Talk:History of concubinage in the Muslim world/Archive 12

Lead image




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


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


 * However, these points aside, the most discernable different between historic practice is that while medieval slavery was sanctioned by mainstream religious scholars and society, the practice of the Islamic State sits firmly outside of today's mainstream thought and practice. Within a 21st century context, the Islamic State holds fringe viewpoints, and representing more than a millennia of historic practice with an image of practice by an unambiguous terrorist group with an only transitory hold on power would be a tad undue.
 * Might I suggest the picture that Mcphurphy actually quite helpfully added, in the form of a potentially more representative, but still historically couched image. Aside from being a rather spectacular piece by Giulio Rosati, it is somewhat more illustrative of a concubinage/harem type setup/experience than a mere portrait. As for the image of Nadia Murad, I would suggest that the first and foremost place to include this would be on the rather underwhelming and unillustrated Slavery in 21st-century jihadism page that the example caption leads to. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * See human behavior gives different experiences. At the height of COVID pandemic I was most happy with editor of COVID in Pakistan s/he did not shy away using sources fixing responsibilities be religious or non–religious institutions. While I found editorial behavior at general COVID & religion article quite disappointing. In the lead editors were mentioning all the creditable work in the name of religions same time not ready to include side of criticism at all while crores of people dying and suffering through the pandemic. I don't criticize behaviour on religion side only, even Wikipedian editorial behavior @ COVID related main article too was disinclined to mention need of mask and safe distancing with forceful criticism. General side misses point does not give free license to religious sides to be irresponsible.
 * See I have criticized others in above paragraph so I do not want to be unfair to fellow Muslims and Islam in appreciating and criticizing both 'where it deserves'. (emphasis on 'where it deserves')
 * There can be time scale related cultural and moral relativism to a limited extent only. One can see in ancient South Asian mythological wars hitting on some one's legs was frowned upon even in conflicts and wars, concept must have been better kill your enemy than leave him paralyzed in a way he would be unable to go asking for help for food and other assistance because that would have amounted slow and painful death. In modern times in conflict situation we prefer to save a life by shooting at one's hands and legs of a criminal or enemy in conflict situation. Since background of availability of post conflict assistance is changed. This example was just top of my mind at this moment while writing, similar other examples from rest of the world including that of Muslim world can be given no issues. For example until medieval times killing up enemy was better than converting him in disabled person who could not seek assistance for rest of life easily. They had to use stronger threat perceptions since other modes of investigation and community control were may not have been developed that we can understand.
 * But I find it difficult to accept any easy concessions for God and philosophies (whichever religious philosophies those may be) in his name and their agents that they could have been unfair in ancient or historic times. In spite of time scale effect some of humanitarian considerations can not be subjected to time scale when better alternatives were available then too. If God and philosophies (whichever religious philosophies those may be) in his name and their agents  take credit about what good happens in their name, they also are expected to unreservedly  admit to atrocities happening and religions and their agents looking other way. For example if scripture would have told clearly that just not encouragement of emancipation but every religious follower should not touch women in conflict zones many believers may have behaved differently and more positively. For this one can not give excuse saying that those times people were not aware, God and so their(his/her or whatever gender of God) scriptures had no excuse being all knowing fellow for all times, God had/ has no excuse of time scale allowing unfair things to happen. And if it is not God who was not giving wrong excuses then it is human beings giving those  excuses for exploiting fellow humans in unfair atrocious manners. Whatever the time scale whatever times exploitation does not deserve accolades but deserves unreserved criticism and we Wikipedians afford to be more fair by using sources which duly fix responsibilities in sensible but unreserved manner. I can't force others to agree to my these points but IMHO  sincerely said that; let us move on to–
 * Lead image:
 * I do appreciate your point Giulio Rosati, it is somewhat more illustrative of a concubinage/harem type setup/experience than a mere portrait. though nudity portrays female slave trade as is being objectified by traders but it does not intend to provide objectification to viewers of the picture. Same time traders were too diverse in color/ race religion and gender too. So may be we can short list some images to be rotated periodically secondly we can keep collage option too open.
 * Thanks for healthy discourse.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As food for additional thought - WP:SHOCK suggests that:
 * "1) "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic.""
 * "1) "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic.""


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


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


 * Now,
 * Is Titian's painting of Roxalena – an exceptionally lucky sex slave – an appropriate representation of sexual slavery in Islam? No.
 * Is Rosati's painting of generic Islamic sex slaves a more appropriate representation of sexual slavery in Islam? Definitely yes.
 * Issue solved. --Grufo (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To provide fair opportunity and to improve women editor participation, an intimation of this ongoing discussion has been given @ WT:WOMRED, WT:WikiProject Women in Green, WT:WikiProject Women's History, Talk:Women in Islam, Talk:Sexual slavery. &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Bookku, it would be a grotesque violation of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE to consider ISIS representative of Islam or all of Muslim history. We have many sources that show ISIS remains rejected in Islam . And this scholarly paper concludes that ISIS has distorted the interpretations of medieval Islamic texts on female slavery so much that they are "unique within the history of Islam." Your proposal is as WP:UNDUE as putting the flag of ISIS as the lead image at jihad. By contrast, I have never seen a book on the history of Islam that doesn't mention the Ottomans. The two states mentioned in the "Concubinage" entry of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Women are the Abbasids and the Ottomans. Concubines and Courtesans has a chapter on concubines in the Ottoman harem. Although if we can't come to an agreement, then it might be best to remove a lead image. Lots of great articles do not have a lead image.VR talk 12:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For articles of this length, there are few pics, and rather than curtail them, additions are required.Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and added that Nadia Murad image to Slavery in 21st-century jihadism, so thanks for providing that @Bookku. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have also added it to Sexual violence in the Iraqi insurgency. Slavery in 21st-century jihadism and Sexual violence in the Iraqi insurgency are places where detailed coverage of ISIS atrocities are WP:DUE, not here.VR talk 15:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Sotheby's catalogues may help with getting the name of paintings right. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a painting by Giulio Rosati, entitled Choosing the Favourite, which they sold for £133,250 on 30 November 2012. This is similar, but not identical to the image on Wikipedia.
 * There is a painting by Giulio Rosati, entitled The Favourite, which they sold for £212,500 on 11 December 2019. This is identical to the image on Wikipedia.
 * There is a painting by Giulio Rosati, entitled The Favourite, which is listed as a "past lot". This has two of the same women and one of the same men as the image on Wikipedia in much the same setting.

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


 * I don't know if you realize the level of clutching at straws you have reached. To criticize a particular painting you put its author into a category (Orientalism), search for flaws in this category, attribute these flaws to the particular painter, and consequently attribute these flaws to the particular painter's particular painting too. Your rhetorical fallacies are getting worse with time. You have just reached a recursive version of . What's next? --Grufo (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a completely gratuitous personal attack, coming straight out of left-field, Grufo, and so yet one more warning is required to desist. VR's point is focused, on topic, and devoid of animus, and you appear to have jumped at it ('grasping at straws') ('rhetorical fallacies getting worse with time') to provoke the editor.Nishidani (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless you believe that Vice regent is a living rhetorical fallacy there is nothing personal in attacking a rhetorical fallacy. --Grufo (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Umm, "orientalist" is right there in the first line ... anyway, @Vice regent: Yeah, ok, they're cool paintings, but you probably have a point that they're all fairly contrived and certainly not based on firsthand experience: we don't have to guess about whether Rosati had actual access to these places. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * “Orientalism” is a term coined in 1978. Rosati did not know he was an orientalist. He just painted what he liked to paint. This leads to fallacy of division too. --Grufo (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Orientalism" is a term coined in 1978 - really? -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think my mind just passed over that without even registering the absurdity of it. But once again, fantastic data @Toddy1 - I am totally making you my go-to guy/girl for data representation-related queries. I didn't even know about the Google Books Ngram Viewer. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Grufo's objection is misinformed. The French art critic Jules-Antoine Castagnary’s polemics against what he called the ‘orientalist’  painting genre go back at least 120 years before Said’s 1978 work. For the former, French painters who dealt in topics from the colonial world or the Orient in general were betraying an obligation to depict native French reality by an self-indulgent flight into fantasies of the exotic. In other words, the fact that 'orientalism' is lexically of relatively recent vintage would be irrelevant, since the concept itself was present in critical literature long before Said set the vogue. Nishidani (talk) 11:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You people are again working in circles, and once again just for the sake of contradicting me. The orientalism against which Susan Edwards argues is the 1978 patronizing term. Earlier, the term simply had the generic meaning of “appreciation of the East in the arts” – although the phenomenon was in large part what today we consider patronizing. In fact, Jules-Antoine Castagnary attacked orientalists for being too interested in the East, not for patronizing the East. The ignorance of the modern patronizing meaning in the 19th century is exactly what creates a hiatus. An orientalist 19th century painter could have been “patronizing” or not at all “patronizing”, depending on their personal attitude and background, while a modern orientalist can only be patronizing. The lack of patronizing meaning before 1978 is what creates the fallacy of division in Vice regent's comment: even if many orientalists were patronizing the East, as orientalism was not defined on patronizing the East, many other orientalists might not have patronized the East. And indeed there is quite some difference of attitude between this and this. --Grufo (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "You people are again working in circles . . just for the sake of contradicting me"
 * Oh dearie me! Isn't that an echo of what Gratiano caricatured as authoritative posturing in in the Merchant of Venice?
 * There are a sort of men whose visages
 * Do cream and mantle like a standing pond,
 * And do a willful stillness entertain
 * With purpose to be dressed in an opinion
 * Of wisdom, gravity, profound conceit,
 * As who should say, “I am Sir Oracle,
 * And when I ope my lips, let no dog bark!
 * Nice to see you are so thoroughly conversant, instantly, with the Jules-Antoine Castagnary I mentioned that you ignore the critical literature on him, which states exactly what I wrote: that he was an advocate of French realism as against escapist orientalist fantasy. More disconcerting is the fact that you can't get beyond a simple caricature of Said 1978 (and his follow up Culture and Imperialism (1993), which was a polemic about Western 'representations' of the Oriental other. Don't google wiki articles to grub up 'stuff'. Do some reading of the authors you apparently cite by second-hand unfamiliarity.Nishidani (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You claim of not arguing just for the sake of arguing, but yet there you are. All the modern meanings of orientalism are totally irrelevant when we talk about painters who perceived themselves only as having an interest in the East. That is the only thing relevant in my reasoning about fallacy of division; and any meaning that we might add today to orientalism is out of scope. About Castagnary you are saying exactly the same thing that I said, but arguing (on what?). --Grufo (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you read ? -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, thanks for the link. Jones is an art critic, so he knows what he is talking about. Personally what I find problematic in loading “orientalism” of meanings is the assumption that the West is a single homogeneous bloc from where the East is observed. Although today we do tend towards that, it was surely not the case in the 19th and 20th century. But I would extend this critique to many superstructures and simplifications that we never stop creating. I'd rather keep thinking of orientalism as “appreciation of the East”, and add to that later, as a separate addition, “knowing the West, that means in most cases ‘patronizing the East’”. --Grufo (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If that is also addressed to me, Toddy. I am on the public record as being critical of Said's book just after it first came out, and I do not accept much of its simplistic dismissal of a very complex record. Jones is undoubtedly correct that it has been hijacked as a cliché, but said is no more responsible for that than Nietsche is for the Holocaust, or Aristotle for what Bacon in his Novum Organum criticized late Aristotelians for. What Said wrote was more or less what modern anthropology stated of Victorian descriptions of primitive society. It was a very useful corrective to bias, and a reminder of how deeply the complacency of power is inscribed in much of our language about 'the other'.Nishidani (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight Grufo: When orientalist writers literally use the term "concubinage" in the Muslim world, you take umbrage at the use of the term and want to re-interpret this as "sexual slavery", but where orientalist painters create interpretive works, you see God's honest truth? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am still undecided whether you and I have difficulties communicating or you just like to make people talk. Rosati was an orientalist. However Rosati being an orientalist + left by  translates in:
 * , in the form of: 1. Rosati liked to paint oriental subjects 2. We associate Rosati with Orientalism, which has an unfavorable reputation 3. Therefore, Rosati's paintings are questionable.
 * Fallacy of division, in the form of: 1. Orientalists “apply certain stereotypes against Middle Easterners” 2. We categorize Rosati as an orientalist 3. Therefore, Rosati “applied certain stereotypes against Middle Easterners”
 * (And I have talked only about Rosati, not even about this particular painting, which would require further recursion in the fallacies.)
 * The fact that the term is modern makes also a further tuning necessary. For example you can say that every communist wants to share the means of production, as that is part of The Communist Manifesto, but you cannot say that all orientalists apply stereotypes, as they did not adhere to any “orientalist manifesto for the application of stereotypes” back then. --Grufo (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You hardly need encouragement to talk, and VR may have been a little blusterous, but the reason to treat Rosati's work in a circumspect manner, regardless of the quality of the artwork itself aside, is that he almost certainly never actually entered the harems he depicted - and I think we can take this as wrote (given the whole point of harems is that they were, well, "forbidden") unless we see reliable sourcing to the contrary. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Before impressionism every single painting was made in a studio and based on the painter's memory, fantasy or other paintings – or a subject that could fit in the studio (e.g. portraits). After impressionism the old school still remained strong for many painters. There is really nothing peculiar about this particular painting, except your personal hate for seeing a sex slave depicted as such instead of wearing nice earrings and ruling a country. --Grufo (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Umm, I suggested this image in the talk, calling it "a rather spectacular piece by Giulio Rosati". Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I take back the last sentence. But then why are you arguing with me about this painting? Leave that to Vice regent, who objects against it. --Grufo (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Because discussions aren't about which side you are on Grufo. Wikipedia isn't about polarised positions. I can suggest something one moment before being swayed in a different direction another. I am also freshly mulling on WP:SHOCK. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You do the opposite of what you claim. You literally proposed a painting, saw that Vice regent took side against it while I was in favor, and made the discussion be “about which side I was on”. Btw, WP:SHOCK implies a selection between images that “accurately represents the topic”. Roxalena is not one of these. That aside, I find most of Rosati's paintings really beautiful (also unrelated ones). --Grufo (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:SHOCK implies nothing: all Wikipedia guidelines are open to interpretation, and intepreting it altered my opinion. Now, while you have free time, perhaps return to the question of why you reverted my edit on Islam and blasphemy in order to re-include a picture containing insults and a url to the website platform of a man characterised as "virulently anti-Islamic". Iskandar323 (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * When I created Concubinatus I chose this ancient Roman fresco for it. I did not even think about the fact that nudity can still be a WP:SHOCK after two thousand years. Indeed I also believe that interpreting Rosati's painting changed your opinion. But I believe the interpretation that changed your mind has nothing to do with orientalism or WP:SHOCK, but only with the fact that sexual slavery is represented in the moment of “enslavement”, which you would like to be removed from existence, as if slaves were born as such (and instead “enslavement” is a representative part of the topic, much more than the elite harems). As for Islam and blasphemy, I will not go further, I have really made my position as clear as possible. For as much as you like to argue with me, six editors have restored those cartoons, you can also try to convince the others instead of me. --Grufo (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I would like to remind you that it was I who initially suggested the image. Changing my mind reveals nothing at all of the sort of deeply seated ideological position that you seem to keep insisting that everyone who disagrees with you on Wikipedia has. I changed it because I weighed arguments. Once again, I would encourage you to desist from your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and stick to the nuts and bolts of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, as well as WP:CIVIL. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Nishidani that adding pictures to this article would be a good improvement to it. Iraniangal777 (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The wikipedia article on Giulio Rosati says "He devoted himself particularly to representations of the Maghreb, that he never visited himself" and "he never journeyed to the Middle East". Rosati is also chronologically far removed from the events he tries to depict. So why not consider artists who were both local and contemporaneous to the people they depict? The cover of the scholarly book Concubines and Courtesans depicts an image from the Akbarnama. This work is about Mughal India, by people who lived in India and during Mughal times. The exact painting that's on the book cover is this one and it seems to be public domain and is probably the best candidate for a lead image. VR talk 13:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Concubines and Courtesans's cover can certainly be added too. Choosing an image for the lead is ultimately an arbitrary choice. However no painting is as icastic as Rosati's painting, which is not more phyisically and chronologically removed from the events than the painting of Hagar that appears in the lead of Concubinage, against which the Roman fresco would be the “local and contemporaneous” competitor (see? “local and contemporaneous” now sounds inconvenient, doesn't it?) --Grufo (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want alternative images for concubinage please start a discussion at Talk:Concubinage. We can find an image that is local and contemporaneous and that does not WP:SHOCK.VR talk 14:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks to and all the participants in the discussions up til now. I am replying the discussion from VR's comment onward. Encyclopedist need to be used to long academic discourses need not complain of length of the response
 * "Bookku, it would be a grotesque violation of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE to consider ISIS representative of Islam or all of Muslim history. We have many sources that show ISIS remains rejected in Islam.."
 * Pl. try to answer my few simple questions; Whenever an ISIS follower would die, which kind of burial was/will be accorded to them? A Muslim kind or a non–Muslim kind?
 * In almost passing by 2021 I have multiple times discussed point of using word ''Muslim' in article title instead of 'Islam' unless articles are particularly limited to Islam.
 * I have already explained and I repeat, question is not of cases of ISIS only. There are cases (mentioned in perfectly credible/reliable sources) where in at least few Muslims had flouted rule of not capturing and selling non–slave Muslim women into slavery, in one case a husband itself sold his wife, the wife subsequently successfully proved to Ottoman authorities that she was a perfectly free woman and should not have been sold in as a slave, and Ottoman authorities freed her.
 * What happens if any painter draws a painting of above said Muslim women's sold into slavery by Muslims (illegal as per Ottoman / Islamic rule) We will say those were female slaves (though Muslim by birth) in Muslim world need to have space in the article either in textual reference or pictorial form whatever. What you will say, No Islam did not sanction selling of Muslims raised since birth so article can not have space for them. Why that is happening simply because Muslims want to happily name/ define every thing as Islamic though every thing that Muslims do is not necessarily Islamic every time, and non–Muslims unaware of this systemic issue. Article title need to have phrase 'Muslim world' and not 'Islamic' since that has been leading to systemic bias, even against unfortunate Muslim women too as just discussed.
 * In case of Muslim women wrongly sold into slavery by their fellow Muslim individuals had an opportunity to seek justice, prove and get free again. Now my simple question is whether those captive or bought slave girls and women had equal agency to appeal to the authorities and get free? No not at all. What were their crimes? Being girls and women from enemy territories who lost wars? Were those women active combatants in those wars? Except few exceptions countable on finger tips usually they were not active combatants.
 * Were not they free before being captivated? Why discrimination on the basis of religion by birth? Which religious philosophies were facilitating selectivity in providence of equity in opportunity to freedom?
 * Do you think academic sources have not started asking similar questions? One academic very well in above lists of reliable clearly states we no longer consider 'Owned by right hand' was a fair thing. Another academic clearly states their some of earlier writings were mellowed down to take care of Muslim sensitivities (pointing toward Edward Said followers even discrediting critics and criticism which Edward Said himself would not have allowed to censor, the same scholar says but so and so book onward we have corrected and calling spade a spade. Then there is one more academic admitted in a public debate that there are some holes in standard (Muslim) narratives. Another scholar mentions scholars write but write in toned down mode worrying about backlash and blasphemy laws and worrying about discrediting by Edward Said followers and fearing rejection even editorial boards and publishers fear such rejection. Idk what would one call sources under fear as compromised or reliable?
 * Another editorial point of view: "..Within a 21st century context, the Islamic State holds fringe viewpoints.."
 * ISIS /AQ/BH/H@P/Brotherhood/Tea & company of Afghanistan are fringe, Wahabi are fringe, Salafi are fringe, Deoband are  fringe, Sufi are  fringe, Shia are fringe, Political activism are  fringe, Politically not active are fringe, Shia are fringe, Ibadi are fringe, Ahmadiyya are fringe, prioritizing Sunnat are fringe, prioritizing different Hadith  are fringe, abrogating some verses and some Hadith are fringe, prioritizing  main scripture are fringe, remaining aqidah are fringe; So ultimately who remains in main stream, above discussed human fearing (not God fearing) phoney compromised academics represented by hardly few among Muslims?
 * One more important logical fallacy: Is Nadia Murad is representing ISIS or female slaves to oppose her image? "To the minimum Murad was a female slave of some self declared Muslims". At a female slave level how she is different from any other female slave captured or bought or owned by any previous Muslim regimes? Minimum at captivating, buying and owning female slavery culture whether Medieval or up to this century seems same. If you do not want image of Nadia Murad get drawn a sketch –from worlds most famous painter get it passed from your most preferred academia and publication– of a free Muslim woman being attempted to be sold in Ottoman times and getting justice but rest of the female slaves not having same agency.
 * "...Although if we can't come to an agreement, then it might be best to remove a lead image. Lots of great articles do not have a lead image.." Partially agree image in the article is not so important since "every one in the humanity has part images in their own 'X chromosomes' just they are not aware about it." Just be bold to put this statement in the article, truly then we won't need any other image for the article, I would agree then.
 * Again am I criticizing Muslims only, not really, to avoid whataboutism I did not discuss Caroline Blyth and Jane Davidson-Ladd's article (Chapter 9) A Theology of Rape: Plundering the Woman’s Body in Deut. 21:10–14 and Louis John Steele’s Spoils to the Victor earlier. This feminist article will let one know connection from Deut. 21:10–14 until IS. The article focuses more on Bible, but just reading of Deut. 21:10–14 and replacing later scriptural names in same article will help one giving exact deconstruction for debate on discussion happening here. If feminists and academics have not touched this topic there in that article other scholars will be toned down out of fear but will be exposing the flaws this way or that way. Censorship are not sustainable for ever.
 * IS ideologies are not necessarily most ideal, is a thing to be taught in Madrasas and preaching to the fellow community. Scholars and Encyclopedia job is to present analysis of things as they stand.
 * I will come back to the image of Rosati  in a short while.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Bookku: You really need to learn to make your point in fewer words. This is heavy. If you don't want to do it for us, do it for Wikipedia, which has better use for all the kB storing article information, and the environment, which will benefit from the fewer emissions of less intensive server traffic. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) With all due respect. See WP:TLDR, and WP:NOTFORUM. The talk page addresses specific article issues to resolve them, one by one. This talk page is vastly exceeding, every week, the length of the article itself, which is what requires hands-on editing. I suffer from the same vice, so my advice is not unfriendly, but from experience. Be concise, and speak to specific article usage, or textual details, and we can benefit from your learning.Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Bookku After trudging through a little of this wall of text, I'd note that what you say about fringe material is both ridiculous hyperbole and an obvious straw man style of argumentation, particularly when you get to "...Sufi are fringe, Shia are fringe...", which I sincerely doubt anybody has ever said. The question therein being: who are you talking to? Is this an internal monologue? If so, again, please save the space and keep it to yourself. As the text at the top of many talk pages says, this is not a forum. If you want to rant, head to reddit. Logic fallacy? Hardly. Because no one has suggested it. If there is a sensible discussion to be had about imagery, this is not it. To your more general point - going back to Wikipedia ABC: Just because something has some link to a subject does not automatically make it notable with regards to it. This is not a directory: this is an encyclopedia - the lowest bar of inclusion is not existence, i.e.: anything that may or may not have Islamic characteristics, but notability, i.e.: stuff that is reliably established in notable sources to be representative of a subject at large. I frankly don't even know where to begin with the rest of the above. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Don't start quoting Latin @Nishidani, you'll set Grufo off again. Couldn't you have just used the term filibuster or something? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * By looking at their page, Nishidani and I might have more than one interest in common (although important disagreements too). It's a pity for the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend-mentality though. --Grufo (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I had nothing to do with the Crollalanza theory of Shakespeare authorship page, other than creating it as a stub to dump junk plunked down on the Shakespeare Authorship Question page. The article shouldn't even exist, since I rewrote it as the Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship, about which no person in their right mind could find substantial reasons to voice 'disagreements'. As to the mentality to read inimicality into exchanges, in the wording of the sound advice in Matthew: ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς, the word 'agapein' is not a synonym for βινειν, i.e., an hortation to 'screw' one's adversaries.

Extensive discussions requiring at this point a result
 * (1) Who is for a title change, and who opposed? Please suggest either an alternative title or a rejection of a change, rather than discuss.
 * I'm fine with something along the lines of 'Concubinage and female slavery in Islam'. Any overlap with related articles can be fixed by transposition of material from one article to another.Nishidani (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how this helps when there is already an official renaming discussion ongoing, but obviously me, and I would note that the phrasing that has currently garnered the most support, at least hypothetically, is: History of concubinage in the Muslim world (slave-concubinage for @Toddy1) Iskandar323 (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, fine. History of (slave-) concubinage in the Muslim world is fine by me. There are limits to how long discussions can drag on.Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To sum up the discussion (shout if I've missed anyone), it included: @Vice regent and @M.Bitton in favour of History of concubinage in the Muslim World, and I was also willing to support this, while @Toddy1 and @Jushyosaha604 voted in favour of the modified slave-concubinage option, while users that expressed a preference for no change, minimal change or were non-committal included @Grufo, @Srnec and @Mcphurphy (the latter saying they would not oppose a change from "in Islam" to "in the Muslim World"). Iskandar323 (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * (2) Who can clarify our image choices?
 * I'm fine with an 'Orientalist' image or two, because Western representations of slavery are part of the narrative (and should be written up).Nishidani (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not wedded to Roxalena, and could go for a Rosati, say, or perhaps this rather more neutral Laurens: Iskandar323 (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I am astonished by humans' ability of not admitting their own deep desires to themselves. You are fine with The Harem Dance by Rosati? If any representation can go a bit towards what Vice regent was criticizing as depicting Ottoman women as “sexual, lascivicious, and lazy” is that painting by Rosati. Why did we discuss so long about orientalism if your intention was only that of rejecting the more realistic Inspecting New Arrivals due to indigestion? We really are at “any excuse will do” here… Of course my vote will go to Inspecting New Arrivals, it is by far the most appropriate painting for this page and shows what no other painting shows: the enslavement process. --Grufo (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am rejecting the "more realistic" one because this is an unqualified adjectival statement. Inspecting New Arrivals shows a specific male-female type encounter that may or may not be entirely unrealistic. The Harem Dance simply shows women in a lavishly decorated harem-type setting guarded by what I presume is a male eunuch -- all of which, if true, seems fairly par for the course of Ottoman-style harem setups. You ignored the Laurens option? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is more realistic in the intentions, more or less like a drama differs from a comedy. I don't know the story behind each painting, but we can imagine The Harem Dance sold as a decorative/entertaining painting. Inspecting New Arrivals instead seems to answer a higher call, and definitely more committed is the subject. The Harem Dance looks like it wants to make you forget that those are slaves, Inspecting New Arrivals instead wants to make you realize that they are. --Grufo (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * All of this sounds like your WP:OR, unless you can find sources to back that up. I would prefer Laurens because he actually visited Turkey and Persia. VR talk 19:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's quite WP:BLUESKY that nobody smiles in Inspecting New Arrivals, there is no need of a source. Not having been in a place does not constitute a valid argument for the exclusion of a painting. The only thing we need to look for is if it describes the content well. Both Laurens and Rosati do, although they are not equally direct (Laurens' women are four, they could be wives instad of slaves, while nobody would have any doubt with Rosati) and they cover different aspects of sexual slavery (everyday life and enslavement respectively). --Grufo (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is also David Roberts who visited Egypt and has a painting of a slave market featuring women. If Grufo's objective it to highlight the slave process, then this painting does so without the unnecessary offense of nudity. MOS:OMIMG recommends that if two images are equally educational, we should pick the one gives less offense. In this case I'd say Roberts is way more education than Rosati (because he saw what he painted).VR talk 19:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Roberts is not bad, however I believe that nobody will support your argument about the nudity in a painting as offensive if you go to RfC. This is really a basic ground. --Grufo (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Grufo: What you say about The Harem Dance only holds true if you are good at forgetting that - A) women don't usually tend to spend their time hanging out together in Ottoman palaces, and that - B) the black eunuchs guarding them were also, of course, slaves. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's really not a bad painting. It only surprised me that compared to Inspecting New Arrivals it moderately looks like the most orientalist one of the two (if we intend orientalism in this context as escapist fiction). --Grufo (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well for the moment let us include Roberts? Nishidani (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's do by majority, and I will not oppose Roberts if it wins or if we remain as we are and no one else answers the call in the meanwhile (after all the page is still blocked). I still slightly favor Inspecting New Arrivals, so if other editors will ask for that I will back them. But as I said, I will not oppose Roberts if the numbers for Rosati are missing. What do you think? --Grufo (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I say add them all - as you say, needed more pictures anyway: good brainstorming session. Roberts would be fine. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is my summary of choices: VR talk 20:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For the lead image, I'd support the image from Akbarnama above, that is also the cover image of the scholarly work Concubines and Courtesans. The artists that produced this lived close to (both in time and in geography) the people they depict.
 * For the image that shows the slavery aspect of concubinage, I prefer Roberts' painting of a slave market in Cairo. Roberts is superior to Rosati as he actually visited the places he depicts and therefore are more accurate.
 * As Nishidani says above, we can have two Orientalist images. But we really shouldn't have any more. We have ample paintings from inside the Muslim world from different periods and locations, so why should we entirely depict the Muslim world through the fantasies of Europeans? For the second Orientalist image I suggest the portrait by Titian of Roxalena. She is one of the most famous concubines in Muslim history, to which a lot of scholarly attention has been devoted. Her portrait also doesn't appear to include any of the typical Orientalist tropes about Muslim women (sexual, lazy, etc).
 * Further images should prioritize art from non-Orientalist other sources: medieval Arab art, Mughal art, Persian art, old photographs, modern photographs of ancient objects and buildings associated with concubinage, etc. (Although if we decided to have a large image gallery then we could include more Orientalist works)


 * While I get your point about the Akbarnama being more contemporaneous than some of the images, the rather abstract nature of this type of medieval artwork does detract somewhat from the realism - these images aren't easy to understand or what I would call "natural" - you see figures, but it's not easy to tell what they are all up to and even their gender is a bit hard to make out unless you zoom in. Even then, it only really gives the impression of a scene at any medieval court. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to mention that we can choose not to have a lead image, if we can't find one that is totally representative. We can still have images in the body.
 * But regarding clarity, I disagree. Anytime we use medieval images there are almost always clearer pictures available (eg depiction in modern film, modern illustrations and cartoons, 3D animation etc). But medieval paintings are often used because they also have historic significance despite being unclear. They present how a very significant group saw the subject of the article. These paintings have shaped perceptions of the subject over centuries. This is also why I think Orientalist paintings have a place here, as they shaped perceptions of Muslim concubines for a long time.VR talk 20:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In any case, even if we were to use a medieval picture of concubinage in Islam, I think an Ottoman depiction would be most appropriate, as this is the period that, if any, has become most emblematic of the concept of concubines and harems. Or, as you say, no lead image at all. If simpler. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The Aurut Bazaar illustration by Thomas Allom
 * May I suggest to consider The Aurut Bazaar by Thomas Allom. He was professional architect and illustrator who personally visited Istanbul personally and had drawn the illustration.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Like it. On theme. Good source. Looks realistic. And black and white is always classy. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Idem. Include. Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The Slave Market, Constantinople William Allan (painter)


 * William Allan (painter) too has visited personally not only Turkey but also Russia, Crimea and Circassia and drawn the paintings there. He seem to have drawn a painting called 'The Sale of Circassian Captives to a Turkish Bashaw (1816)'. IDK if The Slave Market, Constantinople painting and  The Sale of Circassian Captives to a Turkish Bashaw are same or different.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Rather than making any sort of definitive selection, I was mainly seeking to preserve the range of talk options (while in the process of switching in a more neutral lead image), with the assumption that further additions, replacements and removals might follow. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * VR' presented selective narrative only replaces foreign Orientalism with indigenous (elite–Muslim ) imperialism which only shows elite harems and   obscures conditions of commoner female slaves in war captivity, market captivity and commoner domestic captivity.
 * If Wikipedia already has article on Harem slavery then why do we need separate article if existence of non–elite commoner slaves has to be censored because some of us do not feel comfortable with not so pleasant history of what ancestral X chromosome has gone through.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not give equal consideration to all the major genres (1-2 images each): Orientalist, Arab, Persian, Ottoman, Indian, and photographs? That would represent all the major perspectives.VR talk 13:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This suggestion seems fair enough. We don't have to include all of those photos images. -- M h hossein   talk 06:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you mean photos? Why limit photographs or photography-based imagery? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops! I did not mean to restrict the options to photography-based imagery. -- M h hossein   talk 18:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

First sentence
I have added the following as a first sentence of the article:

I'm open to other alternatives as well.VR talk 03:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I do see few issues here. (I will take up those in breaks only involving weeks so we do have exhaustive discussion without getting exhausted). Take your own time to reply no issues.
 * First:
 * Which category would you put religiously (Islamic) married 2'nd/ 3'rd or further wife where law of the given country does not allow more than one marriage, or does not allow next marriage without clear permission of existing wives.
 * Eg.1: If I am not wrong, in pre–1979 revolution legally marrying with more than woman was not allowed or strongly discouraged and still culturally Iran had/has some good percentage of Sigeh marriages. You will categorize women in Sigeh relationship in those times when marrying with more than one woman was not allowed as Wives or Concubines?
 * Eg.2 : In contemporary Pakistan as per official legal provisions before marrying with 2'nd woman husband is expected to take clear permission from first wife. Now suppose a Pakistani husband does 2'nd nikah (religious marriage) without taking permission from first wife, how you will categorize the status of second woman as wife or as concubine?
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Concubinage no longer formally exists, because slavery and the Ottoman Empire, the last major empire with a concubinage institution, both ceased to exist in the early 20th century, so I'm not sure I entirely get your point @Bookku. What you seem to be addressing is the clash between religious and secular law, and the question of whether traditional religious practice is supported by the legal authorities that be. That seems somewhat outside of the scope of this article, which is trying to define concubinage in a historical setting. But more generally no, there is no way a possibly illegal marriage defaults into a concubinage - if it is an illegal marriage, it is just an illegal marriage. @Vice regent: More generally, however, I don't like that opening sentence either. Obviously my preference would be something closer to the version used here. While I'm glad you added the new title into the opening sentence, as I was umming and ahhing, my specific bugbear with this one is the overemphasis on the Umm Walad bit. I don't think specific terms or other minutiae like this should really be getting anywhere near the opening sentence, which should be pure definition. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Trying to understand:Help me clear my confusions.
 * What is difference between illegal marriage and concubinage? VR's para says free women could be Concubines so not strictly related with slavery. So that means if free women are in live–in relationships they should be called concubines (?), if married illegally then 'illegally married woman'. So you suggest to add this third category. So but then would you call all women in live–in relationships as Concubines? or tag of 'Concubines' be changed according to whether they were pre 20th century women and post 20th century?
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a huge difference. Concubinage was a legalised institution with a clear legal framework. So no, not any free women living with a man is a concubine. Under the conventions of certain Islamic empires, including the Timurids and the Ottomans, free women could elect to become concubines by formal means, such as by entering the Imperial Harem of the Ottoman Empire. An illegal marriage is simply a marriage where the rules governing marriage are not properly followed, such as, for example, you suggestion of a first wife not giving permission. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the kind of confusion that using “concubinage” for an institution that is meant to encompass only slaves brings even in non-unaware readers like you (see all the discussions about surriyya and related terms). All “concubines” in the Islamic context needed to be slaves. This strict rule included also the Timurid dynasty, where free women needed to be formally enslaved to become “concubines”, and this is the main reason why both Vice regent and Iskandar323 are always purposely vague on the possibility of free concubines. The only “good” thing of using “concubinage” for such an institution is that of satisfying the apologetic desires of a group of editors, nothing else – and doing so at the cost of clarity and knowledge. As you have participated in the discussion and managed to remain always uninvolved, if you think that enough editors have manifested their concerns against such ambiguity and the mover did not listen to these concerns, please leave a comment in the move review page instead of here. --Grufo (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Grufo: You already pinged Bookku. Stop canvassing unless you want to get blocked again. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Grufo, I don't agree with your recent edits (hence will revert them) for the following reasons. First, there are at least two sources (more cna be provided) that indicate non-slave concubines without limiting this phenomenon to the Timurids. This includes Dalton Brock who says "However, that did not deter wealthy households from also seeking and acquiring freewomen as concubines, although such a practice was argued to be in violation of sharia law." Secondly, I don't agree with the text "where the woman was a slave, in agreement with Islamic laws". This is not NPOV, as it ignores the vast majority of contemporary Muslims who do not regard this practice legal. The Islamic law part is already mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead. VR talk 05:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Short description
The Short description currently reads: Female slavery in Islamicate territories, which is fine, but the word "Islamicate" is not present in the lead or anywhere else in the article. Should it be? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 21:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @GhostInTheMachine "Islamicate" is really just a synonym for Islamically oriented but not necessarily explicitly Islamic-in-every-way societies (see: wiktionary), i.e.: the messy reality of the Muslim World. I don't think the word specifically is in the body copy anywhere at present, but the sense of the word very much is. The article has been subject to much debate and remains very much a work in progress. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood, but "normally", a Short description would be derived from text that is found in the lead of the article. Also "Islamicate" is not a common word. Correct, I now see, but not that common. Sadly, really not sure what to suggest as an alternative — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 21:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Perspectives on the perspectives section
This whole section seems largely off-topic. I've already removed the totally off-topic part entirely related to the enslavement of Muslim women in India. The second section, on the enslavement of Muslim women for concubinage by Muslim men, may be relevant to include somewhere else in the article as it pertains to the laws, enforcement and disregard of laws relating to the practice of concubinage. However, the first section, on specific reactions to Christian enslavement of Muslim women during the reconquista in Al-Andalus, does not seem particularly useful. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Rasnaboy "Islamicate" was not a spelling mistake, see definition: Islamicate. Also, can I ask why you restored the material that I removed without proper explanation, like my edit had in the comment and on the talk page? As I clearly explained, this material is in no way related. For one thing, it is not in the Muslim World, as per the page title, and it is, in turn, definitely not related to concubinage in the Muslim World. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh! I think I made a mistake there. Thanks for pointing it out. :) And just realizing that while correcting the supposed spell error of "Islamicate", I think I inadvertently restored the material too. Have undone my change. Apologies for the confusion. Rasnaboy (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * What is your definition of Muslim World. Are you going to employ your own definition of Muslim World or look for consensus opinion?
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My definition is such that Hindu India and Christian kingdoms aren't considered the Muslim World. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What is your perspective over what Iskandar323 says about definition of 'Muslim World' for context of this article?
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's how I'd go about answering that question:
 * Collect a few sources that aim to give a broad overview of the topic "history of concubinage in the Muslim world". The source doesn't have to cover the entire history but it should be relatively broad. I can suggest some sources if you'd like.
 * See what topics are covered by the sources. If sources that cover this topic also repeatedly mention, say Christian concubinage, then that topic can be considered sufficiently connected to this topic to merit some coverage. Otherwise not.
 * From my recollection, I haven't found sources in step#1 talk about concubinage in Hindu India. But I have seen sources compare Muslim concubinage to that in ancient Rome, Persia and Mesopotamia. Some sources also mention how some Jews in the Ottoman empire followed the Muslim pattern of concubinage, despite Maimonides' attempts to curb the practice. Sorry I have't provided citations for my claims. But I can dig them up if need be.VR talk 00:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * From my recollection, I haven't found sources in step#1 talk about concubinage in Hindu India. But I have seen sources compare Muslim concubinage to that in ancient Rome, Persia and Mesopotamia. Some sources also mention how some Jews in the Ottoman empire followed the Muslim pattern of concubinage, despite Maimonides' attempts to curb the practice. Sorry I have't provided citations for my claims. But I can dig them up if need be.VR talk 00:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Conversion section
The forced conversion section was relying on some dubious sources and also misrepresenting what the source was saying, see the discussion here:. Based on that I summarized that section down into 2 shorter paragraphs and moved it one level outwards. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Jushyosaha604's version used exactly the same sources as the old version so the justification that it was was relying on some dubious sources does not make sense. So I have reverted. If you have specific objections to part of the text, please explain them here on the talk page. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that Jushyosaha604's cut-and-paste version introduced three citation errors, which have been removed by reverting -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I thought the overall objective of the edit - reducing this long troubled section - was good. If the sources support it (I haven't had time to check), I see merit in boiling down the different scholars citations into a "Traditional scholars varied..."-type format with more summarization and less peculiar detail. Iskandar323 (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Toddy1 Citation errors aside, I think @Jushyosaha604 was making the point that the sources don't support the volume of material and sweeping generalizations that this section has. This was also discussed previously - do you have wider objections to reducing this section along the lines of the above? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. In terms of being easy to read and understand, the old version is better. I am not convinced that the new version was written consulting the sources cited. It ought to be of concern that only one secondary source is used. -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)