Talk:History of concubinage in the Muslim world/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Imam Al-Shafiʽi's statement that the purpose of sexual intercourse is for pleasure and no one may be forced into it

• Mcphurphy deleted the following paragraph 03:10, 1 November 2020 (The issue of consent: this statement was referring to a case where a woman was trying to force her husband, :no one" here means "no man" - it was not a statement intended for both genders and has been taken out of context here)
• IP editor 92.40.183.48 restored it 07:39, 1 November 2020 (‎The issue of consent: Proof? Even if that is the case, al shafi made it clear by saying no one can be forced into it as sex is for pleasure, unless you have proof al shafi he only mean't in this case only then please show it.)

According to Imam Al-Shafiʽi the founder of the Shafiʽi School of thought of Sunni Islam, he states that the purpose of sexual intercourse is for pleasure and no one may be forced into it.

References

@Mcphurphy: Is the statement in your edit summary your personal interpretation? If it can be backed by quotations from reliable sources, please can you do so here.

Regarding the citation - does anyone know the volume number and page number?-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

وَهَكَذَا لَوْ كَانَتْ مُنْفَرِدَةً بِهِ أَوْ مَعَ أَمَةٍ لَهُ يَطَؤُهَا أُمِرَ بِتَقْوَى اللَّهِ تَعَالَى وَأَنْ لَا يضربهَا فِي الْجِمَاعِ وَلَمْ يُفْرَضْ عَلَيْهِمِنْهُ شَيْءٌ بِعَيْنِهِ إنَّمَا يُفْرَضُ عَلَيْهِ مَا لَا صَلَاحَ لَهَا إلَّا بِهِ مِنْ نَفَقَةٍ وَسُكْنَى وَكِسْوَةٍ وَأَنْ يَأْوِيَ إلَيْهَا فَأَمَّا الْجِمَاعُ فَمَوْضِعُ تَلَذُّذٍ وَلَا يُجْبَرُ أَحَدٌ عَلَيْهِ

Likewise, if he has only one wife or an additional concubine with whom he has intercourse, he is commanded to fear Allah Almighty and to not harm her in regards to intercourse, although nothing specific is obligated upon him. He is only obligated to provide what benefits her such as financial maintenance, residence, clothing, and spending the night with her. As for intercourse, its position is one of pleasure and no one can be forced into it (la yujbaru ahadun ‘alayhi).

Source: al-Umm 5/203

The source is discussing whether a male can be forced to have intercourse. Its not general for both men and women. Mcphurphy (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Al shafi is pretty much clear as he says:

"Likewise, if he has only one wife or an additional concubine with whom he has intercourse, he is commanded to fear Allah Almighty and to not harm her in regards to intercourse..."

Clearly forcing them is harming them alshafi is clear enough and that is just your interpretation al shafi doesn't say its only applied for men rather he said no one can be forced into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.183.62 (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

No you are cherry-picking and doing WP:SYNTH. You can't use this as an absolute statement for both genders. This statement was a response to a query of whether men can be forced to have intercourse or not. If you read the entire passage you will understand the context. Mcphurphy (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

How is this cherry picking breaking down the points is not cherry picking, from the very source you gave al shafi clearly said, dont harm them during intercourse and that sex is for pleasure no one can be forced into it. How does this fall under WP:SYNTH when al shafi cleary stated, no one can be forced into it?

Al shafi made it quite clear what he meant he used a neutral tone banning it for both genders, he didn't only say men cannot be forced into it, rather he said no one can be forced into it. The fact is this is just your interpretation. 92.40.174.231 (talk) 5:19 AM, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The context of the statement is about not harming the woman during intercourse, so if it was exclusive for one gender, it makes more sense for us to say it's about whether women can be forced into sex or not rather than men! But overall I think the clearest reading is that it's a general statement. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

quite evident from the Arabic that its referring to males when it says "no one," but I am willing to let this go by as long as the context is given that this statement was in response to a query of whether a male can be forced to have intercourse. The statement of Iman Shafi'i can itself be left ambiguous. The reader can judge for themselves. Mcphurphy (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Mcphurphy where did you get the above Arabic from? Did you access it from the book itself or did you copy and paste from this blog?VR _talk 03:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mcphurphy: can you confirm that the above text you posted was copied from the blog? If not, please state the source of the text.VR _talk 03:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

No its not the blog. I don't pay much regard to random bloggers. Its the book. Mcphurphy (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• This edit by Mcphurphy is a violation of WP:NPOV, glad it was reverted. We must present scholars' views in neutral tone, not write as if one scholar is right and the other is wrong.VR _talk 03:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It is a violation of WP:NPOV to treat all scholars equally. Kecia Ali is the expert more commonly cited, as Vishnu sahib has rightly pointed out. If Kecia Ali points out that Intisar Rabb is making a fringe claim, we give Ali precedence and state Rabb as fringe. Mcphurphy (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Intisar A. Rabb is the faculty director of the Program in Islamic Law at Harvard Law School. She had widely published in peer-reviewed sources. Her views her are sourced to a book published by Cambridge University Press. Furthermore her views on consent are echoed by Tamara Sonn, another widely published academic on Islam. There is no reason to consider her inferior to Kecia Ali.VR _talk 19:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Mcphurphy added this piece of text but it makes no sense without actually mentioning the whole Jonathan Brown backstory (some of which is covered at Jonathan_A._C._Brown#Writings_on_slavery). Either we cover the entire brouhaha or we omit it and stick to mentioning Jaffer's views on the topic of consent.VR _talk 19:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Does this article include Marriage in Islam?

I am going to ask again, what is the scope of this article? Is it concubinage? If so, why is content relating to marriage being inserted here? If we are going to start inserting content related to marriage in Islam, then we should not be cherry picking but covering all aspects of marriage in Islam.VR _talk 03:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I would assume, as per the title, that it's "sexual slavery in Islam", which obviously overlaps with historical concubinage in Islam, but isn't necessarily synonymous. Which is something editors should be careful in distinguishing, as concubinage in Islam often meets the modern definition of sexual slavery, and isn't exactly identical to traditional western concepts of concubinage. I should state that I've been watching this article for a while, and am aware of the moves and name changes, and some of the discussion.

So yes, while it's going to overlap with the concept of marriage in Islam to some extent, this is obviously a notably unique and qualitatively different subject. I do think the article could stand to be a bit more narrowly focused--- which I know is difficult, given that it incorporates ideas from various times and places, and some of the ideas aren't easily translatable to analogous concepts found outside of an Islamic context. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

There has been quite a discussion on Talk:Concubinage over what "concubinage" is. In most places of the world (China, Korea, Judaism, Scandinavia, colonial Americas, ancient Greece, ancient Mesopotamia etc.) concubines included slave women kept by their masters. In other places and times, "concubinage" didn't imply any slavery at all. Anyway, most WP:RS called this phenomenon in the Muslim world as "concubinage" not "sexual slavery" (see #Part1).

But coming back to marriage, how exactly does either "sexual slavery" or "concubinage" overlap with marriage in Islam? Do you think that "wives" in Islam are "concubines" or "sexual slaves"? I can't find any reliable sources to support that claim.VR _talk 15:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

This question is an unnecessary confusion. The two situations are analogous in Islamic law. The sources even discuss them together for this reason. The traditional scholars make an analogy between the purchase of sex slaves/concubines and the purchase of a wife's private part (mahr). Male ownership of a sex slave's whole body and a free wife's private part makes them part of the same discussion. Secondly, the sources on consent of concubines to sex with masters discuss them simultaneously with consent of wives to sex with husbands, since neither has the right to refuse without a medical or other valid reason. Mcphurphy (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Theorizing about what could be the commonality between these two situations, these jurists come to the conclusion that some sort of male ownership (the Arabic term is “milk,” meaning control or dominion) is instrumental in legitimizing sexual activity. As Kecia Ali explains in her detailed study of the subject, “a comparison [i]s drawn between the dominion imposed by a husband through which his wife is caused to surrender her sexual self and the sovereignty established by the master [over his slave]” (Ali 2010: 15). Established Islamic jurisprudence therefore often describes marriage as a type of sale, with the item being purchased being a wife’s sexual organs. There are qualitative differences between the rights of a wife and a female slave, of course, and the jurists do carefully lay these out, but nevertheless, the concept of male ownership of women’s sexual parts becomes an important part of the traditional juristic understanding of what makes sex licit in Islam.

— Asifa Qureshi Landes, A Meditation on Mahr, Modernity, and Muslim Marriage Contract Law, p. 178.

So the issue with this approach is that the article would then be expanded to include details about Islamic law when it pertains to marriage, e.g. a woman's right to decline a marriage, to seek khula/dissolution, to redress wrongs in a court, etc. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• I see some back and forth reverting on whether texts that are strictly about a man's relationship with his wife can also be applied to his concubine.[1][2] The texts don't seem to mention anything about concubine or slave so it seems it should stay out of the article. If we are going to talk about wives then we should also should cover marriage in much more detail, including recognition of women's consent to enter and exit marriage.VR _talk 03:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Going by Kecia Ali's works in total, its quite obvious the Ali's text on forced intercourse is referring to both the wife and concubines. Mcphurphy (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that but maybe I missed something. Please provide the exact quote.VR _talk 14:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Protection of the article

This article should be placed under some sort of protection, since it is so often vandalized by people who claim that sexual slavery is forbidden in islam despite all references in the article. Perhaps this is also why there is a template in the article questioning its neutrality despite the fact that the article has numerous references and sources. The topic is controversial and sensitive. --Aciram (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

'...acceptable foolishness' ?

Discussion topic: 'edit dif' deletes part of following sourced content

..."This angered Uyanya. Uyaynah had earlier said at the Siege of Ta'if that he only came to fight for Muhammad so he could get a Thaqif girl and impregnate her. When Umar told Muhammad about Uyayna's comment, Muhammad smiled and called this "acceptable foolishness".

Deletion by edit dif

...When Umar told Muhammad about Uyayna's comment, Muhammad smiled and called this "acceptable foolishness".

Reason of deletion mentioned in delete summary

"Removed a highly misleading and irrelevant sentence. The Prophet did not smile and call him an agreeable fool for wanting to impregnate slave women. The source clearly says that this was the Prophet’s reaction to a pun that he had made."

Crosschecked source content @ archive.org link by searching ref no. 193 of the book content overall agrees with content included in article.

• Now question of Pun and encyclopedic relevance.

Who is doing pun? Probably 'Uyaynah' may be replying in sarcasm or pun whatever the character is talking about enslaving an impregnating a woman (may be for intellectual strength of the tribe). Irrespective of glorification out of conviction / sarcasm or pun thought of going for a war with objective 'enslaving an impregnating a woman' remains an intent or being casual on topic of engaging in Wartime sexual violence.

Response of a leader on getting to know intent of war interested companion is calling the thought of companion is "foolishness" is ok. But action is not of instantaneous reprimanding the companion for his "foolish" thought but it condones intent of Wartime sexual violence.

May be women are manumitted after captivity and distribution on a request, but loose talk about and captivity of non combatant women seems condoned.

Some modernist may even claim that these records were simply fictional accounts, but those seem to have been discussed like real ones in later centuries.

Real or fictional instance of a loose talk and lack of reprimanding the companion by the leader seems evident and if covered in reliable source then remains encyclopedically relevant and notable.

So my take is mention is relevant and notable in aligned right Quotebox in the article Sexual slavery in Islam.

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Page already exists on the same topic

There is already a page covering the same topic named Concubinage in Islam. In arabic the word, Suriyya refers to both sexual slavery as well as concubinage. Moreover, according to Islam, only a slave can be called a concubine and any other form of concubinage is prohibited. the page referred above is more racially and religiously neutral though lacks a few topics.

Regards,

Wikiedit01995 ^talk

That is not correct. This page title is neutral. Since Islam is not a race, we should not act as if it is. Wikipedia should be neutral, thus it must be possible to write about a negative subject within any religion, even if that may cause negative feelings.

The article Concubinage in Islam does not cover the subject of this article. While it is indeed true that concubines were sex slaves, not all slaves who were subjected to sexual abuse were concubines. Courtesans, musicians, singers, dancers and maidservants were all slaves, but they were not concubines and could only be covered very briefly in Concubinage in Islam.

Concubinage in Islam does not cover all subjects covered in this article, but we cannot transfer that information from this article to Concubinage in Islam, since that article must restrict itself to the subject of its title, which is a subcategory to this subject.

The article Sexual slavery in Islam is a main article about all forms of sexual slavery within Islam and the attidude toward it; the article Concubinage in Islam covers a subject within that phenomena. It is similar to "Opera" being a subcategory to "Music" or "Flower" and "Plants", and we should not erase a main category and replace it with a subcategory. --Aciram (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

"Islamic views on concubinage"

I saw now that a new page "Islamic views on concubinage" has been created, as a sort of spin-off from this page. If we apply there the same policy that we applied here (and there are no reasons why we shouldn't) that page should be renamed to "Islamic views on sexual slavery". --Grufo (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Islamic views on concubinage § Requested move 14 October 2021

 – Grufo (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

This new edit

This new edit by Wiqi55 removes the passage's longstanding sourced words "and she detested him" and replaces it with the following irrelevant words "but she later chose to return to her husband and cousin."

The fact that this woman returned is already conveyed in the final paragraph of the section Women of Hawazin wherein it is stated "Likewise, the girls given to Talha, Uthman, Ibn Umar and Safwan bin Umayya were also returned to their families." I will shift Wiqi55's extra detail next to this sentence. It makes more sense to include that Zaynab chose to return to her husband when the text talks about the return of the women instead of the part of the text which describes Muslim soldiers having sex with their captives earlier. But I see no rationale for removing the words "she detested him" when the sex is being discussed. It merely shows that Zaynab detested Uthman who had sex with her. That is also how it appears in the cited source wherein it states "Uthman had intercourse with her and she detested him. The addition of the fact that this woman chose to return to her husband and cousin only strengthens the fact that she detested Uthman, for if she liked the man who had sex with her, she would not have chosen to return to her husband. Mcphurphy (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

What you're saying is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH: "If Waqidi says A, and Ibn Ishaq says B, then let us combine A and B to make C -- i.e., she both detested him and preferred her cousin!" That's original research. Instead, we need to attribute each statement inline with wp:due. As I explained in my edit summary, Ibn Ishaq's version is notable and quoted by many later historians (I cited one). To determine weight, could you cite a secondary source referring to Waqidi's "detest"?

Moreover, you're probably not familiar with Arabic otherwise you would've known that Waqidi is just using a term often used in the context of divorce. See, for example, how Waqidi uses detest to describe a woman who divorced many husbands.[3] It is also used for rejecting a marriage proposal. It doesn't imply any of the negative nuances of detest, like "loath" or "extreme hate". Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 23:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

No but this edit of yours certainly falls under WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. The Waqidi source says categorially that Zaynab detested Uthman (whether that was in the context of women wanting to divorce/leave her sexual partner or having extreme hate is irrelevant and is your own original research - which is prohibited). Instead of following the source as it is worded, what you are doing is removing the second part of the sentence sourced from Waqidi and taking another source (Ibn Ishaq) and mixing its words with the first half of the sentence from Waqidi to produce a meaningless sentence which reads "Uthman had sexual intercourse with her but she later chose to return to her husband and cousin." with the aim of obfuscating the fact that Zaynab did not like the man who had sex with her. Mcphurphy (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The source in the diff clearly supports both parts of the sentence; you probably can't read Arabic or don't know how use Google Translate. You also shouldn't present Waqidi's statement as corroborating Ibn Ishaq's because that's original research. It is equally possible to think of these statements as contradictory or a paraphrase -- Ibn Ishaq is often considered the source of Waqidi. The part you claim is about having sex actually also includes Ibn Umar's journey and return of his captive. Furthermore, I didn't cite Ibn Ishaq directly. I cited an annotated biography of Zaynab written by a later historian. Thus the notability of Ibn Ishaq's statement is supported by a secondary source. By contrast, the "detest" claim is not deemed notable by anybody except you. You even admitted above that you have no idea what exactly Waqidi means by it. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 06:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Greetings, Came across this Q&A regarding same issue. It seems according to other versions 'Zaynab bint Hayyan' seems to have liking for some one else and decided to return; even in that case practice of taking women captive allotting them as a war booty, treating them like property and enforcing sexual relations sans explicit consent it's not that the fellows did not know of concept of consent at all, in official marriage consent is asked 3 times but if it is case of captive women consent is not asked fails to generate due ethical confidence. Ex–Muslims are already raising these questions some of their literature will get through reliable academic sources it is just matter of time.

Hence transparency only would be best policy. Whatever number of 'related' primary sources are there present them in original Arabic language, then provide word by word translation and then provide secondary source commentaries. Then let the audience decide how to formulate and render the available information in the encyclopedia.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Wiqi55. There must be reliable secondary sources for every statement in this article, and if there are none, then it should be omitted. Using Waqidi as a source is problematic (see Al-Waqidi#Critics).VR _talk 18:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality template

I wonder if the neutrality of this article is, perhaps, questioned only because it is a controversial subject, which can clearly be seen in its edit history, as it is often vandalized and clearly arouse emotions - rather than being actually lacking in neutrality. Perhaps the neutrality template should be removed, if it only there because of people with bias? I have no idea if this assumption is true or not; I just thought I should mention it, because of the emotional edit history and consistent vandalization of the article.--Aciram (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It seems in /Archive 3, which contains conversation that took place at the time this template was added, that there is contention about whether the article should use "sexual slavery" or "concubinage" in the title, so someone may have added the template to indicate that a dispute was underway. However, when someone slaps the template onto an article without explaining why on the talk page, this can be considered drive-by tagging and it can be removed. I am removing it. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This article does have serious neutrality (and even some WP:SYNTH) issues. It was not merely drive-by editing, I think I placed the template and I explained in great detail why I did. Those issues are still not resolved.VR _talk 01:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

On side note: If neutrality and reflecting on imperfections are good values then open encyclopedias should become religion and religion should become open encyclopedia, probably that would be better way to resolve such disputes Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

If you question the neutrality of the article, you should explain why. The issue here is, that people with a religious bias may want to question the neutrality simply because they feel certain information place their religion in bad light, even if it is correct information. I don't know what the syaing above is suppose to mean, but religious bias should be kept away from this article as well as every article here. The neutrality of these articles are always in danger from religious bias. There shall be no re-definition of what neutrality is, and certainly not to a definition that say religious bias should be redefined to mean neutrality. --Aciram (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I do fully agree with you, when religious bias fails to reflect internally then likely to blame others for being biased. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Aciram: sure here is a non-exhaustive list of reasons:

• The article name (and subsequent terminology) is biased. We have overwhelming evidence that WP:SCHOLARSHIP prefers the term "concubinage" to "sexual slavery" when describing this phenomenon. I gave examples from around 40 (that's right, 40!) scholarly sources (published by BRILL, Yale University Press, Harvard University Press etc). See this and this. But the response was that the authors of these scholarly sources "happen to be Muslim themselves and want to put the most positive spin on it as they can, so they choose to use a more sanitized, yet less accurate term". The idea that we should dismiss scholarly sources because they are authors happen to be Muslims is ridiculous (and possibly even Islamophobic).
• The article gives WP:UNDUE weight to historical instances that WP:RS hardly talk about (as Wiqi55 alluded in above discussion). The article goes into detail about a story for which reliable, secondary sources can't even be found.
• This article only contains certain POVs but omits other very significant POVs. For example, it has a section on forced conversion but fails to mention the most important Quranic verse on this matter (and well covered by RS). Another example was discussed here about how the article selectively quotes certain opinions on dress prescriptions but omits others.
• As shown here the article WP:CHERRYPICKs sources.VR _talk 04:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

My first contention is etymologically word Concubine meant 'inferior wife' (Islam has no concept of Inferior wife all wives ought to be equal so Concubine is an un–Islamic Bidʻah term Pl. read again) , but if any given religion allows unrestrained polygamy Concubine amounts to be wife, inferior though. For this article what happens in other religion is immaterial.

In the religion under discussion first relationship categorisation happens one basis of Mahram or non–Mahram. Then a relationship is halal(licit) or haram (illicit), in halal (licit) relationships a woman can be a wife if not wife then Umm Walad slave, who is not Umm Walad slave but slave in sexual relationship until she bears a child she is plain Sex slave, then there would be a category of female slaves without maintaining sexual relationship but owner of 'female property' has right to create a relationship with her any time so such female slave amounts to be slave available for sexual slavery. Some one is wife or sexually available slave, there is no scope for any concubine (inferior wife) in the religion under discussion. One more category of freed i.e. emancipated slaves is their but that is in a way 'previously available–Sex slaves'.

As discussed earlier, concept of marital consent is very expressively available for wife in the religion under discussion, the same explicit religious provision of consent is not seen for sexually available slave women. So for just being politically right usage of word Concubine does not seem to make any sense and any scholarship doing so becomes dubious scholarship.

Last but not least, though " 'theoretically effective practically implemented, Sexual slavery', very well existed in the religion under discussion", on some other count as I have discussed elsewhere is Sexual slavery in Muslim societies better title since as per religious diktat a 'non–slave Muslim woman' is not supposed to be salable, but there are several instances (available with reliable sources) where in Muslim individuals and communities have been observed to have indulged in enslavement of Muslim women too without properly bothering about what their religion says. So it is unfair and untruthful not to use wording sexual slavery where it deserves similarly it would be more fair to use term Sexual slavery in Muslim societies.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Booku just gave an original research explanation concluding with "usage of word Concubine does not seem to make any sense and any scholarship doing so becomes dubious scholarship." So basically any WP:RS that disagrees with Bookku's personal POV is "dubious". Remember I provided 40 sources here and here. I'm hoping Anachronist, who is an admin (and removed the neutrality template) can chime in.VR _talk 16:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I removed the template because could not find any archived comments about placing it. All I found was discussion about 'concubinage' that seemed to have ended. Now that the dispute has resumed, the template should stay until it is resolved. I am not a party to this dispute and have not formed any view one way or the other.

It seems to me that 'concubinage' is a subset of 'sexual slavery' and that many sources in this article discuss exactly the title of this article as it currently stands, so 'sexual slavery in Islam' seems to be a valid article topic, as does 'concubinage in Islam'. Perhaps a split into two topics is in order? Or is there too much overlap between them? ~Anachronist (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It's kind of circular argument. First of all which sources are reliable is subjective & open for deliberations by Wikipedians hence in Wikipedia talk page discussions Wikipedians do have right to express why any particular set of sources do not match encyclopedic expectations. This has been done by User:Vice regent/VR too on several occasions in other article discussions, even on narrow scope of some one being of particular religious or continental background or not. So there is nothing wrong if users in previous discussions thought of VR cited sources to be biased being soft cornering particular religious view.

It is just not matter of personal PoV, Usage of term Concubinage too is sexual exploitation since status of the woman is not equal to the wife, but slave's sexual exploitation is much more. There are more differences between slave and concubine but main is relationship of concubine is more likely to be consensual and in sex slavery consent is missing or under duress.

Usage of term 'Concubine' only covers only a minuscule minority of those slave women who willingly ended up in elite Sultan's Harems Simple etymology search on google indicates word Harem comes from Arabic ḥaram, ḥarīm, literally ‘prohibited', So if a Concubine is given equal treatment to wife then it's likely to be a Haram deal. So Harem concubines remained slaves only without freewill.

Besides word concubine is injustice by playing down experiences of vast majority of war captivated compulsively enslaved female slaves who suffered innumerable atrocities. Word 'Concubine' also does not cover status of female slaves un til they end in final buyer's hand.

Those who took war captives to final dealer every one sexually exploited them. Female slaves were not only exhibited naked but buyers used to literally freely manhandle them in the name of checking their body parts. Until a female captive reaches in hands of final buyer and he successfully impregnates her what is the status of female slave other than a Sex slave?

Why do we underplay the reality through our untruth. Do you use word Concubine for 'male slaves'? if not then why play down sexual exploitation of female slaves? How any sensible mind can undermine experiences of sexual exploitation of vast majiority and still be classified as scholar is incomprehensible.

For example 'Sigeh' in Nikah mut'ah is religiously remains equal wife. But when in any country government restrains polygamy and still a long term consensual relationship takes place is religiously a marriage but as per law of monogamous country can amount to be concubine relationship being illegal. Indirectly this will help understand difference between concubinage and sex slavery.

In the religion under discussion concubinage undermines equal rights of the wife so is illicit but same time Sexual slavery is licit since it denies equal rights to sexual slave.

Now whether to defend Sexual exploitation with apologetic and polemics or not and if yes by citing which rules is for every one's own conscience.

As of now I leave this discussion, let others take care.

By the way you seem to be good @ defining what is reliable source and researching so just pl. do help in expanding Draft:Slavery in Mecca and Medina that article deserves support from like of yours. Happy editing.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Anachronist: you're right that sexual slavery has many forms: female concubines, forced prostitution, child sexual abuse (including child pornography), sexual slavery of men, rape (including wartime rape), sex trafficking etc. Muslims, who constitute 25% of the human race, have undoubtedly engaged in each of these practices. But I don't see reliable sources treating considering sexual slavery by Muslims as a coherent topic. Instead, WP:RS specifically refer to the institution that they call "concubinage", which only includes male masters entering into a polygynous relationship with their female slaves. WP:RS also treat specific examples of sexual slavery by Muslims (Bacha bazi, Rochdale child sex abuse ring, Kasur child sexual abuse scandal etc) but they don't make this out into a grand topic of "sexual slavery by Muslims".VR _talk 21:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

There is definitely not enough consensus for keeping the neutrality template. Removed. --Grufo (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The template should remain until neutrality issues are resolved.VR _talk 15:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

As things stand now it is not proved that neutrality issues exist at all. That template has been inserted more than one year ago. Have you tried to address what you consider to be an issue during this year? --Grufo (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have, through discussion, and others clearly have too. Just look at the discussions on this talk page, neutrality is always a factor in them.VR _talk 15:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

From your "list of neutrality issues" I read:

1. Page title – the issue (that you had raised) has finally been solved
2. Undue – From reading the discussion you don't explain what is undue, and when you do explain it your opinion does not find consensus
3. "Not enough POVs" – the page should have as few POVs as possible
4. Source cherrypicking – You have been quite active in inserting sources into the article (#1, #2, #3 – the list goes on, but I don't have time to through all your edits). Either this issue is solved, or it never existed, or you are the one who cherrypicks – by the way, I am pretty sure that you do cherrypick: your sources (or your source removals) tend often to go towards an apologetic view of the phenomenon.

In my opinion after more than one year of failing to find consensus for its presence that template must be removed ASAP. --Grufo (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Citation tag removdc

I have removed the citation tag as an article with 273 cites and no citation needed tags is a well-sourced article. Whatever other disagreements with tone, citations are not the issue. Slywriter (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

That tag was placed by Awesome Aasim so they can give insight as to why they placed it. From their edit summary it seems they are calling for some text to be cited to multiple sources.VR _talk 22:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Which other tags exist that can be placed next to the specific statement. Tagging the entire article provides the false impression that the article contains largely uncited material, which is patently false. And given the size of the article is utterly useless to other editors. Slywriter (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October, 2021

This can be cited as a reference to add a sentence in the lead, "The consent of the slave for sex, for withdrawal before ejaculation or to marry her off to someone else was not considered necessary". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:578C:A76:3813:EA38:F15C:FCE6 (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Where exactly in the lead would you like this sentence? And what is your rationale for placing this in the lead rather than another section? —Sirdog (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

 Reopened Sirdog, it can be the second sentence in the lead, but feel free to add it anywhere! I observed that Kecia Ali has been used as a source for many sentences in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.7.6.21 (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Sirdog for IP. ––FormalDude talk 08:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the ping FormalDude, and thank you for your response IP! I'll see if I can find a way to insert that sentence or something equivalent to that in the article sometime tomorrow. —Sirdog (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Should not be done. Can you explain why this deserves to be in the lead? Please be careful of WP:UNDUE. This is already in the body of the article and that seems like appropriate weight.VR _talk 15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

It is like a summary - that is why I felt it was fine there.-Baamiyaan2 (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Sockpuppet.VR _talk 01:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain why this deserves to be in the lead? For clarity, I did not intend to place that sentence or something equivalent to it in the lead. I am not comfortable messing with leads at the current stage of my editing career. I planned to read the article in whole, determine if inclusion was necessary, and if so, perform it. That said, I'm going to hold off now and see how this conversation progresses. —Sirdog (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Sirdog, I repeat, "It is like a summary - that is why I felt it was fine there". You should probably read the article. If you feel that it can be in the lead please add it, I will not be doing so.-Baamiyaan2 (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Sockpuppet.VR _talk 01:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Aciram, Grufo, Mcphurphy and Anachronist should probably look into it as they seem to know the topic.-Baamiyaan2 (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Sockpuppet.VR _talk 01:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Baamiyaan2, I did read your explanation. My previous reply was me stating that I'm pulling out of the request due to there being some debate on it's inclusion. As you say, I have indeed not yet read this article, I will let others more knowledgeable in this subject area than I handle this. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the ping. I don't know what this discussion is about, I stopped following this page months ago. If it is about inserting "The consent of the slave for sex, for withdrawal before ejaculation or to marry her off to someone else was not considered necessary" in the lead, I am against, it is already obvious that if you are a slave your consent never matters, so the sentence will exist only for emphatic reasons, and emphasis is POV. That sentence would become necessary if we started calling slaves "concubines", as we did in the past, but since we stopped doing that there is no reason to emphasize things. Don't take my words for granted, there might be also stylistic reasons that allow an emphasis, and I would need a better explanation of the two opposite positions. --Grufo (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The lead should not simply parrot a single sentence in the article body. That sentence does not even summarize the section in which it appears, which is about consent, and not specifically about "withdrawal". Also, the discussion of withdrawal occupies just a single short paragraph in the cited article. Therefore, putting the sentence in the lead gives it undue weight. A sentence summarizing the section named "The issue of consent" should summarize it more generally, not focus on one specific aspect. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Small Request

I don't believe I'm allowed to edit this, could someone make sure that for Kecia Ali there is a hyperlink to her wiki page? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaynab1418 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Btw, as I was putting the hyperlink in, I noticed that we quote Kecia Ali a lot at the expense of other sources... There's even whole paragraphs that are just block quotes from her. Addressing the imbalance might be a good idea for improving this article moving forward. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, regarding our sources, I notice we are citing a politician Sadaf Jaffer's blog post along with the academic research conducted by various scholars. Might be worth reconsidering the weight being given to that particular source in the article.Jushyosaha604 (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Here are some books we could look into

• Slavery in the Islamic World: Its Characteristics and Commonality by Mary Ann Fay
• Women and Gender in the Qur'an by Celene Ibrahim
• Slavery and Islam by Jonathon Brown
• Concubines and Courtesans: Women and Slavery in Islamic History by Matthew Gordon
• Possessed by the Right Hand: The Problem of Slavery in Islamic Law and Muslim Cultures by Bernard Freamon
• Sexual Violation in Islamic Law: Substance, Evidence, and Procedure by Hina Azam --Zaynab1418 (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Citation clashes caused by a mix of citation methods

Either this article needs to be written on the basis of using <ref name=IJMES-49-1>_____</ref> or the {{sfn|Ali|2017|p152-158}} method of doing citations. Mixing the systems produces a mess. One advantage of the <ref name=IJMES-49-1>_____</ref> method is that links to Google books can be to the relevant page(s), which is less likely to be achieved with the {{sfn| method.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

What is with the sourcing and abominable generalisation on this page?!

Has everyone who is editing this page lost their marbles? The first source on this page is a pdf of an unsubmitted graduate student's thesis, not something peer reviewed? Seriously?! And what is with all the blanket statements such as: "Islamic law says X", Islam allows Y, etc.? Islamic law and Islam don't DO anything! They are inanimate. People, with their interpretations in different times and places, DO things. Every example given in a piece like this has to be carefully contextualised. I thought this page would be bad before I clicked on it, but boy did I lack imagination. This is a complete joke. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Tell me about it. The creator of this article explained "Any instance of Muslims practising sexual slavery belongs in this article"[4]. Crimes by certain Muslim individuals and groups are notable in their own right (ISIS's sexual slavery, Hindu-Muslim rapes in India etc). But I have never come across a reliable source that aims to generalize all instances of sexual slavery by Muslims (or Christians, or Buddhists, or atheists, etc). This article was borne out of an attempt to synthesize sources to push a particular POV.VR _talk 19:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I am going to be sorely tempted tomorrow to just get out a hammer and chisel and start hacking away. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD! But also don't be surprised if someone reverts your hard work. Might be more productive to go slower, one section at a time, seeking consensus as you go along. What, in your opinion, are the biggest issues? Can you give examples? Then we can tackle those first.VR _talk 00:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I see that unsubmitted thesis pdf right up front as a particularly outstanding issue. This is a broad topic and there is enough peer-reviewed academic literature on the subject that the piece doesn't need any dodgy pdfs or episodic news links. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a real WP:BIAS imbalance on Wikipedia in general on this subject as well. There are individual articles on "Sexual slavery in ...": Islam, China, contemporary Africa, and the Ottoman Empire only - the latter for sure being duplicate of this work, but more broadly, what the hell? What about the Roman Empire, Persian Empire, and, let's not forget, contemporary Europe, where modern slavery and sex trafficking are absolutely rife. Clearly there is a general mood to only expand these articles in a certain direction. The framing is also all over the place. If this is about Islam, it should be solely about the concept of sexual slavery as it is presented from a religious perspective. It shouldn't be about examples. If it is about sexual slavery, past and present, in the Arab or Islamic World, it should be "Sexual slavery in the Arab/Islamic World" and then show historic examples. A piece blending theology and examples is just a hot, broken mess. It's actually hard to know where to begin in tackling what appears to have become a runaway train of WP:BIAS and bad sourcing. Contemplating an RFC. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

All good points. There is an article the narrowly focuses on just the theological and legal perspectives (Islamic views on concubinage) so this article can become just about the history of the practice. And RfC on the scope of this article is a great idea! In my experience, RfC works better if you let users pick from several suggestions. So what do you suggest the scope should be? I think this article should focus mainly on history (Islamic views on concubinage should focus on theology/law). In terms of breadth it should be limited to the historic practice of concubinage (which in Muslim history was defined as a man having a long-term relationship with his female slave). It should not try to lump that together with other forms of sexual slavery practiced by Muslims. We see that Slavery in the United States is about the historic slavery in the US but Human trafficking in the United States is a different article.VR _talk 13:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I was having a conversation this evening about this, just with friends, outside of Wikipedia, and they were amazed that something as unencyclopedic and broad as this article could actually exist. It provided some much needed clarity and drew my attention to the fact that really, all articles of this type should be linked to a specific geography and time, and, as Karaeng Matoaya pointed out [5], not span multiple eras and geographies. At the very least there should be a distinction between historic and modern examples. Historic examples of course being pre-abolition both in global society in general, and within Islamic communities. Groups like Isis/Isil that use ideologies of the past to justify their terrorism of the present should not be bundled together with this. Neither should the Indian partition, the Sudanese civil war or the Ottoman material, which already has its own, specific article. If anything, if this is to cover something semi-specific, it should most likely be limited to the early broadly Arabic-speaking caliphates: Rashidun, Umayyad and Abbasid - to actually form a body of content that is distinct from the existing article and content on the Turkic Ottoman caliphate. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I am open to renaming the article Sexual slavery in the Islamic World provided that all the historical instances of sexual slavery practised by Muslims, including more modern cases, which have been newly removed by Iskandar are reincorporated into the article and the theological discussion behind all elements of the historical practice is also retained, so that readers can understand how this practice lasted so long in the Muslim world until the West forced the Muslim world to abolish slavery, and with it concubinage.

The claim that Islam or Islamic law allows or doesn't allow anything is incorrect and problematic. As Islam, including its primary sources such as the Quran and Hadith, was transmitted through people. Is Iskandar saying Islam is a man-made religion? If so, how Muslims, especially those trained in Islamic jurisprudence, have interpreted Islam for most of Islam's existence is highly pertinent. Mcphurphy (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The above is an admission that this page is WP:SYNTH: Mcphurphy takes source A that is talking about a theological issue, combines it with source B that is talking about a historical rape committed by Muslims, to advance the position "how this practice lasted so long in the Muslim world". Never mind that those sources might be talking about completely different time periods and locations.VR _talk 21:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality template (again)

Despite the attempts of multiple editors to remove the neutrality template – which was inserted more than one year ago only in the name of the (now solved) title controversy – a user keeps restoring it (#1, #2 – checked only the last two months). --Grufo (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The title dispute was never resolved. This page still has a title that does not reflect the reliable sources (see here and here). And there are various other neutrality issues, some of which have been discussed as late as this week and last.VR _talk 16:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Title: In your head, maybe, probably; for Wikipedia, solved long ago. Neutrality issues: they were not discussions, it was you imposing your point of view through reverts. --Grufo (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Please mind WP:CIVIL.VR _talk 16:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Grufo. The dispute was resolved long ago, notwithstanding the insistence of one editor. These tags have no business in the article. Mcphurphy (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mcphurphy: I have tried to address the behavior issue, but the discussion has not brought consequences so far. --Grufo (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Please could you provide a paragraph explaining the issues.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

This entire article is POV, starting with its title. This is not about Islam, this is about Islamic, Arab, Ottoman or whatever societies also happened to be majority Muslim. We don't write up the history of the North Atlantic slave trade as: Slavery in Christianity: it would be absurd POV (- in fact, as it turns out, this redirects to Christian views on slavery). We also don't write up the fact that Christian slave owners sexually abused their female slaves as Sexual slavery in Christianity. As it so happens, History of slavery in the Muslim world is already an article, as well as Slavery in the Ottoman Empire - the latter of which already has a large write up on sexual slavery (if that is indeed even what we are to call it). I will be raising an RFC soon. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is not about what Muslims did or do, it is about how Islam, as religion, theologically and historically addresses the topic of sexual slavery. Or should we assume that Islam has no opinions on sexual slavery? Wikipedia has also Islamic views on slavery; sexual slavery is a subcategory of that. There is also a WP:POVFORK clone that a user has created after attempting to rename this page without success at Islamic views on concubinage: if according to you it is wrong to have a page dedicated to what a religion thinks about sexual slavery, I assume it is also wrong to have a clone on the same topic that uses an apologetic title – but why do I have the feeling that you will disagree with this assumption? --Grufo (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, apologetics don't come into it. The big problem with this article is it combines gross generalisations (usually linked to one source and page number, but without any proper footnotes), with some rather select examples. Take, for instance the section on war captives, where we have three paragraphs of generalising, paraphrased tect with no detailed footnotes, followed by two much larger paragraphs on specific war crimes by the Ottoman Empire during the Greek struggle for independence - a particularly acrimonious conflict in which numerous war crimes were committed by both sides. Then there is the lack of historical context. For most of ancient, medieval and early modern history, it was routine in many cultures for women captured in battle to be treated as property. While disturbing by modern standards, this was pretty common across ancient to pre-modern empires. Sex slaves is a very POV term to describe the practice, however. We don't say "Rome conquered the Gallic tribe and took sex slaves", "Genghis sacked Samarkand and took sex slaves", etc. Women were captured and often enslaved as part of the far more generalised looting that took place. Sometimes they were used for sex, sometimes they weren't, but this type of violence was highly normalised in the ancient world. I don't know exactly what should be done about this page, but at the moment, it is highly confused, combining general information about slavery, such as the abolition section, some specific material pertaining to female slaves, and then a whole bunch of random examples almost definitely duplicating content from other pages, such as the material on Ottoman sexual slavery. "Islamic views on concubinage" is currently a much more focused, precise and clear article. I don't know what this is meant to be. It seems half just confused and half some sort of weird, tangential attack page. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

As I thought. --Grufo (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

This article, if anything, is the WP:POVFORK, beginning first and foremost with the title. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

You mean that the author of this page read Vice regent's clone, traveled back in time, WP:POVFORKED it in the past and forced Vice regent to WP:POVFORK it back? I love time loops. --Grufo (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1:, here is a non-exhaustive list of POV issues with his article (as has been mentioned before[6]).

1. Either the scope or the title of this article is against policy. Mcphurphy, the creator, said about the the scope: "Any instance of Muslims practising sexual slavery belongs in this article". There are few RS (if any) that cover such a broad scope. Instead, RS do cover the specific scope of concubinage in Muslim history and Islamic thought. If concubinage is indeed the topic, then the name should be "concubinage" because that is the WP:COMMONNAME as shown here and here.
2. The sectioning of this article gives WP:UNDUE weight to topics are either not touched or barely so by sources that attempt to give a broad overview of this topic. There is a clear attempt to cherrypick certain aspects from certain sources and give them more weight than they are typically given in RS. For example, I have gone through dozens of books that cover slavery or concubinage in the Muslim world and concubinage in Islamic law and I didn't find any that cover the topic of forced conversion (except one source that said forced conversion of slaves was prohibited). Yet we have a section Forced conversion for concubinage. This can be mentioned in this article but an entire section is UNDUE. That section is also POV because it is based entirely on one source, and doesn't contain any reference to dozens of sources (both Muslim and non-Muslim) that state that forced conversion is contrary to the Quranic verse Al-Baqara 256.
3. 5 out of the 7 paragraphs in The issue of consent are based on the views of only one scholar: Kecia Ali. What is the reason that other scholars like Tamara Sonn, Jonathan Brown, Rabb Instisar, Hina Azam etc should be given far less weight?
4. This article attempts to divide history into "Sexual enslavement of non-Muslim women by Muslim men", "Sexual enslavement of Muslim women by non-Muslim men" and "Sexual enslavement of Muslim women by Muslim men". Do reliable use a similar form of sectioning? Or is this again Mcphurphy's invention to give UNDUE weight to certain aspects?
5. The section Sexual slavery in pre-Islamic Arabia and early Islam is based partially on only WP:PRIMARY sources. As Wiqi55 pointed out, secondary RS are needed to determine weight - if no reliable secondary source exist, it is UNDUE to mention the content.VR _talk 12:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I have transformed your bullet list into a numbered list so that we can refer to each point easily. You can revert it if you prefer differently.

1. The title cannot constitute an element for the POV template. When a dispute ends it ends, and you have to accept that the status quo is restored. “Any instance of Muslims practising sexual slavery” cannot be the content of the page. But Muslims that practice(d) sexual slavery using the religion in support can – because a religion is not scriptures, is how people interpret these.
2. Cherrypicking? I think I have not seen any other editor who cherrypicks or POV-pushes as much as you do when it comes to this topic (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5). And yet, it is not enough for you to cherrypick without anyone protesting, you want to cherrypick and accuse other people of cherrypicking. That said, have you tried in the last year to address the “issue” that you mention?
3. Have you ever tried to propose these authors, either in the discussion or directly in the article?
4. We are quite free to choose how to present a content. What section of those is given undue weight according to you?
5. You are doing it again. An editor, Wiqi55, sees a primary source problem and “fixes it” (I won't discuss about the content of the edits here). Another editor, Mcphurphy disagrees and a discussion begins – in which Wiqi55 pronounces the words that you quoted. Wiqi55's edits are kept in the end, so “problem solved”. And yet you quote the sentence that they pronounced when there was “a primary source problem” in support of the claim that currently there is a primary source problem.

--Grufo (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• An added problem here is that no one seems to be able to agree on what this article is actually about. Hypothetically, for example, if I temporarily go along with your line of thinking Grufo, this page should be called Islamic views on sexual slavery. However, Mcphurphy has an entirely conflicting view, which is that this is not about Islamic views at all, but about all the instances of sexual misconduct towards slaves ever committed by someone ostensibly a Muslim. Setting aside questions of whether there might be any inappropriate POV here, this approach would more aptly result in an article called Sexual slavery in the Islamic/Muslim World - effectively a branch out from the main "History of slavery in the Muslim world" page. Added to this is the somewhat broader issue of whether sexual slavery is even an appropriate term, and whether this topic truly deserves its own space outside of the related main articles on slavery. As noted below [7], sexual slavery only currently appears to be being covered separately with respect to "Islam, China, Africa, and the Ottoman Empire" - a pretty Orientalist WP:BIAS selection that singles out Islam as a religion, and for good measure, also an Islamic Empire. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against calling this page Islamic views on sexual slavery – both titles are quite similar. As I said above, I don't think the page can be about people who happened to be Muslims that enslaved other people; the religion must be used in support (and cannot be done by a single individual, it must be socially accepted, at least by a group). But Mcphurphy is here, so maybe we can directly ask them what they meant. And finally, I wouldn't be against having an article named Christian views on sexual slavery, or whatever other religion's views. --Grufo (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• If the society a historical person lived in said that an owner can lawfully have sex with their female slave (irrespective of what the slave wants), then it is not misconduct for the owner to have sex with their female slave. (We probably disagree with the values of that society, but I am not sure that our beliefs are relevant.)-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes of course. But this page would not even be about that owner, this page would be about how that owner was or was not accepted in his society. --Grufo (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Grufo you asked what was stopping me (and others) from fixing POV issues on this article. Here's your answer: Mcphurphy whole-scale reverted everyone's edits[8], including Iskandar's removals and my additions. In the edit summary, Mcphurphy indicated they want "long talk-page discussion" which sounds to me like Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. This is why this dispute has dragged on for so long. Because some users have WP:OWNERSHIP issues and exhaust everyone through WP:BLUDGEONING.VR _talk 21:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we should have a discussion, but not a long one. As for the topic of this page I expressed my opinion, which I believe is not different than yours (correct me if I am wrong). I saw that Mcphurphy has a different view, which would require a longer explanation from them (“Islam” is not “people who are Muslim”). Some of the parts you and Iskandar323 blanked had one or more problems (like this one I attempted to fix or, for example, a sentence like “Some of them were sold to Arab men in Libya” has a WP:POV emphasis on the word “Arab”, so it should be transformed into something like “Some of them were sold in Libya” – Libyans are already Arabs – and similar things), however WP:BLANKING is equally wrong. I believe that if we are able to make the page as aseptic and dry as possible even the most prejudiced users (both the most apologetic and the most critic ones) will find it OK. Not just the tone can express WP:POV content, also what we decide to give space to can be problematic. I believe that fixing all the problems will require an effort from some editors. The most apologetic ones need to accept that religions, as practiced through history, can have problematic parts when judged with modern eyes, and Wikipedia cannot suddenly become apologetic to prevent a feeling of shame in people who live centuries later. The most critic ones need to accept that if someone has a religion not everything they do is due to their religion. I am fully aware of the discriminating usage of religions today and in the past, but I also believe that truth has no fears. --Grufo (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Grufo: please propose in one sentence what the scope of this article should be.VR _talk 12:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the scope of the article should be “How Islam addresses/addressed the topic of sexual slavery”. By “addressing” I mean scriptural interpretations, laws and practices. --Grufo (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

When you say "Islam addressed" do you count the actions of every Muslim past or present? Do you consider all types of sexual slavery, including forced marriage, child sexual abuse, forced prostitution etc?VR _talk 15:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

As I said, individuals don't count in what they do, but they do count in what society allows them to do. If I punch you in the nose saying that the law allows me to do it, I cannot speak for the law. But if you go to the police and they tell you “Yeah, they are right, the law allows them to punch you in the nose”, things start to have a different meaning. In the specific case of sexual slavery it is likely that there will be opposite interpretations of the scriptures, and we should report them, giving appropriate weight on the basis of how much weight they actually have/had in their societies. Something similar happens in Christian views on slavery, with Mormons supporting the enslavement of black people: although Mormons are a tiny minority of Christians, they do exist as a community, so Wikipedia reports their historical view. Sexual slavery includes all forms of sexual slavery, but if some types of slaveries are not mentioned anywhere in the religion we should not even mention them. Or if some forms are mentioned to be condemned, we should report that. Islam includes past and present, so the page should not avoid epochs. --Grufo (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

But Islam is open to interpretation, and it is not hard to find justifications for a wide variety of acts. For example, the Muslims men who practice sexual slavery with young boys in Afghanistan justify their acts: "homosexuality is forbidden in Islam, but those involved in Bacha Bazi justify their actions by saying that, since they are not in love with these boys, it doesn’t apply."

On the other hand, narrowing our scope to only practices that were widely considered legal and socially acceptable in major Muslim states throughout history could be a better scope. We know, for example, that concubinage with slaves was widely considered legal until the 20th century.VR _talk 16:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I think Bacha Bazi is a good example. From your quotation it seems they interpret the Islamic concept of homosexuality as being in love, not as having sex, so they justify it within religion. Islam for them is that, more or less like “true Christianity” for the various Christian groups is what they profess. Narrowing to states is problematic. First, we don't do that with other religions, and second, religious groups might not be represented by any state and still be sizeable religious groups. If an intepretation exists and manifest through practices, that is exactly what a religion is. --Grufo (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so you would include Bacha Bazi within “How Islam addresses/addressed the topic of sexual slavery”? For you, it seems what's important is if a Muslim comes up with a religious justification or not for his practices (no matter how much it is rejected by other Muslims).VR _talk 17:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I think due weight to an intepretation must be given on the basis of the impact that it has. If a minority of educated Muslim followers/scholars says and practices A, but a majority of less educated followers/scholars says and practices B, you cannot ignore B on the basis that they are less educated. Otherwise an atheist might pass by and say that both A and B are not educated enough to have the right to exist. Same happens with inverted proportions. A minority that you consider more “primitive” than the educated majority does deserve some mention, more or less like the Mormons. --Grufo (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

So that's a "yes", right? I just want clarity, that's all.VR _talk 17:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if the page wants to be encyclopedic. That does not mean it must become WP:ATTACK, there are many ways of reporting it. For example, saying “Islam endorses Bacha Bazi” is not the same thing as saying “Supporters of the practice of Bacha Bazi justify it using Islam in support, with the argument that ... etc. etc.”. I think Christian views on slavery can be a good page to imitate for the general tone used. A lot of Christians have justified slavery thorugh history and the page says it, and yet that page does not feel like WP:ATTACK. --Grufo (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)