ebooksgratis.com

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Talk:Islam and slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Islam and slavery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is not a forum for general discussion of Islam and slavery.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
Islam and slavery was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: April 2, 2007


Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.

This article was nominated for deletion on 121105. The result of the discussion was no consensus. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.
Archive

Chronological Archives
1

2

Contents

[edit] Muhammad

In the section "Muhammad" someone has written that "Safiyya bint Huyayy, whom he freed and married after torturing her husband to death". The story about ordering the torture of Safiyya (ra) husband was taken from tabari and can therefore not be quoted here as fact. Either proof must be provided that this story is factually correct and considered a Sahi hadith or the wording must portray something like "it is alleged that he ordered the torture". Otherwise it is a totally misleading statement and must not be included. WasimKhan80 07:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] manumission

the opinions of Gordon are appreciated, but can we a) cut down the massive quoting (such extensive quoting without substantial explanatory text may constitute a copyvio) and represent his main points in a few sentences of prose; b) make clear that it is Gordon's opinion (which is not quite what the text currently does, "Gordon notes... " assumes the factuality of his conclusions) especially as this is more interpretive than descriptive. ITAQALLAH 13:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Islamist" opinion?

What's with the heading 'Islamist' opinion? Have we used the word Islamist correctly? Ie, look at Islamism. Furthermore, is there a particular reason the article mentions Islamist opinion? And are each of the people mentioned there actually Islamists? Or are some of them 'just' Muslims? Should there not be an explanatory sentence or two introducing the section and giving cohesion, or is it just another lawyer's list? Maybe it's OK, but I think it should be at least questioned. --Merbabu 14:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "legal disabilities and dispensations" trimming and overhaul

i found that Levy had not really been represented appropriately, and that the current bullet-point format wasn't very encyclopedic or neutral, so i decided to do a rewrite. there's some material which i did not include, namely the material about marriage/concubinage (as we already have a section where this material can be inserted if it's not already there). i also removed the information about killing in talio, for free men are also killed in talio also for killing other free men. the only issue is when a free man kills a slave, when talio is not required (except in murder, according to Hanafis). furthermore, this: "slaves may lawfully be killed in vengeance (talio) if their master or their master's kinfolk kill the slave of another person" is not substantiated by the source i believe. ITAQALLAH 16:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Under Islamic law, a slave possesses..." Is this the case in the present day, or was it only the case in the past? Tom Harrison Talk 17:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
the Encyclopedia of Islam and Levy write in the present tense. i would assume it's because the relative legal rulings and jurisprudence concerning slaves remains unchanged. ITAQALLAH 17:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we are going to need to summarize the current legal rulings and jurisprudence on slavery, or else acknowledge that Islam does not in fact prohibit slavery today. Tom Harrison Talk 17:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It's portayed as divinely ordained in the Quran as multiple scholars are cited as noting in the article. Arrow740 00:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards

There is nothing here on the talk page to indicate why the tag was posted; therefore, deletion of tag will commence. --ProtectWomen 18:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ibrahim and hajar

This section, authored by me has been excised by Merbabu. It was linked to other sections of Wikipedia on Abraham and Hagar as its sources. He can't see the relevance of it, and so he acts to suppress information about how one of the most important Islamic prophets ... treats his slave by abandoning her and their son in the desert. Of course, the conduct of Islamic 'prophets' acts as an example for muslims and of Islam - in respect to treatment of slaves, in this instance.

But anyway, it's been typically and predictably cut out before most editors got a chance to consider it so I'll relate it below.

On another note with regard to my personal life, a certain 'train' I've been expecting in recent weeks and waiting for has arrived. So, I expect to be retiring from Wiki-editing very soon.

[Excerpt begin]

==Ibraham and Hajar==

Main article: Hagar_%28Bible%29#Hagar_in_Islamic_traditions
See also: Islamic view of Abraham
The Islamic prophet Ibrahim abandons his slaveHagar and their child Ismail
The Islamic prophet Ibrahim abandons his slaveHagar and their child Ismail
Abraham (Ibrahim, under Islam) is acknowledged as an Islamic prophet. It is asserted that the Arabs are the progeny of him with his Ethiopian slave, Hagar. Hagar was given to him while he already had Sarah as a wife. By Abraham, Hajar gave birth to Ishmael (Arabic:Ismā'īl) which pleased him. Sarah thereafter regretted Abraham taking Hagar as a wife, so she prevailed upon him to send Hajar and Ishmael away.

Ibrahim brought Hajar to the hill called al-Marwa, left a bag of dates and some water nearby, and abandoned her. Hajar ran after him and said: "Are you going to leave us in this desert where there is no one to keep us company?" She repeated this many times but he would not look back at her.

Hagar, with Ishmael as a suckling, was left alone in bare desert far from human contact. She lived on the provisions until hunger and thirst overcame her. Her milk dried up, leaving Ishmael also hungry and thirsty.

Hoping to find water, she searched the desert but found nothing. She found Ishmael crying which made her weep also. She ran seven times back and forth in scorching heat between the hills of Safa and Marwa, in hope of seeing some water from high ground. Disappointed and tearful, she returned to Ishmael. Her search is superstitiously imitated by muslims in the act of ritual walking (sa`i, Arabic: سَعِي) between the same hills at Mecca as part of the performance of Islamic pilgrimage.

The legend concludes that Hajar and Ishmael were saved by Gabriel providing a source of water for her and Ishmael.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidYork71 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 28 March 2007


David, Abraham did it at God's command, not on his own. This image is misleading as Abraham was actually hesitant to do so. I don't think any Muslim has ever recieved a similar order from God so your evluation that "Of course, the conduct of Islamic 'prophets' acts as an example for muslims and of Islam - in respect to treatment of slaves, in this instance." is irrelevant. --Aminz 00:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I don't think the story of Abraham is relevant to this article. --Aminz 00:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I like the picture. The background story could possibly be condensed to "Abraham obeys God's order to abandon his concubine Hagar" or something like that. Arrow740 01:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This story doesn't have anything to do with this article. --Aminz 01:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Simply put, the story and picture show an aspect of what it means to be a slave and the child of a slave in the context of Islam. Any muslim has that sunnah to inform his/her own conduct in relation to those enslaved. It's apt for the article.DavidYork71 01:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean.... that "picture show an aspect of what it means to be a slave and the child of a slave in the context of Islam" what aspect? in the context of islam? --Aminz 01:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
A slave of any pre-Islamic Middle Eastern figure is relevant to this section, let alone one claimed as a predecessor by Muhammad. Arrow740 02:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with both User:Sefringle who originally removed it and User:Aminz here. The image is out of place in an article about Islam and slavery. Just because Muhammad "claimed" Ibrahim doesn't make it true. (→Netscott) 02:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This story is the reason why muslims run between the two hills in the desert heat seven times on pilgrimage. It's part of Islam. Everything Muhammad claimed is part of it.DavidYork71 10:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
"Simply put, the story and picture show an aspect of what it means to be a slave and the child of a slave in the context of Islam. Any muslim has that sunnah to inform his/her own conduct in relation to those enslaved." - completely absurd argument, and false. ITAQALLAH 15:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Images are meant to add value to the text of the article. As Hagar/Hajar is not even mentioned here, I cannot see what justification there could be for including the image. If there is a reliable source which connects this story to Islam and Slavery, then text discussing this can be added, and the image along with it.Proabivouac 00:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright permission for any pictures from www.frontline.org.za

The follow email message may be cited as permission for any of the pics from that site. I have previously uploaded some and used them in the article.

From : Frontline Fellowship <info@frontline.org.za> Sent : Tuesday, 27 March 2007 1:57:26 PM To : <Dy90@hotmail.com> Subject : LETTER to DAVID YORK from DR PETER HAMMOND Attention: David York Dear Mr. York Thank you for your letter 18/3 via Christian Action. You are most welcome to reproduce the pictures on Islam and slavery from our website. They are a public domain. They were sketched by contemporaries in the 19th Century. I obtained these pictures from a variety of old books from second hand bookshops. If we can be of any further assistance, please do let us know. Yours for faith and freedom Dr. Peter Hammond

"I obtained these pictures from a variety of old books from second hand bookshops." that doesn't prove that the pictures are geniune. --Aminz 01:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
And who is Peter Hammond? "Peter J. Hammond"; professor of economics at stanford university; or someone else? --Aminz 01:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
No, he is the representative of frontline.org.za Stanford is not in Zaire.149.135.32.222 04:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imami Source of Jurisprudence

The statement "In Imami Shiite jurisrudence, the master of a female slave may grant a third party the use of her for sexual relations.[1]" must be verified by an imami source of jurisprudence.

It is in the EoI article. You have no valid reason to remove this. As such, this is vandalism. Arrow740 06:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be a "imami source of jurisprudence". As long as it is a reliable source, which I believe EOI is, it is fine by Wiki policy. NN 07:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, can you please point me to the quote. I searched the article for "Imami", etc etc and couldn't find the quote. --Aminz 08:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Section L. It's the 10th page of my printout. Arrow740 23:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
It has the same status as other statements from EoI. Leave it and then bring forward the Imami rulings that confirm or explain it later as added refs.DavidYork71 10:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shia Jurisprudence

In Shia jurisrudence, the master of a female slave may grant a third party the use of her for sexual relations.[1], Arrow740, EoI is not a sufficient source for SHIA Jurisprudence. For eg. If someone were to claim a ruling in Christian Canon Law, they would have to refer to the Canon law source. It would not be sufficient to refer to any other source besides the Canon books. It is only logical. If you can obtain a source that quotes a ruling from a Shiite Islamic Jurist, then that would be sufficient. EoI has been called into question regarding certain aspects that it has claimed to be of Shiite interpretation. EoI is by no means a monolithic piece of literature on the entirety of Islam in ACCURATE DETAIL. Al-Zaidi

Presumably, Mr.Brunschvig has done that work for us. Do you have any reason to disagree?Proabivouac 04:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I have posted something on Tom Harrison's page about this. Brunschvig quotes the classic scholar Al-Hilli. Unlike Sunni jurists who belonged to early days of Islam, Shia jurists are present up to now. I don't think they address such details about slavery anymore(at least it is not present in the specific popular books they publish). If they do, they can have their own opinion (e.g. some of them consider women's inheritence the same as that of man because of the new social order of the community; some others consider apostasy not to be punishable by death unless it is apostasy+treason etc etc). But after all, they all belong to the same tradition as Al-Hilli belonged. One example where many of today's jurists distance from Al-Hilli is on the ritual cleanness of people of the book. Anyways. --Aminz 05:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Proabivouac, with the information stated above, the article should reflect its source al-Hilli when stating "Shia Jurisprudence". Even today there are differences within Shia Jurisprudences as well as hundreds of differences within Sunni Jurisprudence according to Sheikh Ahmad Deedat. Aminz you should rephrase "Unlike Sunni jurists who belonged to early days of Islam, Shia jurists are present up to now." The Sunni Jurists of who founded the Maliki and Hanafi schools of Sunni Islam were students of the Shia Jurist and 6th Imam, Jafar As-Sadiq. Al-Shafi inturn was influenced by the Maliki and Hanafi teachings. Thus you should rephrase and mention only that the gates if ijtihad are still open within Shia Islam as opposed to Sunni Islam. Al-Zaidi

[edit] Article GA-nommed

Today, by me. DavidYork71 02:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Should pass. Arrow740 02:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
DY71, I disagree with nomination of this article. There are clearly active disputes here. --Aminz 07:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking at this article now, I'd say it is LONG, comprehensive and well-cited, and lacking pics in some sections.DavidYork71 02:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparisons

This article does not mention the issue of slavery in other parts of the world and other religions. Wouldn't such a provision of context be informative? Articles don't have to stand alone in isolation. Merbabu 04:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

We have pre-Islamic slavery. That provides the relevant context. Arrow740 05:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Look how long it is already. Do not extend the scope beyond the purview of the title.DavidYork71 05:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA-reviewer needed

In a few places I have advertised for a GAreviewer as follows:

The abovenoted article, to which I have contributed, I have nommed for GA. It needs a GA reviewer who is not in the business of glorifying Islam, bashing Islam or sugarcoating/minimising/denying the facts and circumstances of slavery. Most important is that the rights or dignities allowed to slaves by Islam have a proper exposure. My view of the I&S article is that it is informative, wellreferenced, wellresearched, comprehensive wellillustrated and LONG. On the subject of neutrality or stability, I would just ask that the article itself and not the disputatiousness of the talk page be kept in focus as the subject of review. Now that I have your interest do I have a volunteer??DavidYork71 08:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

DavidYork71 08:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit on the long side (ref WP:LENGTH), is not written in encyclopaedic prose style, overly relies on direct quotes from a particular source (Gordon) and uses images with unclear copyright status. Until these matters are cleared up, the article is unlikely to pass a competent GA process. Orderinchaos 08:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slavery in the Hadith

I have included some material on what Muhammad said on the matter of slavery according to Hadiths. David York keeps deleting that material. Should what Muhammad said about slavery not be included? The Hadith are Islam's second most important scripture, after the Koran. If the style of writing needs to be changed, let me know. The content itself is very relevant to the article, and is actually absolutely necessary. Coldbud 16:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The Hadiths are primary sources. We can include those to illustrate and support secondary sources, but if we rely on them by themselves it is hard to avoid doing original research. It would be better to cite the opinions of scholars who have said which hadiths are relevent and what they mean. Tom Harrison Talk 17:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The preceding section is Slavery in the Quran where many examples are taken directly from the Quran itself. Shouldnt David York have deleted that as well then? Coldbud 22:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be cited to Lewis, EoI, and EoQ, with the actual quotes from the Qur'an cited in support. Tom Harrison Talk 23:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removal

this:

In theory, the recognition by a master of his offspring was optional, and in the early period was often withheld. By the high Middle Ages it became normal and was unremarkable in a society where the sovereigns themselves were almost invariably the children of slave concubines.<ref>Lewis 1990, page 91.</ref>

... is not relevant to slavery in Islamic jurisprudence or the rules/regulations set by Islamic law on this topic. it more appropriately belongs in the history of slavery under Muslim rule section. ITAQALLAH 23:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

similarly, this is also extraneous (and probably belongs in the slavery in pre-Islamic Arabia sect): "In ancient Arabian custom, the child of a freeman by his slave was also a slave unless he was recognized and liberated by his father.<ref>Lewis 1990, page 24.</ref>." ITAQALLAH 23:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
"In theory, the recognition by a master of his offspring was optional." What do you not understand about that? The EoI article further mentions that the father can deny paternity: "Enfranchisements were usual, but it was not unknown for a concubine who had borne a child to seek from her master a denial of paternity." Please put that back in. Arrow740 18:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review (Fail)

  1. Well written. This article definately needs to be mercilessly edited. It is very long, and the flow and focus of the writing is very inconsistant. The Slavery in the Qur'an section needs a serious overhaul. It is dominated by quotations from specific authors and riddled with direct in-text citations of Quran verses. We should report on the views of others, not cut and paste them into an article. References to primary sources should be placed in footnotes for reference, instead of muddling the main text of the article. Overall, there is too great a reliance on direction quotations and a very inconsistant quality of writing.
  2. Factually accurate and verifiable. Despite the numerous citations, this article is severely lacking in many areas. The Slavery in The Hadiths section is apparently completely original research of primary sources. Reliable secondary sources are needed and primary source references should be placed in footnotes for a reader's reference. Additionally, there are potentially contentious claims in the article that are lacking references. Forexample is: "The majority of slaves within Arabia were of Ethiopian origin, through whose sale merchants grew rich. The minority were white slaves of foreign race, likely brought in by Arab caravaneers (or the product of Bedouin captures) stretching back to biblical times." The appearance is that references were added very sporadically and that the process of referencing claims is not complete.
  3. Broad in its coverage. The article seems to cover the bases well.
  4. Neutral point of view. The article seems reasonable neutral in its presentation.
  5. Stable. This article is not stable. There are still edit conflicts and reverts ongoing recently.
  6. Use of images. Good use of images.

While the article is sufficiently broad, neutral and has good images, it clearly fails GA standards. The article needs to be more completely referenced. Current references should be reviewed and reworked. This is particularly true of the heavy reliance on direct quotes. The article needs a good copyedit and soft rewrite to produce a consistant product. The article also needs to become considerably more stable to fulfill GA criteria. Vassyana 01:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this thoughtful , Vassyana. I agree with most of what you've said here.
I have removed the section you've identified as original research.Proabivouac 05:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I think the major problem is stability. After fully addressing the disputed accuracy and neutrality of the article, it should be able to pass GA. --Aminz 08:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Do not ignore point one.Proabivouac 08:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Right. --Aminz 08:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to the reviewer (Vassyana) for putting in time and consideration on this.DavidYork71 13:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lewis's quote

The full Lewis's quote used in the Qur'an and slavery section is:

The Qur'an, like the Old and the New Testaments, assumes the existence of slavery. It regulates the practice of the institution and thus implicitly accepts it. The Prophet Muhammad and those of his Companions who could afford it themselves owned slaves; some of them acquired more by conquest. But Qur'anic legislation, subsequently confirmed and elaborated in the Holy Law, brought two major changes to ancient slavery which were to have far-reaching effects. One of these was the presumption of freedom; the other, the ban on the enslavement of free persons except in strictly defined circumstances.

The Qur'an was promulgated in Mecca and Medina in the seventh century, and the background against which Qur'anic legislation must be seen is ancient Arabia. The Arabs practiced a form of slavery, similar to that which existed in other parts of the ancient world. The Qur'an accepts the institution, though it may be noted that the word 'abd (slave) is rarely used, being more commonly replaced by some periphrasis such as ma malakat aymanukum, "that which your right hands own." The Qur'an recognizes the basic inequality between master and slave and the rights of the former over the latter (XVI:71; XXX:28). It also recognizes concubinage (IV:3; XXIII:6; XXXIII:50-52; LXX:30). It urges, without actually commanding, kindness to the slave (IV:36; IX:60; XXIV:58) and recommends, without requiring, his liberation by purchase or manumission....

Two points:

  • The article starts quoting Lewis from "The Qur'an recognizes the basic inequality between ..." ; Lewis starts with "The Qur'an accepts the institution, though it may be noted that the word 'abd (slave) is rarely used, being more commonly replaced by some periphrasis such as ma malakat aymanukum, "that which your right hands own.";
This could be summerized and added to the article.
  • Lewis says: "But Qur'anic legislation, subsequently confirmed and elaborated in the Holy Law, brought two major changes to ancient slavery which were to have far-reaching effects. One of these was the presumption of freedom; the other, the ban on the enslavement of free persons except in strictly defined circumstances."
This was previously in the article but is now removed. The "Principles" section attributes this to Muslim jurists. I think this should be added to the Qur'an section along with other reforms. --Aminz 08:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imbrahim and Hajar

The artist Gustave Dore signed this image at its bottom left corner and this work is attributed to him by the image source. Is there any reason to un-AGF, and if so who do you claim as the artist and copyright owner?DavidYork71 08:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

The images placed in each section should be representative of the matter they are discussing, or in relation to the text. The following image for example:


A boy slave in the slave trade market of Zanzibar punished by chaining to a 32 pound log. c.1890. From the Moresby Treaty of 1822, slave trade through Zanzibar became exclusive to Arab and Islamic traders as the sale of slaves to European powers had become illegal
A boy slave in the slave trade market of Zanzibar punished by chaining to a 32 pound log. c.1890. From the Moresby Treaty of 1822, slave trade through Zanzibar became exclusive to Arab and Islamic traders as the sale of slaves to European powers had become illegal

It's caption reads: "A boy slave in the slave trade market of Zanzibar punished by chaining to a 32 pound log. c.1890. From the Moresby Treaty of 1822, slave trade through Zanzibar became exclusive to Arab and Islamic traders as the sale of slaves to European powers had become illegal"


Assuming that the picture is authentic, why is this slave is a good representative of the status of slaves under Muslim rule? Without that justification the image would be non-neutral. --Aminz 08:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

See how it balances and adds perspective to the ex-slave Bilal and the more recent abeed slave who's owned by King Feisal of Iraq. And there's another abeed ex-slave from Sudan there. To chain up a slave who's run away, even one who's a child .. that's the Islamic way, and that's why Muhammad said words to the effect that the prayers of a runaway slave will not be regarded and their virtues dismissed. When we step down from abolitionism to Islam we find that the runaway slave is one who has committed a major sin (the view of Muhammad) rather than standing up for their own dignity. It's apt for being exposed here.DavidYork71 09:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The source for this image mentions nothing about Islam and slavery. All that is mentioned is Arabs and slavery. It's essentially OR that this image is on this article. Daivd York is the one who added the "Islamic" part to the caption. (→Netscott) 09:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
David, I can not see how your comment addresses my point. It is rather an expression of a distorted view of Islam:"To chain up a slave who's run away, even one who's a child .. that's the Islamic way".
The Bilal pic was added because of a quote from Al-Hibri. He is an early companian of Muhammad and notable as the first Muazeen. The quote was latter removed from the article by Arrow and kept as a caption for the image. I think the proper place for the image is in front of a text that talks about slaves in early days of Islam (not in the intro for example). --Aminz 12:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Including this particular image may or may not be correct, but we have to be careful to choose a selection of images that neither vilifies Islam nor whitewashes the facts of slavery. Also, there is an extensive body of illustrated literature from the nineteenth century graphically documenting the slave trade. It would be ironic if the existing image were replaced by another of unquestionable provenance, with a clearly relevent caption, by a well-known author, that was also a good deal more graphic. Tom Harrison Talk 12:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Representative characteristics of the subject image: black, owned, liable to be punished in the displayed fashion for naughtiness, inclusive of children, and openly acknowledged for all the above in muslim society of the time and place.DavidYork71 13:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Of all GA criteria, images got the best approval in the review.DavidYork71 13:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "At the end of the 19th century..."

In an article of this length, this should not be in the lead. The only support from the article is a repetition of the sentence. Why don't you guys who think Muhammad was engaging in a practice opposed to Islamic principles go find some more material on this supposed shift in thought? Arrow740 03:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The reasons is made in the quote. It opposes the Islamic principles of justice. Slavery is according to them, intended to have been gradually abolished. Please stop making the intro POV. --Aminz 03:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
All I'm asking you is to find the "they." No other scholars mention this shift, and including it in the lead is a violation of WP:LEAD. Again, if you think Muhammad was heavily engaged in something un-Islamic please find more than one sentence on it. Arrow740 03:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not only EoQ. EoI also says: "Although Islam, in teaching and in actuality, has favoured the emancipation of slaves, it was only under an overwhelming foreign influence that it began, about a hundred years ago, an evolution in doctrine and in practice towards the total suppression of slavery, its abolition in law and custom. This evolution, which has continued, is in some regions still incomplete."
It doesn't say evolution in practice alone but in doctrine and practice.
I will start a section on this. --Aminz 07:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selective editing

With regards to [1] this is just one of a string of edits I'm concerned with, particulary give that the editor recently said "To chain up a slave who's run away, even one who's a child .. that's the Islamic way" I have no confidence in the objectivity of the edit:

Left in article:

  • The Qur'an accepts the institution, though it may be noted that the word 'abd (slave) is rarely used, being more commonly replaced by some periphrasis such as ... 'that which your right hands own.' The Qur'an recognizes the basic inequality between master and slave and the rights of the former over the latter

Hidden (ie, gone to reference section – who’s gonna read that?):

The historian Bruschvig states that from an spiritual perspective, "the slave has the same value as the free man, and the same eternity is in store for his soul; in this earthly life, failing emancipation, there remains the fact of his inferior status, to which he must piously resign himself.


Left in article:

  • It also recognizes concubinage [2][3]. It urges, without commanding, kindness to the slave


Kept:

A master may make his female slave as his concubine and, if she is a Muslim, he can marry her.

Removed (ie, made into a footnote):

Note that Brockopp writes that the Qur'an touts abstinence as a better choice.


Also note sneaking edits to subtly change (added text in bold): “and recommends, without requiring, their liberation”

How is all this not neutral? Merbabu 13:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potential references

Potential references


[edit] New section

Aminz, please justify this sentence cited to Brockopp: "The abolitionist interpretations of slavery has been widely accepted by Muslim scholars." Arrow740 08:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, your recent edit summaries indicate that you are relying on tertiary sources. Please replace the references to secondary sources and remove what you cannot so cite. Arrow740 09:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The EoQ quote says: "The great slave markets of Cairo were closed down at the end of the nineteenth century and even conservative Qurʾān interpreters continue to regard slavery as opposed to Islamic principles of justice and equality."
EoI and EoQ are both prestigous academic sources used in Academic circles. They differ from tritary encyclopedias like Britannica Encyclopedia prepared for public use. Further, according to the policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source". --Aminz 09:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you're wrong about 'Arafat being a secondary source, because he notes Maududi in the same way, Maududi clearly being a primary source. Arrow740 05:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
What does this have to do with our discussion about usability of "EoQ" and "EoI"?--Aminz 07:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punishment

  1. Arrow, regarding this diff [2], please provide the full quotation for this. "enslavement as punishment for unbelief"??? --Aminz 09:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
"Islamic law provided a powerful and highly articulated paradigm for slavery, manumission, and clientage. This paradigm, however, is fraught with tensions and ambiguities. The slave is both person and property. The natural condition of human beings is freedom but enslavement is sanctioned by God as punishment for unbelief." Arrow740 06:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Does the quote stop here? Would you please quote a few more sentences. --Aminz 08:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


  1. And what does this information has to do with that particular section[3]? It is about the city Mecca in 19th century --Aminz 09:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to start a section about castration, that would be a better place. Barring that, it is an interesting fact where it is. Arrow740 06:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. And in this diff [4], it is Wahabi's POV contradicting the POV of other Muslim sects. It should not be stated as fact. --Aminz 09:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Brunschvig says that the Wahabis are the uncompromising restorers of the prophet's example. Arrow740 06:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Shia also believe that they are uncompromising restorers of the prophet's example. Every sect think of itself in the same way. --Aminz 08:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, It has been 2 days since I posted these. Please address them. Thanks--Aminz 04:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Are editors familiar with these eight pages from the BBC? [5]. This could be a good source of - well - sources. I found it particularly interesting that at the beginning of Islam, slavery was the norm and fundamental to these societies, and that banning slavery would have been similar to 'banning poverty' - noble, but unrealistic at the time. Thus, Quranic mentions of slavery simply reflect society at the time and how to best 'manage' such a reality - ie, by stipulating how slaves should be treated well. I know the article touches on some of these things - but is it clear enough? Anyway, there is eight pages worth of cited quotes. Merbabu 11:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The lead

I usually write for an imagined audience of bright high school students, or college freshmen. Such a reader searching for information on Islam and slavery will reasonably wonder if Islam forbids slavery, or allows it, or allows it in theory but forbids it in practice. I think we need to present up front that:

  • Slavery in Islamic lands was different from slavery in the American south (because most of our readers are likely more familiar with American history than Turkish or Persian history)
  • Muhammad thought a lot about slavery, and made some fundamental changes in the institution
  • The Arab slave trade was not an 'Islamic' slave trade, but the subjects are related
  • Islam today does not prohibit slavery (unless it does, then we need citations), and
  • Slavery is illegal in every Muslim country (though tolerated in one or two places)

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

I think these are excellent and balanced points. Yes, good to see that you are anticipating people's questions with some logic. Actually, many of these exact questions/issues are addressed in the BBC link in the section above.
As for your recent re-instatement of the 19th century change of opinions, while i do think that recent attempts to exclude it simply because it hasn't got it's own section is mischievous POV pushing and fact hiding, your recent points here are much better in a lead.Merbabu 13:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
i concur with Merbabu, these points are all very good. ITAQALLAH 15:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
"The Arab slave trade was not an 'Islamic' slave trade." What do you mean, Tom? Arrow740 18:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Just as the Atlantic slave trade was not a 'Christian' operation, even though the slavers were Christians. Tom Harrison Talk 18:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually the people doing the enslaving were Muslim. Arrow740 18:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Note too that I said the subjects are related. It needs to be mentioned, but we have to be careful not to ascribe any evil act by a Muslim to the religion of Islam. Tom Harrison Talk 18:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
This slavery was authorized and regulated by Islamic law all the way back to Muhammad. Your analogy with Christians fails. Arrow740 18:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
"The Atlantic slave trade, started by the Portuguese, but soon dominated by the English, was the sale and exploitation of African slaves by Europeans that occurred in and around the Atlantic ocean from the 15th century to the 19th century." Of course that's just an online encyclopedia, but it seems to be born out by the American history references I have on hand. "My analogy fails?" Try again, and see if you can choose language more conducive to constructive collaboration. Tom Harrison Talk 19:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is called Islam and slavery. The slaves taken out of Africa to any destination were enslaved by Muslims. Islam recognizes slavery as part of the divine order and gives specific instances where enslavement is lawful, indeed "sanctioned by God as punishment for unbelief." There is no such parallel with Christianity. So when Muslims enslaved people, they were engaging in a practice that is part of their religion. When Christians engaged in slavery, they were not engaging in a practice that is part of their religion. Arrow740 19:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
""[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America". Jefferson Davis, "Inaugural Address as Provisional President of the Confederacy," Montgomery, AL, 1861-FEB-18, Confederate States of America, Congressional Journal, 1:64-66.
Sorry for the off-article fork here but just some comments on Christianity being viewed as sanctioning slavery. It was a fact of life as such for centuries operating through instituationalized governments and the abolotionists were the odd men out in their interpretations of the bible during their day. African slave trade is based on the Curse of Ham through Canaan, Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave'. " Canaanites were reported as Africans and the entire race and descendants were cursed into slavery. Slavery is sanctioned and regulated in the Pentateuch and the old testament. Exodus 21:20-21 "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money." Mentioned in the new testament as well a fact of life without criticism. Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him." Note: a lot of the times that servants & maids is used in the translations it is actually referring to slaves. Also the council of Gangra, Pope Gregory among others issuing canon laws affirming or regulating slavery, Thomas Aquinas himself advising slaves on proper behavior. Neither Christ nor Peter in his epistles said anything against slavery either and it was quite a mainstream way of life. Granted there were dissenters but slavery was the norm and they were the exeptions. The holy roman empire was a slave based economy, a model that was socially inherited by the Arabs.--Tigeroo 17:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The Canaanites were African? I've never heard that one before. Lewis says that "Ham's descendents" were a particular tribe near ancient Israel. Arrow740 06:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not even fringe, I am sure you can easily look it up in greater detail; a quick google netted this as a college course material. While it may no longer be current the beleif was quite mainstream and a historical reality that shaped centuries of colonial slavery and racist attitude. The theological position underwent quite a transformation over time to lose slavery.--Tigeroo 05:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
No doubt the slavers were doing something their religious leaders said was permitted, but that was the case of Christian slavers as well as Muslim. I imagine I could dig up a few quotes from ante bellum Christian preachers about God ordaining the status of the black slaves on the plantation. That does not mean growing sugar cane was a Christian activity. But maybe we are drifting off point. I would include in the lead a mention of and link to the Arab slave trade, mostly as it is now. Do you want to do something different? Tom Harrison Talk 19:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Bravo Tom Harrison! All of your points here are very much keeping in line with non-villification as well as non-de-villification (I'm sure there's a word for that... escapes me right now... I think it should be understood). (→Netscott) 19:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Whitewash? Tom Harrison Talk 19:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the word may be "exculpation". → As in false exculpation. (→Netscott) 19:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that works. Tom Harrison Talk 19:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright, if you think that slavery was anything near as integral to Christianity as it (was) to Islam, I'd like to see some evidence. Arrow740 19:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
If I wanted to add that to Christianity and slavery I would provide it. What change do you want to make to this article's treatment of the Arab slave trade? Tom Harrison Talk 19:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I said, "The Arab slave trade was not an 'Islamic' slave trade." What do you mean, Tom?" You responded with your reasoning, "Just as the Atlantic slave trade was not a 'Christian' operation, even though the slavers were Christians." I have shown that your analogy is incorrect, so your reasoning for your initial statement "The Arab slave trade was not an 'Islamic' slave trade." is wrong. I strongly object to any such statement in the article, because it is at best misleading. In a nutshell, certain kinds of slavery are Islamic, though slavery is neither explicitly Christian nor explicitly un-Christian. Arrow740 20:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Granted that arguments by analogy are never the best, I think mine is accurate. I may be wrong, but until I am convinced otherwise, I maintain that the Arab slave trade was not something intrinsically 'Islamic.' You are right that the institutions of slavery in Muslim and Christin lands were distinctly different - male field workers vs. female concubines and eunuchs, for example. But, if neither of us is proposing a change to the page, I do not see the need to persue it. I will read what you have to say about it, but probably will not reply further in this thread. Tom Harrison Talk 20:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern interpretation of slavery

Arrow, can you please stop your taggings. Here are some quotes :

EoQ:

"The great slave markets of Cairo were closed down at the end of the nineteenth century and even conservative Qurʾān interpreters continue to regard slavery as opposed to Islamic principles of justice and equality. This dramatic shift in Islamic attitudes toward slavery is a prime example of flexibility in interpreting qurʾānic norms."


M. Troutt Powell in (A Different Shade of Colonialism), University of California Press:


"Interestingly, despite his erudite defense of Islamic slavery within Egypt, Shafik concluded his discussion with the point that prominent contemporary Muslim scholars and judges condemned slavery within the Islamic world." (P.S. Ahmad Shafik was a French-educated lawyer)

EoI:

"Nevertheless, contact with the realities of the modern world and its ideology began to bring about a discernible evolution in the thought of many educated Muslims before the end of the 19th century. They may be fond of emphasizing that Islam has, on the whole, bestowed an exceptionally favourable lot on the victims of slavery. Yet they are ready to see that this institution, which is linked to one particular economic and social stage, has had its day... that the Quran (xlii, 4) forbade the making of new slaves... Without going so far, his illustrious compatriot Ameer Ali includes slavery among the pre-Islamic practices which Islam only tolerated through temporary necessity, while virtually abolishing them: man-made laws were later to complete the abrogation of it, which could not have been done formerly by a sudden and total emancipation. This thesis gradually found its way, to a varying extent, into the circle of the Ulama, already open to the older arguments of the Tunisian muftis, which were more restrained and more legalistic. But obviously it could not gain the support of the Wahhabis of Arabia, those uncompromising restorers of the sunna of the Prophet; up to the present day they have vigorously maintained their downright antagonism towards abolition."

--Aminz 23:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


This does not mean that there is any kind of majority within conservative Islamic circles. Arrow740 05:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how this became "most now favor the abolitionist interpretation of the Qur'an." Arrow740 05:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I said it is widely accepted. EoQ says: " even conservative Qurʾān interpreters continue to regard slavery as opposed to Islamic principles of justice and equality." --Aminz 07:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't follow from that. Arrow740 06:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we have to recognize that slavery is in fact illegal today in virtually all Islamic countries. Tom Harrison Talk 15:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
There is and has always been a difference between the Islamic law and legislation, especially nowadays when in many countries sharia is no longer the main source of law. Beit Or 14:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Are there any countries today that follow Sharia law, and if so do they allow slavery? Tom Harrison Talk 20:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


There are many countries that follow Sharia, and all ban slavery. At least nominally. The reality appears to be different. Mauritania is an Islamic Republic (Sharia law) and slavery is extant there. Despite government denials - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4091579.stm . The UAE (Under Sharia law) Has until VERY recently allowed child camel jockeys (2005). The vast majority of whom were either kidnapped from India or sold by their parents. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article438324.ece . Some of these nations seem to have "officially" banned slavery in recent times but it is either a non-persecuted or under-persecuted crime. The connection between what Sharia says and what the actions are is undeniable.

[edit] NN's edits

Re: [6].

"The Koran says that it is lawful to have sex with those "that your right hand possess" (women captives) according to translations by Yusufali, Pickthal, and Shakir. Although Islamic law does not put an exact limit on the number that can be kept in bondage, according to an interpretation by Maududi it strictly forbids keeping female slaves as a means of sexual enjoyment and luxury.[4] Historically, children of such women could also become slaves.[5]"

These are already mentioned in the article elsewhere.

"On the treatment of slave-girls James Arlandson writes "Muhammad himself endorses not only the entire institution of slavery, but also sex between male owners and their female slaves within this institution. No devout Muslim can criticize the Prophet", "Maududi says in his comment on the verse that is it lawful for Muslim holy warriors to marry women prisoners of war even when their husbands are still alive", and "It is one thing for some soldiers in any army to strike out on their own and rape women. All armies have criminal soldiers who commit this wrong act. But it is quite another to codify rape in a sacred text. Islam codifies and legalizes rape." [7]"

And again, American thinker is not a reliable source. Please check if Maududi's comments are not already there in the article and if not, add them in the proper place. --Aminz 15:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quoting the Quran is recommended

I have raised this issue on the Policy's page here and people have said that "It is absolutely OK to quote from such texts, they are a perfect example of the proper use of a primary source.", infact it is a perfect example of a use of a primary text. To people who are preventing others from quoting the Quran on this article and others (this includes Itaqallah, Aminz, Kirbytime and others), please do not make any further attempts to do this. thanks. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Big quotes are unhelpful. Aside from these, quoting qur'an to make a point is original research. A secondary source should mention that verse in connection to something and then we can use it. --Aminz 16:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this. Arrow740 20:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is also my understanding. Tom Harrison Talk 01:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Concur. WP:OR is very specific about how primary sources should be treated; they should not be interpreted in any way without a secondary source to back up the interpretation, and that includes implying an interpretation via the placement of a quote. - Merzbow 01:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Please stick to the original claim you're making which is "quoting the Quran is OR". If Quran is being quoted directly, thats the only issue here. Whether that is to make a point is irrelevant. As i have said, the people on the policy page said, that infact its a perfect example of a use of primary text. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that the secondary sources provide more than enough coverage of the Qur'anic verses, and if we restrict ourselves to them the article will be more stable. Arrow740 20:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
indeed. we did have a list of verses in the Qur'an dealing with slavery, but the consensus was for them to be removed. ITAQALLAH 22:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallh wrote "quoting qur'an to make a point is original research". As long as no interpretation is offered, and the quote is accurate and sourced, it is okay. To say the quote is used to make a point is a subjective opinion, and we cannot edit based on subjective opinions. NN 03:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm... of course we do. Every time we add or remove material we are rendering an editorial opinion that the article is better off as a result. If there is a consensus that a given use of a Qur'an quote implies a given interpretation not supported by a secondary source, then policy demands per WP:OR we remove the quote or find an appropriate secondary source. - Merzbow 05:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
A consensus is an excellent idea. How often have you seen it happen? NN 06:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Quite often actually. Mostly Wikipedia gets it right, although I've seen some pretty horrid examples of consensus against policy, reason, and common human decency (but karma always nails them in the end, the Threefold Law prevails). - Merzbow 06:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I hope your optimism is justified and we are able to find a consensus that is consistent with Wiki policy. NN 06:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The picture DavidYork added

While the picture may in fact be relevant to the article (at first glance it is), we must balance the goal of improving the article with the long-term, and more important to Wikipedia as a whole, goal of not rewarding banned users. So let's please keep that picture out and get it deleted. - Merzbow 08:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there some Wiki policy you relied on that says banned users should not be rewarded? A specific quote of a policy would be very helpful. NN 08:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the technical answer is that the image in question will almost certainly be speedily deleted by CSD G5 (see [8]), so it shouldn't be linked now. But it can always be re-uploaded by a non-banned user. The reason I am opposing that is, well, because it would only encourage banned users to continue to edit in the hopes that something will stick; I'm not sure if there is a specific policy addressing this. If not, perhaps WP:BAN should be updated to make this explicit, but for the moment, I suppose WP:IAR applies (and yes, I'm a hypocrite for speaking out against WP:IAR in the past but invoking it now; I am not infallible). - Merzbow 08:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think WP:IAR really applies, as you yourself said the pic improves Wiki, whereas IAR's goal is to improve Wiki. Also if the image is re-inserted by a non-banned user, then I would like to see some policy that says non-banned users cannot insert material first inserted by banned users. As for updating WP:BAN, go for it. I am always amenable to editors first changing Wiki policy to their tastes before they actually start applying it. NN 08:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually current policy does give weight to my argument: WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take responsibility for their content by so doing." But it's not an absolute, so probably consensus should rule here. If a non-banned user wants to re-upload that image, and consensus is for including the image, then that's fine. I will argue against doing so on grounds of encouraging banned users, but won't argue that policy prevents it. - Merzbow 08:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
As it says "generally expected to refrain", I would say that unless there is very good reason for doing so, it should not be reinserted. As for the "encouraging banned user" argument, we need to stick to Wiki policy. NN 08:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A block is to stop an editor not a username or IP from editing wikipedia. It is thus a complete nonsense to say that we should consider the edit of a blocked user (operating thru a sock) and keep or remove based on the edit alone. If that was the case, how then does the status of a blocked user (who can would thus have his edits kept if they are 'good') differ from the rest of us? Particularly controversial edits/editors.

Anyone suggesting that such edits are legitimate are simply saying the editor is legitimate. This is self evident to us all - the fact that policy does not seem to actually disallow it smells of WP:LAWYER. Saying "I take responsibility for that blocked user's edit" is also a nonsense - it is saying, "I allow this blocked user" particularly when that person reinstating it would not have thought about it themselves. Merbabu 12:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not nonsense. If an edit enriches the encyclopedia there's good reason to keep it. The picture itself can also be found in the French wikipedia where it is used in their Arab slave trade article. Maybe we can just link it from there? Arrow740 16:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
An obvious corollary of Merbabu's position is that suppose an editor really wants to keep something valid out of Wiki. Gets himself blocked and then inserts the material. As per Merbabu this material is forever rendered invalid. NN 17:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, what is the difference between a blocked user and a non-blocked user if we ignore the fact they are blocked when they make their edits? None. Long-term the encyclopedia is harmed more by allowing blocked users to "edit". - Merzbow 17:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The difference should be obvious. Edits by blocked users can be reverted without discussion. Edits by users who are not blocked should be reverted only after giving reason. NN 18:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean? Edits of a blocked user were reverted without discussion, but now we are here discussing the edit those edits - for some it is the merits of the picture, which means that a blocked user is now no different to a non-blocked user. If we give credence to blocked users a block is meaningless.Merbabu 00:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to consider the picture on its merits. It is not as if it can never be used here since whatshisname added it. Tom Harrison Talk 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is bad that editors are supporting an indefinitely blocked editor's edits by reinstating them. This indefinitely blocked editor needs to be discouraged from continuing to try to contribute to Wikipedia by having all of his edits flatly reverted and his uploads deleted without hesitation. So long as editors continue to act meatpuppetish for him by reinstating his edits he's going to continue to be trying to edit here and continue his disruption. (→Netscott) 20:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It may be harsher than you intend to call others meatpuppets for restoring something added by a banned editor. I can imagine circumstances where you might do that yourself, and object to such a name. There is no reason to impair the article just to discourage the banned editor. At the same time, there is no deadline. Maybe we will want the picture later, or maybe not. No great harm will be done if we leave it out for a week or so while we think about it. Tom Harrison Talk 20:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm certainly not calling anyone anything but I am certainly describing behavior. I agree however, that there is no rush, so best practice would be to discourage further disruption now by reversion/deletion until the source of that disruption has unmistakeably ceased trying to be a part of the project and then talk about the merits of the original edits. I agree with Merzbow's earlier commentary, it is not a right to edit Wikipedia it is a privilege. When editors who've lost that privlege see their edits supported by others they are rewarded for continuing to excercise the rescinded privilege. (→Netscott) 21:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
His privilege is in temporary abeyance, and hopefully he will shape up and return chastened at some point. Arrow740 21:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
...and correspondingly everytime he has a new sock it damages his position. --Merbabu 00:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the picture so I don't have an opinion on it, but if it improves the article the question of how it got into the article is irrelevant. This stuff about not rewarding banned users is just so much legalistic nonsense, and any experienced, competent Wikipedian will tell you so. --Tony Sidaway 13:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I see, well Tony Sidaway, there's some policy that needs editing relative to your POV. (→Netscott) 14:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    No, you just need to re-read the policy. Here, I'll help you:
    Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban (emphasis mine)
    There is no policy that says you have to reject all edits when they are useful, and if there was it would be a stupid policy and should be ignored with extra loud raspberries.
    By the way, if this chap is already banned why is there a proposal to ban him on the community sanction noticeboard? --Tony Sidaway 04:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

FI, it is on commons as Image:Jean-Léon Gérôme 001.jpg. Tom Harrison Talk 13:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No-one has yet explained how discussing edits of block evading editor (let alone endorsing edits), doesn't make a mockery of such blocks. If someone is blocked from wikipedia, they can't contribute. Full stop. Why bother blocking if a blocked editor's edits are simply subject to the same scrutiny that any other non-blocked user is. What a joke. Merbabu 14:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Good thing he did not correct a spelling error. Tom Harrison Talk 16:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Come on, that's just sarcastic distraction. Let's use our common sense and reason, please. If you must know, I have left one or two of Davids sock typo/format fixing. Merbabu 16:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this has more to do with the content of the edit than the identity of the editor. Like a spelling correction, if it improves the article it should be added. If not, not. And just let me point out again, there are worse pictures. She looks like an adult, has all her body parts and no visable scars, and does not appear to be in immediate emotional distress. Slavery was and is a nasty business. Representative pictures can only be expected to show that. Tom Harrison Talk 16:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, i understand for you it might be about the edit, but once again, no one can has explained how discussing, even endorsing a blocked editors contributions doesn't make a mockery of a block. Who'sNo one is suggesting slavery is not a 'nasty business'? But this and the apparent inimitable and matchless ability for this pic to illustrate it, is not the point. Merbabu 17:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
There's a policy about reverting banned editor's edits because while any given one edit may appear good the reality is that just one edit is not a reflection of the entire editor's disruptive tendencies. The object of reverting and not reinstating a disruptive editor's edit (even if it appears beneficial) is to discourage that editor from editing at all thereby avoiding the rest of the picture (the disruptive side of things). (→Netscott) 17:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The blocked/banned editor's contribution was reverted. I said above that there was no deadline, and I have not at this point come down on the side of restoring the picture, which is after all on Commons. It is simply not the case that this picture can never again be used just because it was added by a blocked editor. I don't intend to spend the afternoon picking through Irishpunktom's or His excellency's edits and comparing them to what was later restored to particular pages by well-respected contributors. I expect we all know what I would find. Tom Harrison Talk 18:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Suspect intepretation of source...

I just came across the following in the article:

Despite statements to the contrary by its government child slavery is still sanctioned in Saudi Arabian society.

The BBC reference provided doesn't read like that at all in my opinion. I suggest it's been very sloppily interpreted. I'm interested to hear what others think. Merbabu 15:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

i concur. that's rather a twisted interpretation of the article.. ITAQALLAH 15:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I hope it better matches the source now. Please adjust it as needed. Tom Harrison Talk 15:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] This site is not for religious ill will

I have just noticed an editor do a revert on my work,compare what was reverted they have deleted references, clean-ups, putting 'See main articl' notes in a sub section. ALl of this was done because i moved out a repeating section. I think we all know you cannot have information repeating, relevant or not, find something else, re-write but to have the same exact sentence 2wice in an article is weak. And no it was relevant it just was a comment which attacked Islam, and we see the pattern of your edits in this respect.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 08:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason not to have it twice if it relates to two separate sections. You're advertising for halaqah.net. The new refs are advertising. We don't need to source information to website when we're already getting it from books. Arrow740 08:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Please stop your bitter reverts and wild accusations. A ref is either valid or not, we dont have books referenceing that stuff and do not remove valid links which rebuff religious attacks. Myths about Arab slave trade stays. or you can edit war. as 2 your other comment it makes so little sense it is worth a reply. have a look at your area of activity anything which attacks Islam this site is not for your religious POV.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 09:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
You're inserting a link to a site with two goals: "rebuff religious attacks" and sell things. It's not even clear who the authors are. Please read WP:RS. Arrow740 09:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
My man, CNN.com sells things, last time i checked Bernard Lewis was selling books. Have a look at what this site is selling ROOTS WOMAN FIRST EXTERNAL LINK IN THIS ARTICLE) AND I JUST NOTICED THIS SITE [http://www.meforum.org/article/449 DANIEL PIPES a known racist fundamentalist AH website is used extensively on wikipedia, not a good argument for a seminal site on African history. I love how you pick and chose your arguments. I like that site that isnt a problem is it? It is clear who the authors are if you read IT!, this site works on balance. they are myths about Slavery and Islam we need these sites for balance. especially from an African pov.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 09:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Halaqah, if you are in any way connected with the site to which you are linking, as one would guess to be the case, we have a problem.Proabivouac 09:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Poor argument, how am i connected? what you need to argue per the rules is why unbalance and repetition is being added. Especiially when the above links have not been addressed. WIki is not the place for foolish accustations. I can add links to any site i want once the site is valid. Anytime you dont like something you can say COI argue the rules based on facts.As opposed to dealing with the blatent religious hatred the best you got is www.halaqah.net in french or a language i dont speak, my links are AH not halaqah.net i guess arrow is connected to any site which says arrow in it.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 09:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Gang editoring? COI

what is this about Religious motivated editing makes wiki look bad. Trust that you attack my links and this is what you are doing. Now is looks like a gang edit situation between editors who have a conflict of interest and an blatent anti-Islamic agenda. the nature of the edits speaks for itself, the level of religious content speaks for itself.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 10:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refraim from accusing your fellow editors of being anti-islam. Such accusations are personal attacks and do not help imporve the article.--SefringleTalk 22:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subject Evaluation

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

Nasser

[edit] The chained child, again.

Sorry to bother you guys but I thought that the most suitable place for the chained child's image (if any!) would be the section related to the 19th century (the era the image belongs to), upon which I (instead of just deleting the image, concerning the debate that took place) moved the image, for now, to that section; so that it comes right above Crowther's image.

The image in question was supplied by DavidYork with the given rationale that it represents the "Islamic way". Now it is correct that in Islam escaping slavery is considered a sin, but in Islamic jurisprudence no child is held responsible for any of his actions, let alone being punishable in a way considered illegal even for adults. The image thus is misleading, and I moved it to another section so that it would, at least, stay there if its deletion is too much contended.

Also, I think it makes the article subtly unbalanced that it is very long while many of the images enhance a negative image of Islam to a naive or inpatient reader. That issue, however, may need a further discussion, and perhaps much effort, to address; and I am not doing anything about it for the moment.-- AMSA83 19:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The slavery of the child is due either to his own unbelief (if he was enslaved) or to the prior unbelief of his parents (if he was born into slavery). Arrow740 05:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
In Islamic jurisprudence even unbelief gives no excuse to treat the child this way. The image still misrepresents Islam's approach AND SHOULD BE DELETED. In fact, it looks to me like a joke that you're hinting the picture is essential to the "Legal status" section. I proposed (in case deleting is, as I said, too much contended) moving it to 19th-century section since it represents practice in that time more than it represents what is legal in Islam. -- AMSA83 09:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that you're letting your personal ideas about Islam clash with the proper management of this article. Arrow740 10:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I hope you explain what you meant. I say so just in case there is something I don't understand about editing policies. -- AMSA83 10:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a picture of a victim of the Islamic slave trade. It can go anywhere in the article. Arrow740 20:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam came to Abolished Slavery [9:60]

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

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

Freeing any Slave from the Alms is not a matter of Choice or an option it is an “Obligation imposed by Allah himself” (Fareedatn min Allah فريضة من الله ) as i it is strongly been stated in verse 9:60 , just like any other obligation duty imposed by Allah ( Fareedatn min Allah فريضة من الله ) be it, Establishing prayer, Fasting Ramadan , and making Hajj.And the state Has the obligation to take Muslims Sadaqat/Alms to free any Slaves .


Happy haytham 18:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You have a lot to learn. Arrow740 04:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That is why WE are Here to watch , examine and learn About you and people whom behind Wikipedia. Please teach and disclose for us more about yourself Arrow740 you Don NOT know how much good service you do to us .LOL

:+DHappy haytham (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This again LOL. (Hypnosadist) 16:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading

Much of the information in this article is misleading and very poorly sourced. The Arab slave trade was not most active in East Africa . It was as easy (if not easier) to find Persian, Slavic and Indian slaves as it was to find black slaves. Indeed, black slave traders would often purchase foreign slaves from else where. For example, When 14th century North African travel writer Ibn Battuta journeyed to West Africa, he noted without any surprise that a black governor he visited owned an Arab slave girl from Syria.

Slavic slave trade was popular with Turkish sultans, of whom Slavic women would fill their harems. Slavic men did labor for Muslim masters, while Slavic children were sold in slave auctions from Cairo to Baghdad. Even the Arab slave trade article (which I have not edited) confirms this.

I agree that the trade in slavs and other eastern european peoples is not covered in enough depth in this article. If you have good sourced info please add it. (Hypnosadist) 06:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Almost this entire article is referenced to Bernard Lewis

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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


[edit] Bush

It appears the people responsible for the Bernard Lewis edits are right-wing George Bush enthusiasts. I should have suspected as much - Their claims about Islam in Africa are unreliable and poorly sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.179.142 (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EXTREMELY BIASED ARTICLE!

wow ok Bernard lewis..hates Muslims is very biased against them and um supports bush? ima keep gang editing this out until we get more resoarces —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.100.126 (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WAS prophet Muhammad a slave-owner or wasn't he?

Can we get that straight once and for all? Was Prophet Muhammad a slave-owner himself or wasn't he? Was Mariah, the Coptic woman, his wife or was she his slave? Did she give birth to his child as his slave or as his wife? Did she have any option of leaving Muhammad, did she marry him voluntarily? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.101.232.100 (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In the modern world

Hey, can someone tell me when the section on Islam and slavery in the modern world was improperly forked off? Was this discussed? Can someone point me to it? Thanks. IronDuke 01:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

it was a while ago, i believe. i think its relocation to Slavery in modern Africa was a reasonable move - i still believe its association with Islamic prescriptions on slavery and trends under caliphate states was a vague one - and that a lot of relative weight was being given to recent issues. ITAQALLAH 13:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deemphasize a fact, emphasize a POV

Seems to be the order of the day in this edit. Why do we need to say "according to" when it is a fact about the exploitation, and not a POV? And why is the modern silliness about Muhammad wanting secretly to abolish slavery stated in the section on the Qur'an which deals with facts as well as in the "modern interpretations" section where the revisionism has been kept? Arrow740 (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sikainga's assertion seems to be mainly his, i don't think it's present in some of the other sources i have seen (do present other corroborating sources on the matter if possible). regardless, if you're expressing this point almost word for word from Sikainga, then the sensible thing to do is attribute his words to him directly - with quotation marks. as for Fazlur Rahman, his is a view shared by numerous Muslim scholars i believe, and i don't think it's appropriate to remove the passage in question. ITAQALLAH 18:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Segal and Gordon make similar points. So your first "I don't think" is wrong. It is not word for word and there's no need for an "according to." For your second "I don't think," this highly biased POV does not belong anywhere but the "modern interpretations" section because that is all it is. I'm surprised that you want to hold onto this revisionist view and treat it as a fact. It is a modern idea promulgated in reaction to the Western abolition movement and has nothing to do with the Qur'anic prescriptions on slavery or Muhammad and his era. Arrow740 (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
that's simply your own personal view. and yes, the passage from Sikainga has been taken virtually word for word. ITAQALLAH 19:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
It is a better presentation to give a clean treatment of the facts of the principle of Islamic slavery jurisprudence first and provide apologetics elsewhere. Whether or not it is apologetics, is is only Rahman's personal opinion. It shouldn't be given weight in the article equal to the actual facts. Arrow740 (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
i have relocated the statement to where Schimmel makes a similar point as an attempted compromise. ITAQALLAH 19:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sikainga's assertion is also a "quote" so it should be placed in quotation marks and attributed. Fazlur Rahman in his book provides a new methodology for interpretation (tafsir) of the Qur'an. Applying this method of tafsir to the Qur'an will result in his view. What the Qur'an says depends on the method of interpretation and therefore that quote belongs to that section.--Be happy!! (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's irrelevant. Arrow740 (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The Qur'an is like other books silent. Scholars read it through well-defined and systematic methodologies. The modern view uses an essentially different methodology for reading the Qur'an and there is nothing wrong with adding it as the view of Qur'an according to that methodology. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing canonical about Rahman's opinions. Ameer Ali's "influential" thesis was already mentioned, there is no evidence that the fact that Rahman said something similar is notable. By the way the idea that the Qur'an can't actually mean what it says should be examined. What in your subconscious leads you to say this. Arrow740 (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
If we are writing on the Qur'an and slavery, we should mention the modern reading of it as well because it is a view about what the Qur'an says according to some people. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
You realize that Rahman is not talking about what the Qur'an says. He is clearly talking about what it doesn't say. Do you understand? Arrow740 (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
No. Have you read Rahman's work? --Be happy!! (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I have read that section of his book. He is discussing what the Qur'an does not contain. Arrow740 (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
That's incorrect. Rahman is mentioning a modern methodology for the interpretation of the Qur'an and this views of the Qur'an with regard to slavery would result when you apply that general methodology to the issue of slavery. You can consult his book Islam and modernity for more details. --Be happy!! (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This is called POV pushing. Arrow740 (talk) 09:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

[edit] Illogical statement

"While slavery is illegal in Saudi Arabia despite Shaykh al-Fawzaan's fatwa, the proclamation carries weight among many Salafi Muslims. According to reformist jurist and author Khaled Abou El Fadl, it 'is particularly disturbing and dangerous because it effectively legitimates..."

If it's illegal then what is "despite" in reference to? What in the world is "particularly dangerous"??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfire777 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nadvi

It is claimed that a work by this person from the year 2000 calculates that Muhammad and his associates freed 39237 slaves between them. Who is Nadvi, which book of theirs is it, and where does the number come from?WilberforceWhitefury (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On slaves "benefiting" from their situation

"Slaves benefited from Islamic dispensations which improved their situation relative to that in pre-Islamic society."

The references used for the above statement are this and this. The first is merely the opinion of Professor Lewis, while the second is a collection of quotes from the Koran, Muhammad, and various historical figures; none of these evidence the veracity of the statement.

I can think of no feasible way to "prove" that the lives of slaves were improved by being enslaved. The only source that would qualify would be a verifiable consensus statement from the slaves themselves, which is of course nonexistent. Any other justification for the statement would expose a bias in favor of Islamic society over pre-Islamic (or whatever the alternative may have been for the slave, had they been freed); one would then need to justify that bias, then justify including a non-neutral statement in a Wikipedia article.

I intend to remove the statement in a few days unless a compelling argument is made to keep it. Since the statement is not essential to an understanding of the subject, any argument to keep it will have to be quite strong. Jdtapaboc (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with "the lives of slaves... ...improved by being enslaved." The statement is actually quite clear - it is saying that the status of slaves in Islamic times was better than their status in pre-Islamic times. That is, there were more incentives to free slaves, less ways in which to obtain slaves, more rights given to slaves, more responsibilities bestowed upon the masters of slaves, and so on. No reliable sources dispute these facts - the statement from Lewis can also be found in other academic sources such the Encyclopedia of Islam. Hence, I think it should be restored. ITAQALLAH 12:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not how I read the statement, and that's certainly not how the sources paint it. So how do we resolve this? Is there some kind of tenure-based superiority that determines who is "right," or does one of us ask a friend to weigh in on our side and thus establish "consensus"? Being a newbie, I have no friends here, so I've already lost in the latter case. Jdtapaboc (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Information on Wikipedia should be verified by reliable sources. If you wish, I could find more academic sources making the same point. If you believe Lewis' statement isn't factual, then you should provide equally reliable sources suggesting the opposite (i.e. slaves were better off in the pre-Islamic era) - in which case we can attribute the respective opinions. If you'd like more eyes on this issue, the dispute resolution page has a number of possible options. ITAQALLAH 11:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why I would have to provide evidence that Lewis' opinion is not factual; shouldn't supporters of the source be required to provide evidence that it is factual? The source provides no sources of its own; they may exist in some other copy of the text at some other location, but the version used here can be called nothing more than opinion, and is thus not a good source. The exact quote from Lewis is:
"Though slavery was maintained, the Islamic dispensation enormously improved the position of the Arabian slave, who was now no longer merely a chattel but was also a human being with a certain religious and hence a social status and with certain quasi-legal rights."
Just because he wrote it doesn't make it true; the task for anyone wanting to use it as a source is to verify the truth of the claim that the lives of slaves were "enormously" improved, and that they were granted status somehow above that of other slaves. Jdtapaboc (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Bernard Lewis is an esteemed academic and a reliable source on this topic. You are contesting his assertion, but without any basis in the sources. I do think Lewis explains the precise reasoning for his assertion, which is probably similar to the one I provided above. The same points are made in other academic works such as War and peace in the law of Islam, Khadduri M. (1955) Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press p. 130 onwards; Comparing Religions Through Law: Judaism and Islam, Sonn T.; Neusner J. (1999), Routledge, p. 158 onwards, and so on. Hence, the material is verified to a number of reliable sources. ITAQALLAH 12:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
"The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth."
I stopped reading there. Thanks for the link; I've been reading policy a little bit at a time, but hadn't seen that little gem. I'll now take my leave from this project before I get too deep into it and live to regret it. What an astonishingly bad policy that is. I am truly dumbfounded; no wonder the policy is to add citation requests rather than delete false information: the goal is to have a link trail, not to build a factual resource. I just now got done asking why this is the case, and now I know. Thanks again for saving me from future frustration. Jdtapaboc (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Jdtapaboc is correct that the second source isn't a good one. But the first source (by Lewis) is, and suffices for the statement it is used for.Bless sins (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering why you didn't follow through by removing the second source. The historicity of the Koran is too hotly debated for it to be quoted as evidence here, and a handful of celebrity quotes (which don't even directly address the subject at hand) are even less useful. I'll go ahead and remove it now. Jdtapaboc (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Now that you did, I don't have to.Bless sins (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and the reason we don't use the Qur'an is because it is a primary source (perhaps Itaqallah can better explain this topic). It doesn't have to do with the scripture's historicity.Bless sins (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -