.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bookku: You really need to learn to make your point in fewer words. This is heavy. If you don't want to do it for us, do it for Wikipedia, which has better use for all the kB storing article information, and the environment, which will benefit from the fewer emissions of less intensive server traffic. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

(ec) With all due respect. See WP:TLDR, and WP:NOTFORUM. The talk page addresses specific article issues to resolve them, one by one. This talk page is vastly exceeding, every week, the length of the article itself, which is what requires hands-on editing. I suffer from the same vice, so my advice is not unfriendly, but from experience. Be concise, and speak to specific article usage, or textual details, and we can benefit from your learning.Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bookku After trudging through a little of this wall of text, I'd note that what you say about fringe material is both ridiculous hyperbole and an obvious straw man style of argumentation, particularly when you get to "...Sufi are fringe, Shia are fringe...", which I sincerely doubt anybody has ever said. The question therein being: who are you talking to? Is this an internal monologue? If so, again, please save the space and keep it to yourself. As the text at the top of many talk pages says, this is not a forum. If you want to rant, head to reddit. Logic fallacy? Hardly. Because no one has suggested it. If there is a sensible discussion to be had about imagery, this is not it. To your more general point - going back to Wikipedia ABC: Just because something has some link to a subject does not automatically make it notable with regards to it. This is not a directory: this is an encyclopedia - the lowest bar of inclusion is not existence, i.e.: anything that may or may not have Islamic characteristics, but notability, i.e.: stuff that is reliably established in notable sources to be representative of a subject at large. I frankly don't even know where to begin with the rest of the above. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I suggest editors get back to specifics. All of this talk takes on, wittingly or not, the semblance of cunctator tacticism, burying general consensus about, for example, the need for a title change. The page needs steady focused section by section revision to make it an informed neutral survey of feminine slavery in the Islamic world.Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't start quoting Latin @Nishidani, you'll set Grufo off again. Couldn't you have just used the term filibuster or something? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

By looking at their page, Nishidani and I might have more than one interest in common (although important disagreements too). It's a pity for the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend-mentality though. --Grufo (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with the Crollalanza theory of Shakespeare authorship page, other than creating it as a stub to dump junk plunked down on the Shakespeare Authorship Question page. The article shouldn't even exist, since I rewrote it as the Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship, about which no person in their right mind could find substantial reasons to voice 'disagreements'. As to the mentality to read inimicality into exchanges, in the wording of the sound advice in Matthew: ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς, the word 'agapein' is not a synonym for βινειν, i.e., an hortation to 'screw' one's adversaries.

Extensive discussions requiring at this point a result

• (1) Who is for a title change, and who opposed? Please suggest either an alternative title or a rejection of a change, rather than discuss.

I'm fine with something along the lines of 'Concubinage and female slavery in Islam'. Any overlap with related articles can be fixed by transposition of material from one article to another.Nishidani (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this helps when there is already an official renaming discussion ongoing, but obviously me, and I would note that the phrasing that has currently garnered the most support, at least hypothetically, is: History of concubinage in the Muslim world (slave-concubinage for @Toddy1) Iskandar323 (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, fine. History of (slave-) concubinage in the Muslim world is fine by me. There are limits to how long discussions can drag on.Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

To sum up the discussion (shout if I've missed anyone), it included: @Vice regent and @M.Bitton in favour of History of concubinage in the Muslim World, and I was also willing to support this, while @Toddy1 and @Jushyosaha604 voted in favour of the modified slave-concubinage option, while users that expressed a preference for no change, minimal change or were non-committal included @Grufo, @Srnec and @Mcphurphy (the latter saying they would not oppose a change from "in Islam" to "in the Muslim World"). Iskandar323 (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• (2) Who can clarify our image choices?

I'm fine with an 'Orientalist' image or two, because Western representations of slavery are part of the narrative (and should be written up).Nishidani (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to Roxalena, and could go for a Rosati, say [55], or perhaps this rather more neutral Laurens: [56] Iskandar323 (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes I am astonished by humans' ability of not admitting their own deep desires to themselves. You are fine with The Harem Dance by Rosati? If any representation can go a bit towards what Vice regent was criticizing as depicting Ottoman women as “sexual, lascivicious, and lazy” is that painting by Rosati. Why did we discuss so long about orientalism if your intention was only that of rejecting the more realistic Inspecting New Arrivals due to indigestion? We really are at “any excuse will do” here… Of course my vote will go to Inspecting New Arrivals, it is by far the most appropriate painting for this page and shows what no other painting shows: the enslavement process. --Grufo (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I am rejecting the "more realistic" one because this is an unqualified adjectival statement. Inspecting New Arrivals shows a specific male-female type encounter that may or may not be entirely unrealistic. The Harem Dance simply shows women in a lavishly decorated harem-type setting guarded by what I presume is a male eunuch -- all of which, if true, seems fairly par for the course of Ottoman-style harem setups. You ignored the Laurens option? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It is more realistic in the intentions, more or less like a drama differs from a comedy. I don't know the story behind each painting, but we can imagine The Harem Dance sold as a decorative/entertaining painting. Inspecting New Arrivals instead seems to answer a higher call, and definitely more committed is the subject. The Harem Dance looks like it wants to make you forget that those are slaves, Inspecting New Arrivals instead wants to make you realize that they are. --Grufo (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

All of this sounds like your WP:OR, unless you can find sources to back that up. I would prefer Laurens because he actually visited Turkey and Persia[57]. VR _talk 19:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It's quite WP:BLUESKY that nobody smiles in Inspecting New Arrivals, there is no need of a source. Not having been in a place does not constitute a valid argument for the exclusion of a painting. The only thing we need to look for is if it describes the content well. Both Laurens and Rosati do, although they are not equally direct (Laurens' women are four, they could be wives instad of slaves, while nobody would have any doubt with Rosati) and they cover different aspects of sexual slavery (everyday life and enslavement respectively). --Grufo (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There is also David Roberts who visited Egypt and has a painting of a slave market featuring women. If Grufo's objective it to highlight the slave process, then this painting does so without the unnecessary offense of nudity. MOS:OMIMG recommends that if two images are equally educational, we should pick the one gives less offense. In this case I'd say Roberts is way more education than Rosati (because he saw what he painted).VR _talk 19:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Roberts is not bad, however I believe that nobody will support your argument about the nudity in a painting as offensive if you go to RfC. This is really a basic ground. --Grufo (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Grufo: What you say about The Harem Dance only holds true if you are good at forgetting that - A) women don't usually tend to spend their time hanging out together in Ottoman palaces, and that - B) the black eunuchs guarding them were also, of course, slaves. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It's really not a bad painting. It only surprised me that compared to Inspecting New Arrivals it moderately looks like the most orientalist one of the two (if we intend orientalism in this context as escapist fiction). --Grufo (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Well for the moment let us include Roberts? Nishidani (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's do by majority, and I will not oppose Roberts if it wins or if we remain as we are and no one else answers the call in the meanwhile (after all the page is still blocked). I still slightly favor Inspecting New Arrivals, so if other editors will ask for that I will back them. But as I said, I will not oppose Roberts if the numbers for Rosati are missing. @Bookku: What do you think? --Grufo (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I say add them all - as you say, needed more pictures anyway: good brainstorming session. Roberts would be fine. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

A slave market in Cairo, issued between 1845 and 1849, by David Roberts (painter).

Here is my summary of choices:

• For the lead image, I'd support the image from Akbarnama above, that is also the cover image of the scholarly work Concubines and Courtesans. The artists that produced this lived close to (both in time and in geography) the people they depict.
• For the image that shows the slavery aspect of concubinage, I prefer Roberts' painting of a slave market in Cairo. Roberts is superior to Rosati as he actually visited the places he depicts and therefore are more accurate.
• As Nishidani says above, we can have two Orientalist images. But we really shouldn't have any more. We have ample paintings from inside the Muslim world from different periods and locations, so why should we entirely depict the Muslim world through the fantasies of Europeans? For the second Orientalist image I suggest the portrait by Titian of Roxalena. She is one of the most famous concubines in Muslim history, to which a lot of scholarly attention has been devoted. Her portrait also doesn't appear to include any of the typical Orientalist tropes about Muslim women (sexual, lazy, etc).
• Further images should prioritize art from non-Orientalist other sources: medieval Arab art, Mughal art, Persian art, old photographs, modern photographs of ancient objects and buildings associated with concubinage, etc. (Although if we decided to have a large image gallery then we could include more Orientalist works)

VR _talk 20:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

While I get your point about the Akbarnama being more contemporaneous than some of the images, the rather abstract nature of this type of medieval artwork does detract somewhat from the realism - these images aren't easy to understand or what I would call "natural" - you see figures, but it's not easy to tell what they are all up to and even their gender is a bit hard to make out unless you zoom in. Even then, it only really gives the impression of a scene at any medieval court. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to mention that we can choose not to have a lead image, if we can't find one that is totally representative. We can still have images in the body.

But regarding clarity, I disagree. Anytime we use medieval images there are almost always clearer pictures available (eg depiction in modern film, modern illustrations and cartoons, 3D animation etc). But medieval paintings are often used because they also have historic significance despite being unclear. They present how a very significant group saw the subject of the article. These paintings have shaped perceptions of the subject over centuries. This is also why I think Orientalist paintings have a place here, as they shaped perceptions of Muslim concubines for a long time.VR _talk 20:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

In any case, even if we were to use a medieval picture of concubinage in Islam, I think an Ottoman depiction would be most appropriate, as this is the period that, if any, has become most emblematic of the concept of concubines and harems. Or, as you say, no lead image at all. If simpler. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The Aurut Bazaar illustration by Thomas Allom

The Aurut Bazaar, or Slave Market - Walsh Robert & Allom Thomas - 1836

May I suggest to consider The Aurut Bazaar by Thomas Allom. He was professional architect and illustrator who personally visited Istanbul personally and had drawn the illustration.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Like it. On theme. Good source. Looks realistic. And black and white is always classy. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Idem. Include. Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The Slave Market, Constantinople William Allan (painter)

William Allan (1782-1850) - The Slave Market, Constantinople - NG 2400 - National Galleries of Scotland

The Sale of Circassian Captives to a Turkish Bashaw (Pacha) (1816)

William Allan (painter) too has visited personally not only Turkey but also Russia, Crimea and Circassia and drawn the paintings there. He seem to have drawn a painting called 'The Sale of Circassian Captives to a Turkish Bashaw (1816)'. IDK if The Slave Market, Constantinople painting and The Sale of Circassian Captives to a Turkish Bashaw are same or different.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Giulio Rosati

I do not know the technical thing for the reason link to just before mentioned, Caroline Blyth and Jane Davidson-Ladd's article (Chapter 9) A Theology of Rape: Plundering the Woman’s Body in Deut. 21:10–14 is not working, may be some one can help.

The same article discusses, Louis John Steele’s female slave related painting 'Spoils to the Victor' reviewing Christian female slavery side, the reason part of that discussion is relevant here is, it analyses and helps making difference between a nude drawn for depiction of realism and a nude drawn for male gaze. And that discussion can be useful hear to discuss and decide what an artist is achieving depiction of reality or painting viewer's male gaze? Their discussion is longer and interesting, those interested need to read there first is better. Again one need to make distinguish between depiction of male gaze of male in the drawing and male gaze for the viewer of drawing.

With Rosati's inclusion of Arabic script in painting and many real seeming series on Ottoman time markets, if he has not visited Muslim world then he might have been closely assisted. Paintings do not depict Ottoman world in any deliberate negative light. Focused on presenting the world as is. He might have produced series of paintings so we come across different paintings in same series, but over all percentage of nude slave paintings is limited in comparison to rest of series focusing on rest of market activities like selling carpets and cloth etc.

IMO Rosati seem to depict common female slave at private female slave sale hall. Rosati's painting seem less interested in painting for viewer's male gaze but seem to normalize 'attitude' and male gaze of female slave owners and buyers, while female slave's plight seems taken into account but still relatively marginal. Better part, at least he is covering sexual exploitation of commoner female slave to an extent.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Indigenous works

@Iskandar323: regarding this edit, I'm not sure if there was consensus to add all images to the article. I think Nishidani had suggested an 'Orientalist' image or two, and I prefer also that we limited it to two. As said many times before, I'd prefer indigenous works (from Persia, India and Ottoman Empire) over foreign ones. Examples of how Ottomans ([58][59]) viewed women entertainers. There's also a gallery of women in Persian harem (including entertainers). Here's a Mughal painting that seems to be depicting new arrivals. This is the entrance of where they were kept. The oldest paintings of concubines might come from Hadith Bayad wa Riyad. According to this book, this painting is entitled "Riyad prostrates at the Sayyida’s feet, while the slave girls and the 'ajouz look on", and this one is supposed to have a slave girl singing. Last but not least, here's an actual photograph of women in the harem.VR _talk 21:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Rather than making any sort of definitive selection, I was mainly seeking to preserve the range of talk options (while in the process of switching in a more neutral lead image), with the assumption that further additions, replacements and removals might follow. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

VR' presented selective narrative only replaces foreign Orientalism with indigenous (elite–Muslim ) imperialism which only shows elite harems and obscures conditions of commoner female slaves in war captivity, market captivity and commoner domestic captivity.

If Wikipedia already has article on Harem slavery then why do we need separate article if existence of non–elite commoner slaves has to be censored because some of us do not feel comfortable with not so pleasant history of what ancestral X chromosome has gone through.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed new article

It seems to me there is room for an article concubinage (Islam) to address that specific issue, with a main link from an appropriate section of this article. It seems to be an important and well-sourced topic in its own right, and a significantly different topic to sexual slavery and to concubinage as the term is more generally understood in English. There is a problematic and long section at concubinage#Middle East which might be improved if most of its content were to be moved to an article specifically on Islam, and an article at Islamic views on concubinage which would be more helpfully titled concubinage (Islam) as it is about the concept within Islam, rather than including Islamic views on for example priestly concubinage... a topic on which we should also have an article even if it is just a Christian phenomenon... see https://academic.oup.com/past/article-abstract/1/suppl_1/72/2948734 and https://vincentians.com/en/the-poor-country-people-of-seventeenth-century-france/ for two references to it. Comments? Andrewa (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Andrewa, the sources used in this article overwhelmingly use the term "concubinage" (please look at this table). As I pointed out above, there really isn't a single RS that tries to cover all forms of sexual slavery across all of the Muslim world. Individual instances of sexual slavery in the Muslim world are notable (like bacha bazi), but sources don't attempt to connect all of them. This is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persecution by Muslims. While individual instances of persecution by Muslims are notable (eg. Armenian genocide, Persecution of Bahai), trying to lump all of them in the same article was an WP:ATTACK page that was deleted due to WP:Coatrack, WP:Synth and pov-pushing. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pederasty in the Middle East and Central Asia was deleted for similar reasons.VR _talk 04:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: You really need to use decent arguments. You cannot state that the very same historical/scriptural institution is OK if you call it “Concubinage in Islam”, but becomes WP:ATTACK if you call it “Sexual slavery in Islam”. Please, think before commenting. --Grufo (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Except that "concubinage" is a term for an actual institution that was applied in slightly varying but broadly consistent forms based on theology across a wide geographical area and which can appropriately be discussed as such in an article, while "sexual slavery" is a modern term that is being applied retroactively to re-interpret (and arguably sexualise, sensationalise and revise) history. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, come on, you know that many sources call it sexual slavery / slavery / slavery for pleasure / slave concubinage / etc. This continuous moving the goalposts is what I find exhausting. Also it is the other way around: “concubine” was used retroactively to describe something for which the English vocabulary did not have a name, i.e. the Arabic surriyya, “slave for concubitus, sex”. --Grufo (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Andrewa: What would the scope of Concubinage (Islam) be? Sex between free persons and cohabitation outside marriage? In that case we have already Zina § Adultery and fornication (although a very small section). Sexual slavery? In that case we have already this page and a WP:POVFORK of this page created by Vice regent at Islamic views on concubinage. --Grufo (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The scope would be concubinage as the term is currently understood in Islam. This seems to me to be a clear and encyclopedic topic, and would be very helpful to readers. There may be several views on this, or there may be a consensus within Islam. That is one thing that the article should make clear. The relationship between the modern Islamic use of the term concubine and what is described in Genesis referring to Reumah, Bilhah, Zilpah and others should also be made clear.

It may well be better to move and rescope an existing article rather than to start a new one. It may even be that concubinage as currently understood in Islam is a form of sexual slavery as the term is currently used generally... this is one issue with which we are struggling here. Developing an article on concubinage (Islam) would help that process, as well as being worthwhile in itself. Andrewa (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Biblical concubines are figures that are frozen in the past (see Pilegesh); here we are talking about a productive institution that survived full-blown until the 19th century, with several reappearings still today. “Concubine” is an English word. When applied to Islam it is often used to translate the Arabic surriyya, which has nothing to do with concubinage as we usually mean it, but means “slave for sex” (things start to get a bit more complicated if we include also Turkish and the Ottoman empire, however also there we never leave the territory of sexual slavery and the Islamic scriptures are not written in Turkish). The English sources use “concubine” or “slave for sex” or “slave girl”” or “sex slave” interchangeably in this context. From a raw research on Google Scholar the term “concubinage” in Islam seems to be used a bit more often than “sexual slavery” in Islam (6,020 hits against 3,200 hits), but we are talking about the same order of magnitude and these numbers must be taken cum grano salis. And, most importantly, we should not be influenced by popularity in front of ambiguity. Look at the way one of the sources uses the term “concubine” in Islam:

“The status of concubine was informal; however, law and custom allowed a master to have sex with any of his (unmarried) female slaves. It was also insecure: a concubine could be freed and married by her owners, or she could be sold off, so long as he had not impregnated her.”

— Kecia Ali, pr. Reda, Nevin; Amin, Yasmin (2020). Islamic Interpretive Tradition and Gender Justice: Processes of Canonization Subversion and Change. McGill-Queen’s University Press. p. 229. doi:10.2307/j.ctv1bhg2d1. ISBN 9780228001621.

Would you create a separate article about “Concubinage in Islam” for this scenario, or would you discuss about it in Sexual slavery in Islam? --Grufo (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Again with this straw man Grufo. Concubinage, as defined on its Wikipedia page, involved slavery in ancient Mesopotamia, ancient Assria, often in Greece, (in essence under the term contubernium in ancient Rome, even as the exact term concubina was used for something else), in China, under the Mongols, in Korea, in India, under the Vikings - the bulk of the geographically specific sub-sections on the concubinage page make some sort of reference to slavery - either identifying it as the main practice or at least a version of it. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course the Concubinage article talks massively about sexual slavery, after you, Vice regent and Toddy1 hammered it by POV-pushing sexual-slavery-related content despite my concerns. By the way, this is the second time you use the “straw man” term. Are you sure you know its meaning? I can help you with an example if you want:

• A: We should have an article on Sexual slavery in Islam
• B: No, “trying to lump all of them in the same article is an WP:ATTACK”

Fallacy: the same editor would be OK in lumping all of them in the same article under the condition that it is called “concubinage”. Even worse, the same editor would even include pre-Islamic stuff under the term “Concubinage in the Muslim world”. --Grufo (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I added the word slave anywhere - I mainly cleaned up citations. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hum… You literally POV-pushed the entire current lead of the Concubinage article and made it be about sexual slavery, transforming it from this version to this version. --Grufo (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I was talking about me, not other editors. Again, we're not a collective. But on the subject of that particular diff, you can see a lot of the citation expanding and conversion to sfn/harvnb format by me, i.e.: editing. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I was also talking about you, Iskandar323, not other editors. You asked me if you added anything about slavery, and I said that you twisted the entire lead in that direction. You also removed the gender neutral concubinage from the lead, forcing it into the current heterosexual meaning. --Grufo (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure I did make other editors. I'm not denying it. That's kinda how this shindig goes. What I asked was if I added the word "slave" anywhere, because I do not believe that in fact did. My point of course being that I am simply taking at face value any mentions of slavery in that article (which I did not push) as valid conceptual ties between slavery across the millenia and the academic use of the term concubinage as they are presented. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

What I asked was if I added the word "slave" anywhere: I will not go through all your edits. But only in that single edit and only in the lead:

• “A concubine could be freeborn or of slave origin, and their experience could vary tremendously according to their masters' whim.”
• “The practice of a barren wife giving her husband a slave as a concubine is recorded …”
• “Throughout Africa, from Egypt to South Africa, slave concubinage resulted in racially-mixed populations.”
• “The practice declined as a result of the abolition of slavery.”
• “In European colonies and American slave plantations, single and married men entered into long-term sexual relationships with local women.

--Grufo (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

All that diff shows is @Toddy1 reverting an edit by you where you attempted to plagiarize content from Concubinage (law) internally without attribution WP:COPYWITHIN - all anyone can tell from that is that those mentions were in the article before the prior diff, and that you tried to delete them. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You asked me if you added slavery, and you did. What's with me forgetting to add a WP:COPYWITHIN? It sounds quite minor and unrelated, and I had explained it in the talk page that I was going to copy text from Concubinage (law). By the way, the lead that you rejected and I tried to restore was not even mine. This had been my lead, which Vice regent had transformed into this – and I for once was happy with an edit made by Vice regent. --Grufo (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

A single sentence was hardly sufficient explanation for that edit, and you didn't even get the sentence right, attributing the page to @Vice regent, when I created it. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I am really fine with you removing my content your own content from Concubinage. What I am not fine with is you POV-pushing sexual slavery into the lead of Concubinage and then coming here and using that particular article for presenting concubinage as a sort of new synonym of sexual slavery: pure WP:GAME. --Grufo (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Grufo, before you started changing the lead to the article on Concubinage, the lead looked like this. You changed the lead to look like this. There was no consensus for your change. But, instead of edit-warring, other editors discussed what should be in the lead and came up with what we have now.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: I believe you are talking about a parallel universe in which that was my lead, but that was actually Vice regent's lead, which I was fine with. This was the old lead, which contained already many POV-pushings about slavery made by Vice regent one year ago and which I updated adding the gender neutral concubinage and transformed it into this (almost identical in size and content). Then Vice regent created an “Overview” section immediately after the lead, so I moved part of the lead there, making the lead appear like this. Then Vice regent finished the job and moved another paragraph from the lead into the “Overview” section, making the lead appear like this (the “lead of mine” you are talking about). It was a collegial work accompanied by a peaceful discussion and I was fine with it. Then you, Vice regent and Iskandar323 started to push sexual-slavery-related content and I was not fine with it anymore. There was no consensus for your change What change exactly of the ones that I have listed in this comment are you talking about? --Grufo (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

And now it's better and has an etymology section and everything. End of story. Good job everyone. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• I have read, although not carefully, this section and the section above. It's not clear to me that a consensus has been reached on anything. Part of the problem is the bickering: applying labels to other editors' arguments is not constructive; saying you disagree and why is far better. More than one editor is guilty of this kind of distracting argumentation. The protection on the article expires tomorrow. I have the article on my watchlist, and I'm not going to be charitable with editors who make changes to the article without a clear consensus for the changes. You would have done far better to try to break down your differences into very discrete issues and have RfCs on each of those issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  It would be more useful if protection on the article were extended until the move discussion is over.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Toddy1: The move discussion began on November 10, nine days ago. Although the discussion may be constructive, as far as I can tell, there's no consensus at all. I don't like the idea of extending full protection for a long time to prevent editors from misbehaving.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  What edits to the article are sensible depends on the results of the move discussion.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Trimmings required

I went through the page and just realized that some, if not many, portions are added in a coatrack manner. For instance:

"These are born to slave mothers.[4][5] Owners who would marry off their female slaves to someone else, would also be the masters of any children born from that marriage.[34] Thus, Islamic law made slave-breeding possible.[35]"

Is this paragraph directly related to "Sexual slavery in Islam"? Are the reliable sources linking this to the title? As per WP:OR, "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." The sources which are only talking about the wide context of slavery in Islam, for which we already have a page, should not be considered as a source here. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The whole of Sexual slavery in Islam#Umayyad Caliphate (and probably more sections) should be moved to Concubinage in the Muslim world. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:

• A paragraph that lists one of the sources of sex slaves is related to Sexual slavery in Islam
• Concubinage in the Muslim world is a WP:POVFORK of this page and most of its content should probably be merged with it.

--Grufo (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein is right in that those paragraphs are more about slavery in general: the first part is not even necessarily specific to female slaves - it would apply equally to male or female slaves. The second part is about the status of children from marriage slaves, which is also somewhat more pertinent to a general discussion about slavery. It might have a place on this page if it was called something closer to 'female slavery', as I suggested, but it is problematic to characterise a relationship falling under the legal umbrella of marriage as "sexual slavery". Iskandar323 (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, but that slaves are allowed to be married is an important right. I read somewhere once that in Islam, if a slave owner allows a female slave to marry someone, after the marriage he is no longer allowed to have sex with her.
The status of children of slaves is also important.
Remember, very few readers of Wikipedia own slaves, so they need to understand context.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I think a brief introduction to slavery in Islam is warranted - but only brief. I agree with Toddy1's suggestions of mentioning slave marriage and children of slaves. But "slave breeding" is problematic. There are sources that most slaves were purchased, not bred or captured in war. Slave-breeding, though a possibility, was either rare or non-existent (source, more can be provided). This was due to several legal mechanisms, eg a child's status is determined by his father's, so if the father is free, so is the child. This certainly doesn't deserve a section, only a sentence like "Slave-breeding, though possible, was rare in the Muslim world."

The rules of slavery in medieval Islam were complicated and they should be covered at Islamic views on slavery. Otherwise we risk copying that entire article into this one.VR _talk 19:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

"..There are sources that most slaves were purchased, not ... captured in war. .." Keep breeding part outside for a while and it is very easy to realize from this sentence, how dubious sources play–down and white wash 'female slave capture' and selling of there after. Let us deconstruct further.

"..Slave-breeding, though a possibility, was either rare or non-existent.."

One side of the coin: Slave-breeding was rare because in Muslim empires non–Muslims were actively discouraged from owning slaves that means most slaves owner's were Muslim's. Muslim master's children from slaves were compulsorily raised Muslims and Mulsims could not be enslaved so slavery by birth was lesser was one side of the coin.

The other side of the coin, Since marrying with more than 4 women was not allowed, Muslim males had more obligations through marriage contract, but to consummate non–Muslim 'female slave' was allowed without restrictions or obligation of any marriage contract. That itself created market demand for non–Muslim female slaves. It's obvious, behind euphemism of 'domestic slavery' it was 'master's own 'allowed*' consumption of sexual slavery, *with the allowance approved by the religion' Once master invests after 'physical examination of beauty' why will s/he marry off to some one else?

Last but not least, (Islamically*) In real sense even non–Muslim women could be taken captive from active conflict zones only. * Actually taking non–Muslim women as captive from non–conflict zone was not Islamic enough. So to fulfill demand for non–Muslim female slaves from conflict zones used to induce raids in non–Muslim areas and any raid can be classified as conflict or war zone.

That is how substantial ancestry of 'X' Chromosome comes from war ravaged captured female slaves and many users so enthusiastic to use dubious sources to white wash unpleasant parts of discomforting history of ancestral 'X' Chromosome.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bookku: 'Domestic slavery' is not a euphemism. While one shouldn't presume the medieval Islamicate slave economy was more gentrified than it actually was, one equally shouldn't assume the worst. Domestic servants were and today remain a common part of the culture across the Middle East and subcontinent, where they handle cooking, cleaning and other mundane chores. While female slaves COULD quite legally find themselves fluidly transitioning from domestic slave to slave for pleasure, we cannot make guesses about the prevalence of such occurrences. It's fetishistic to imagine that most female slaves were objects of desire, or that most people had lots of pleasure slaves. In addition, the Muslim empires of the past were not always warring, and slaves were not always abundant. By the late Ottoman period, we have sources stating slave ownership was low among the largely monogamous average Joe, and I imagine that, if we dig deep enough, we will find sources from other periods showing similar rich-poor divides in slaver ownership. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes all those female cactives who were captured disappeared in thin air, existence of their x chromosomes in later generations (without alleged non–consummation of slave by their Master-ship) is just miracle! (Sarcasm is intended)

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is in response to my comment or something else, as the pointing is off if it is, but my only point was to caution against sensationalism and generalization regarding empires that lasted for many centuries. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Grufo: Why are you reverting me despite the discussion showing my stance is well argued according to the guideline?--Mhhossein ^talk 06:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  Because there was no discussion when your edit appeared (only you asking questions in this Talk Page), and when a discussion finally took place your questions about whether it was justified briefly to mention slave breeding or not were answered. --Grufo (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  It was not a question, rather a clear objection. By the way, at least, VR is also objecting "slave breeding". Why did you fully reverted my edit? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  You asked a question (“Is this paragraph directly related to "Sexual slavery in Islam"?”). The question was answered (“A paragraph that lists one of the sources of sex slaves is related to Sexual slavery in Islam”). The paragraph was restored. If you have other objections feel free to explain your doubts. --Grufo (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  There are two kinds of sources (and content) currently in the article. Those that are specifically on the topic of concubinage (including sexual relationship with slaves), and those that are on slavery in general but there's no mention of anything sexual in them. As per Toddy1's comment, it's ok to have a background on slavery in general, but I think it should be brief and represent the major perspectives. Content on slavery in general that has nothing to do with sex belongs at Islamic views on slavery, not here.VR _talk 05:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• I should repeat again, every single sentence in this page which is not "directly supporting the material being presented" should be removed. The basis for this trimming is provided by WP:OR: "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Likewise, introductory materials should also be brought from the sources which are on the "Sexual slavery in Islam". Other coatracky stuff has no place here.--Mhhossein ^talk 13:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• The bigger issue is source WP:CHERRYPICKING. With regards to "slave-breedng", many sources say that was rare and I'm rewrote that text to reflect that.VR _talk 05:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Jizya and rebellion

I'm not sure why the stuff on jizya and rebellion is in the article. Are there sources that say it lead to enslavement of women? If not, this sounds like OR. Because I've found sources that say women were never required to pay jizya to begin with. Likewise rebellions were usually by men, so its not clear if women would be punished for that too. But if a source says they were, then of course it is ok to add that.VR _talk 13:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

More pertinently, the enslavement of women alone does not imply use for sex, so unless the sources in question draw direct parallels between specific enslavement events and the channeling of enslaved women to markets as slaves for pleasure it is off topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

On the subject of jizya, it was in lieu of military service. Muslim men served and non-Muslim men paid jizya, so the sources should indeed show that women were not required to pay jizya. Imagine, otherwise, the tax on non-Muslims that owned harems! Iskandar323 (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Reverted edits by IP

The edits by this IP are unhelpful. They are also quite similar to a blocked user who periodically makes sock puppets and they inevitably get caught. But lately they've been using dynamic IPs. I've already requested IP protection on some other articles and will request that protection here too if this activity persists.VR _talk 13:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

All the minor edits actually seemed fine. Only the 454kh unsourced additions seemed unhelpful. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

This edit removed something that's in the source. And the 454 addition wasn't just unsourced, it put stuff in the lead, giving it undue weight.VR _talk 13:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes and no - that statement was (and still is) badly phrased. Edits seemed generally good faith. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to phrase it better, but the IP just removed it altogether.VR _talk 13:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I just tried, and I've realised the quote from that unfinished thesis is all over the place and full of holes. It says no one could attack or rape a slave girl, but obviously a master could rape a slave girl - it would just be labelled a master's prerogative. And an example of a male slave (the lowest of the low) getting punished is hardly evidence that no one could get away with it. This is the problem with using thesis content written by barely graduated students instead of peer-reviewed journals and published literary works. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I stand by the assessment that everything from that Saad thesis should be discarded. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe that stuff and the consent section should be merged. I know some scholars say master could rape her, but others say she could take him to court for that. My point is that all perspectives need to be included. Here's the text: "The Hanbali scholar Buhuti (d. 1641) even says that if a master forced a slave woman unable to bear intercourse to have sex and injured her, she would be freed as a result." Slavery and Islam page 96.VR _talk 14:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You're right - but we should also probably only include reliable perspectives (as above). You know how when an opinion is a little in doubt, we would normally says "XXX says..." - well I'm not sure how I would qualify the Saad source - "Saad opines in their unfinished thesis that..." Retaining such sources makes a mockery of the reliability guidelines. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Barbary Coast section

I noticed that the Barbary Coast section cites some stories as fact, but when following the source it says they are folk traditions. Probably a good idea to get some of that cleaned up and make sure we're presenting things as the sources are doing. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)