Talk:History of concubinage in the Muslim world/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

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)

Does title closure leads to systemic bias?

@Andrewa:

Greetings,

Elite Concubinage in Ottoman times has been already covered in other article what remains is plight on non elite women. Concubinage word again enforces issues of elite female slaves and leaves issues of common female slaves high and dry

1) The way title move closure has happened instead of Islamic usage Muslim world would have been more inclusive

2) Unfortunately exclusivity of word concubinage again makes title exclusive by throwing out other forms of female slavery and does not take fluidity of female slavery in Islam into account.

So does it create systemic bias ? Am I free to mention the issue @ Syestemic bias discussion board for record purpose which might help in academic studies on Wikipedia culture?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Which sources say that concubinage is a term limited only to applications in elite contexts? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, this source uses the term "concubine" for the practice in pre-Islamic Arabia, way before elite concubinage started to be practiced. Keep in mind we still have the generic History of slavery in the Muslim world.VR _talk 16:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Linguistic breakthrough!

I'm not sure why I didn't try this before, but when you plug "concubinage" into Google translate, you get "التسري" or "altasari, al-tasari or at-tasari", which, to those acquainted with Arabic, is fairly clearly the (second form) active participle of "surriyah", so there's some reinforcing indication that this is the go-to and natural translation of concubinage in Arabic. Another, secondary term for concubine is "محظية" or "mahzia", though this appears to be a little more contextualised, and I'm not clear on its roots. Anyway, that's a couple more terms that we can potentially be searching for in the literature. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Partially good point. When we have other articles with Arabic title itself why not have Arabic word itself to represent what it was then that of insincere UnIslamic English translation word of Concubinage.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but English readers need to understand it. If mainstream English-language sources use word X___ for a concept that is called Y___ in some other language, then WP:COMMONNAME means that we should use X___ in the title and in the article, but explain that in some other specified language it is called Y___.

Of course one solution would be to write the article in Arabic on Arabic-language Wikipedia - that way you can use the Arabic language word, and not worry about what it is called in English.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed and we should probably have an etymology section in the article.VR _talk 16:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Fun fact: at least one female scholar has the Arabic word for concubinage as a Middle name: [1] Iskandar323 (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Woop woop! First hit in an Arabic language source for "التسري" in the sense of concubinage: [2] Iskandar323 (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, and at least one Arabic academic has "محظية/Mahzia", meaning concubine/mistress, as a surname [3], though I guess that's no worse than the Arabic for "cockroach", which remains to this day a genuine surname in the Arab World. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Skeletons in the closet

Having reviewed the guidelines at WP:SCHOLARSHIP, I would like to re-open the discussion on this article's inclusion of an unfinished thesis as a source. For starters, the version of the thesis we have is only a submitted version, complete with handwritten corrections, and self-evidently not the final form of this thesis. As such, the process of peer-reviewing and approval is incomplete with respect to this document. Secondly, the guidelines note that theses that are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources - these conditions have not been met: this document falls far short of being listed on any such platform as ProQuest, and, as the guidelines note, even were this the case, caution should be exercised in using such a source. Finally, we have no evidence at present that Saad is in any way a recognised specialist. We do not know if Saad received a doctorate or remains specialised in this area. There is also no evidence that the thesis was later republished in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles. All in all, there are a lot of boxes unchecked in terms of considering this thesis reliable as a source under the guidelines. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I won't have issues if we draftify the article for a year or so, to improve it and bring back to mainspace.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

That seems unlikely at this point. The article's right to exist has been pretty well validated one way or another by the move request discussion. It's also unusual for thoroughly sourced articles that have stood the test of time for more than a year or so to be returned to draft. What I am addressing here is one of the many unresolved questions that remain about neutrality and the adequacy of the sourcing. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

If you want Draft:History of concubinage in the Muslim world, you could always do a WP:RM.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:18, 11 December 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)

I agree. Another issue is WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:UNDUE. I couldn't find these stories in other RS, including those that give book length treatment to concubinage or slavery by Muslims, and some didn't mention Barbary at all. WP:DUE requires we mention things in accordance with "the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Since this article covers a large topic it should be written WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, meaning instead of mentioning every anecdote that took place across 1,000 years spanning 3 continents, those anecdotes should go into child articles, leaving only those that are repeatedly cited by RS here.VR _talk 16:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jushyosaha604: I've added more historical context, like the addition of concubines from Africa, the reciprocal enslavement by Muslims and Christians of each other's women and that the experience of Christian women could range from household service to significant political influence. Let me know if you have feedback.VR _talk 05:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm totally on board with renaming this section as "Maghreb", as the "Barbary Coast" period had a specific relationship with slavery distinct from the Maghreb at other points in time. An earlier section, for example, discusses the Almoravid period in Spain and Morocco -- so I think this section should stay as the Barbary Coast and only reflect sources on the region from the 16th to 19th century. In general, I think an epochal breakdown based on governing empires or cultural periods is more useful here than distinction by way of geography or time periods alone. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The article Barbary Coast defines it as "from the 16th century to the early 19th to refer to the coastal regions of North Africa or Maghreb". Do you think we should have a different section for the non-coastal regions during the 16th-19th centuries maghreb? Maybe a better idea is to rename Maghreb as 16th-19th century Maghreb, and earlier Maghreb history should be covered differently (either as part of empires of Al-Andalus or something else).VR _talk 15:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I've had this argument on the merge discussion for Barbary Coast - it was not, literally, just the "coastal regions, as in what we think of today as a littoral state; the Barbary Coast was simply a concept for the states that existed along the coast but whose borders also extended well into the African hinterland. The Barbary Coast is just the Maghreb from the 16th to 19th centuries. I had thought it better to cover things in terms of major empire periods, i.e.: Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid, (Fatimid, Ayyubid, Mamluk,) Ottoman - on reflection, under this scheme, the Barbary Coast would really be a subsection under Ottoman Empire, as the Barbary States were loosely affiliated Ottoman clients. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed it back to Barbary Coast.VR _talk 17:17, 11 December 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[4][5][6][7][8]. 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[9][10] 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.[11] [12][13] [14][15] 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)

• Comment: The section's opening line: "Most traditional scholars require the conversion of a pagan slave-girl before sex, even through force if necessary" is very sweeping and should require rigorous sourcing. I followed the source cited, and it says: "We have also seen that according to the prevalent view of the traditionists, a female polytheist must be converted to Islam, by coercive measures if necessary, before any sexual relationship with her can take place." This is cited back to Chapter 3 Section VII of the same book, which states that early fuqaha considered forcible conversions acceptable, but also created loopholes which allowed for a lack of an actual conversion. It then says "numerous traditions" allow for forced conversion, and cited Ibn Hanbal on this, whose school is followed by a minority. It then says that Shafii, whose legal school is much more widespread, didn't mention anything allowing for forced conversions except of minors captured without their parents. Then it cites the Malikis' Mudawanna which states that the slave will be considered to have converted if she says she shahadah, prays salah, or "if she responds in an(other) way which also indicates that she responded (positively) and embraced Islam." The author claims this as evidence of forced conversion being allowed but admits "the passage is not entirely clear."

Later, he says that "Coercion is also recommended with respect to female captives of the Jewish and Christian faiths." However, in the citation he quotes the transliteration of Arabic, which says that they are forced to make ghusl (bathing), not forced to convert to Islam. By just using the phrase "coercion is used..." the author deceptively makes the reader think the source is saying they are forced to convert to Islam. And he cleverly left out an English translation of the Arabic text cited here, unlike other areas where he provides both English and Arabic. Overall, Friedmann is a poor source, and even then we are citing him incorrectly. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for going through this and lending it some analysis - I imagine this is not the only instance on this page where the sources have been rather liberally paraphrased for dramatic effect - and you raise a second important point, which is that in most, if not all Islamic legal interpretations, there tends to be often significant variances between schools, which, where possible, should ideally be accounted for. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Move without consensus

The page has been moved to History of concubinage in the Muslim world by Sceptre (non-admin closure). But there is clearly no consensus for that (8 votes in favor of the new title, against plenty of alternatives and 8 votes explicitly against the new title, including that of one admin, Andrewa – other editors were Grufo, Iraniangal777, Buidhe, BilledMammal, Lambrusquiño, Mcphurphy, Usernamekiran (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8). --Grufo (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Grufo, correct procedure in these circumstances is for someone who agrees with the above to initiate a Wikipedia:Move review.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Right, going to follow that path. --Grufo (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Grufo this is blatant WP:canvassing. You have selectively pinged only users who share your POV on this, and neglected to ping everyone else who took part in that discussion.VR _talk 19:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• Consider the oppose votes. Lambrusquiño didn't give much of a reason for opposing, usernamekiran admitted their oppose was based on "original research", and mcphurphy's vote seems to have been based on an erroneous google search, which when corrected gives the opposite result as their vote (Mcphurphy was also indef blocked shortly after). The rest of the oppose votes were split into two diametrically opposed camps. Andrewa, Buidhe and Iraniangal777 all opposed based on the premise that concubinage and sexual slavery were two different things and there should be a separate article for concubinage. But Grufo strongly rejected this premise, saying that any article about concubinage in Islam was necessarily a WP:POV fork of "sexual slavery in Islam". So why is Grufo now citing the votes of those whose underlying argument Grufo strongly rejected? VR _talk 19:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I did not comment further as the title was obiously accurate and something that any english speaker would understand. The current title is the opposite as it is inaccurate. First, concubine is not necessary a slave, it was common practice by the nobility in many countries e.g. China. Second, what is the Muslim World??. Is it the Ummah or Dar el-Islam as defined by ISIS? Does it include Spain, Serbia, Macedonia, Greece, all Cyprus or just the north of Cyprus, India or all Europe?. Clearly, not a clear geographic area. As nobody would include countries as Spain/India/Burma as part of the muslim world then I suppose that we will have to remove any mention to their history on sexual slavery during the islamic conquest of these countries where christian/hindu/budhist women were enslaved due to the imposition of fiqh. --Lambrusquiño (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• but only one part of my argument was based on OR. Also, the current title implies that there was only "concubinage" in Muslim world, and no sexual slavery. It also implies that it is obsolete. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The lack of a term in a title doesn't imply its absence. For example, Shooting of Oscar Grant is not called "Killing of Oscar Grant", but that doesn't mean he wasn't killed. Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse doesn't have the word "sexual" in the title, even though it covers sexual abuse.VR _talk 19:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Shooting implies killing with high probability. Concubinage implies slavery only in Islam (while in all other scenarios in which one uses “concubinage” slavery is an impossibility or at most a possibility), therefore the lack of a term in this case – “slavery” – does suggest its absence (i.e. free concubinage). --Grufo (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Shooting doesn't imply death, because in the Shooting of Jacob Blake no one died. The article on the infamous "Lockerbie bombing" is actually called Pan Am Flight 103, the "Air India bombing" is called Air India Flight 182. Neither title indicates people were killed. And concubines in many societies in history were slaves (source, this section at Concubinage). And many concubines in Muslim history were not slaves (sources).VR _talk 19:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

        • “Shooting doesn't imply death” Shooting definitely makes one wonder “Did anyone die?”; “concubinage” on the other hand never makes one wonder “Was one party required to be slave?”. I hope you understand this fundamental difference.
        • “And many concubines in Muslim history were not slaves” This page is not about Muslim history, but about Islam, and a very niche quasi-exception concerning a particular dinasty has nothing to do with the positions that a religion holds about free concubinage (which constitutes sin, zina) – emphasis on “quasi-exception”, because even your “free concubines” were slaves at the end of the day (only de facto almost free).

        --Grufo (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Grufo, if you initiate a move review, please stick strictly to the guidelines for move reviews. i.e. did the closer do the right job. It is not about refighting the RM. Personally, I would have let the RM go at least another week. The following table might be of use to you in making your case.

Dates	Number of new contributors	New contributors
10 November 2021	5	Iskandar323, Vice regent, Grufo, Toddy1, M.Bitton
11-17 November 2021	5	Jushyosaha604, Mcphurphy, Srnec, Nishidani, Andrewa
18-25 November 2021	6	usernamekiran, Bookku, Mhhossein, Iraniangal777, Ghazaalch, buidhe
25 November - 1 December 2021	3	⁠BarrelProof, WatABR, BilledMammal
2-6 December 2021	1	Lambrusquiño

-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Thank you for the statistics. Yes, it is important that the closer clarifies, which is why I have done the step one of WP:MR and notified them on their Talk Page (anchor). --Grufo (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The first thing to do to question a Requested Move result is to discuss it with the closer on their talk page. This is underway. I'd give it a little more time. Andrewa (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Grufo has been blocked for 2 weeks, so I request Iskandar323, Andrewa, Andrewa, Iraniangal777, Buidhe, BilledMammal, Lambrusquiño, Mcphurphy or Usernamekiran that since I used to refer people to the, "Sexual slavery in Islam" article here but it has been moved, please add all the sentences from that article to this article and rename this article, "History of concubinage and sexual slavery in the Muslim world".-2409:4071:2281:FA99:E66E:7328:CA49:4330 (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• I have formally submitted a move review. Pinging all editors who have left a comment in the move discussion: Andrewa, BarrelProof, BilledMammal, Bookku, Buidhe, Ghazaalch, Grufo, Iraniangal777, Iskandar323, Jushyosaha604, Lambrusquiño, M.Bitton, Mcphurphy, Mhhossein, Nishidani, Srnec, Toddy1, Usernamekiran, Vice regent, WatABR. --Grufo (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)