Talk:History of concubinage in the Muslim world/Archive 2

Recent edits
I kinda agree with this edit because it is an attempt to clean up an otherwise mixed up article. Many of the sources removed don't even mention "sexual slavery" or "sex slaves".

Another big problem is that the article states as fact that which is merely opinion. For example, it stated "For all Sunni law schools the concept of marital rape is an oxymoron." Yet marital rape is condemned by Islamic scholars. If someone thinks that Islamic scholars don't recognize marital rape then that must clearly be attributed to the author.VR talk  02:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Vice regent, I repeat my request that you please read through the sources for the content in this article which I have written with rigirous research into the academic sources, before helping others carry out large blanket changes without any sort of consensus seeking. Many of those edits do not even make sense and involve removing parts of sentences, leaving the rest of the sentences sounding odd. And its quite obvious that the editor who removed parts of sentences did not read the sources cited. I can show examples if you like. I also think its inappropriate to cite a modern fatwa website as representative of classical scholarship. To assess what the classical scholars say we need proper academic secondary sources, which this article already has. In sum, the edit you restored has alarming changes to sourced content which do not at all represent what is originally stated in those cited sources. The statement that "For all Sunni law schools the concept of marital rape is an oxymoron" is cited to a leading academic expert on this topic: Kecia Ali. I also take objection to your insertion of the claim into the lead that Islam "strongly discourages" slavery. This issue has already been discussed in the Abolition section and your statement goes against the academic consensus, as explained by Ehud R. Toledano. Mcphurphy (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Now that this article has attracted quite some attention, I think it's finally a consensus that this article, as it stands now, is not NPOV. Previously I focused on the latter sections to avoid casting too wide a web, but other sources (and it's hard to check them all) seem to be misrepresented no less than Smith. For instance, in my recent edit from the source, [] Majied Robinson discusses how Islamic concubinage spread under the Umayyads. In his analysis he clearly states that there are no obvious parallels between normative Islamic concubinage and Quran and Prophetic practice and attributes it to the Umayyad tribal environment. The article makes no mention of this, clearly implies the opposite and simply cherrypicks his thesis for statements of condemnation that are not particularly relevant to his main argument and study.


 * This article seems to be reliably cited but beyond this superficial appearance it engages in quite a lot of synthesis and OR, often ignoring, dismissing or even contradicting what the authors themselves are saying and picks arguments to present a certain POV. Eperoton's comment above, about editorial discretion and bias is quite spot on. It pervades the article.
 * (Same guy from modern Muslim views section)119.155.45.59 (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello IP. Did you read the source as it was cited because I noticed you relied on a different website to verify what the source says. Let me quote the texts from the cited source (Robinson) and compare it with my text as it was before you modified it.


 * My text: Concubinage was not a common practice among the civilisations which the early Muslims had conquered and it was condemned wherever it existed. Concubinage was allowed among the Sasanian elites and the Mazdeans but the children from such unions were not necessarily regarded as legitimate. The position of Jewish communities is unclear although slave concubinage is mentioned in Biblical texts. Apparently, the practice had declined long before Muhammad. Jewish scholars during Islamic rule would forbid Jews from having sex with their female slaves. Christian communities had already prohibited the old Roman version of concubinage long before the Islamic version of concubinage came about. The Christians condemned the Islamic practice of concubinage.


 * Now lets compare it to the source text (Robinson). You can access it here : "The Jewish position on the subject is particularly difficult to ascertain; although concubinage appears in Biblical texts, it seems to have fallen out of favour a long time before the birth of Muhammad and is rarely mentioned. We can only say that in later peiods Jewish legal authorities under Islamic rule prohibited Jews from sexual intercourse with their slave women on pain of death."


 * "Despite this small caveat, there is still no way we can equate derivations of the Roman practice of concubinatus as it existed in the seventh century Christian Near East with concubinage as practised by Muslims- and it is safe to say that the Christians utterly condemned Islamic behaviour in this regard."


 * And it concludes thus:


 * "So with the taking of concubines, and the full acceptance of their offspring, the Muslims did something that contrasted with the prevailing norms of every major Near-Eastern religious practice of the conquest era-including that of the pre-Islamic Hijaz. By allowing unlimited concubinage they were overturining the Roman understanding of it being a monogamous institution, and by allowing it at all they were in conflict with Jewish and Christian law. Even in the only religious system that did allow concubinage in something approaching the Islamic sense - the Mazdaean- there were important discreprancies."


 * I think its safe to say your claim that there is synthesis and OR in this article is incorrect as the text I wrote was an accurate summary of the material in the source. The example you gave above does not justify the sweeping claim you have made about the whole article either as I have justified my text by showing you the quotes from the source material. Mcphurphy (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The example I gave about the Umayyads is in fact a very important part of Robinson's argument and I don't see a reason why it should be omitted. Robinson starts by asking whether concubinage was common before Islam. He shows it was not, fair enough, I didn't even remove the content you are quoting with the exception of it being universally condemned. However this isn't the broader point he is making. He then asks whether it was directly inspired from Prophetic tradition or the Quran. He explicitly rejects this suggestion which is not mentioned in the article and even seems to contradict it in other sections. Then he presents his theory about the Umayyad seeking concubines due to tribal pressures and justifies it with data. All in all the paragraph does not make for a complete and accurate summary of Robinson's views.


 * The sweeping claim about OR seems to be supported by a consensus of at least four editors now. As with the neutrality tag, I'm sure things will become clearer in time.119.155.45.59 (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The "at least four editors" don't seem to have actually gone through the source material. And I have re-added that tag merely as a compromise with Vice regent as I don't want conflict. So it does not prove much. Secondly, you have yourself accepted that you removed the part that it was universally condemned. Thirdly, if you read the pages being cited, Robinson's main argument is that Muslims did something which was against the norms of nearly every other civilisation of that time. That is the more important point, although I agree with you also adding the reasons for Umayyad concubinage. The reason I did not add it originally was because I was concerned with the early period of Islam in general. Robinson's other work which has been cited in the same section says that concubinage increased dramatically in Arabia in the lifetime of Muhammad himself due to the Islamic conquests of his generation and the availability to Muslim armies of women captured in these conquests. That is why it was more important to compare with the other contemporary civilisations Muslims were conquering, starting from the Rashiduns who preceded the Umayyads and during whose time it was that this practice increased dramatically. Mcphurphy (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "You have yourself accepted that you removed the part that it was universally condemned."
 * Yes because even with the nuances considered it seems to contradict Mazedan practices. Some other things are unclear as well. For instance the article says that some Arabs discriminated against the non-Arab born but then says that these attitudes were not acted upon. This is unclear. What was not acted upon? The first sentence seems to contradict the second.


 * And Robinson is talking about normative Islamic concubinage, not just Umayyad practice. You need to remember that the Rashidun period was relatively brief (hardly a generation) and Muhammad and Abu Bakr's conquests relatively modest. In their cases the statements about condemnation make little sense since Persia and Eastern Rome hadn't even been conquered. All of the statements quoted in the article are from later periods.


 * Robinson's arguments about condemnation are also a prelude to his main point. (According to Robinson and his study) The Umayyads 'were' early Islam and the trend setters in this issue, not the Quran and Prophetic practice. He clearly says so himself. You seem to be taking his arguments and making points about its spread that Robinson himself is not making, an example of synthesis and OR. 119.155.36.109 (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In his chapter in the book Concubines and Courtsans, Robinson explains that concubinage rose dramatically in the life of Muhammad (peace be upon him). Due to the military conquests. Moreover, Persia and much of the Eastern Roman Empire were conquered in the Rashidun caliphate, especially during the life of Umar. Mcphurphy (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Robinson in Concubines and Courtsans is simply an inclusion of the very same study in a collection of essays so I'm not sure what your point is. He clearly and conclusively rejects any linkage between normative Islamic concubinage and Prophetic practice. How many times do I have to repeat this? According to Robinson, the concubinage during Muhammad's was not a proper prelude to normative Islamic concubinage and neither was pre-Islamic Arab concubinage. You accept the latter statement but reject the former, both of them made by Robinson himself.


 * He once again in his conclusion attributes concubinage to Umayyad state practice. [], and yet you keep refuting his own point and cherrypicking his comments to indulge in OR and create a fabricated and fictitious link. concubinage was a marriage practice adopted early in the Umayyad period


 * Furthermore, the statement from Roy Holland's book is also irrelevant and a distraction from the claims Robinson is actually making, as is Arsi's hadith inclusion. Both should be removed.39.37.151.149 (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Does Islam discourage slavery?
Islam does indeed discourage slavery and there are many sources, including the Freamon source, that say this. It is not common to add sources to the lead, hence the inline reference wasn't there. But I can certainly add the inline reference, yet you removed that sentence yet again.VR talk  10:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats a big claim to make and will need to be assessed here. Please post all the sources for your claim so we can examine them. Secondly, even if it is true, how does it belong to the lead of this article? It seems WP:UNDUE. Mcphurphy (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Its not UNDUE to include it in the lead of this article. There are a number of scholarly sources: Bernard Freamon, page 493-494Tamara Sonn, page 21, Tariq Ramadan, page 29-30, Jonathan Brown, throughout the book etc.VR talk  12:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you need to show actual quotes from the book. And its definitely undue to include it in the very first sentence of the article. Mcphurphy (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A more general objection I have to the lead is that it's using the word "Islam" in an essentializing way. The word is notoriously polysemous and we should be careful about sweeping statements about what "Islam" does or doesn't do. The article scope is clearly about "Islam" in the broadest sense of Islamic civilization. So, I would suggest the lead and the rest of the article take a more historicizing perspective. Sexual exploitation of slaves and other dependents existed in all pre-modern civilizations. Islam is unusual in the Late Antique context in that sexual slavery was legally recognized and regulated, which arguably made the phenomenon more widespread and also in some ways improved the lot of the victims. The lead makes it seem like "Islam" was what caused sexual slavery to exist. I think the lead and the rest of the article would be much improved if it started with a descriptive statement to indicate that sexual slavery was widespread in Islamic civilization, and then build up from civilizational context, via scriptural sources, to classical jurisprudence and then pre-modern history and modern transformations. Eperoton (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll also comment on the removed passages. The passages quoted above seem to me to be well sourced, so I don't see a rationale for their removal. I'm not yet sure what to make of the article. It's clearly well researched and carefully constructed, and yet its overall impact seems quite different from the academic treatments of slavery in Islam I've come across before. This is in part for reasons I mentioned above. This dispute has prompted me to read Brown's book, which I'm finishing just now (and highly recommend), and that hasn't changed my impression. However, I'm not familiar with most of the sources cited, and I have no reason to think that Mcphurphy hasn't reflected them in an NPOV way. So, it's a bit of a mystery to me that I'll have to revisit when I have more time. Eperoton (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In regards to your statement "The lead makes it seem like "Islam" was what caused sexual slavery to exist." I will say that concubinage actually increased dramatically with the emergence of Islam. It was uncommon before the time of the Prophet sallalahu alayhi wassalam and actually increased as the early Islamic conquests allowed the Muslim armies to capture a large number of women.


 * The article explaned this previously, prior to its distortion by incoming editors. I will quote the parts of the article. You can also read it in full here and check the sources cited.






 * and




 * I also disagree that the lot of slaves improved with Islamic regulations of slavery and sexual slavery. See for example this extract:

Mcphurphy (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

, with due respect, I strongly disagree that Mcphurphy has presented sources in an NPOV way. I'll give just an example from the above. Mcphurphy cites a source to say: "Concubinage was not a common practice among the civilisations which the early Muslims had conquered". The author does indeed say that the concubinage practiced (eventually) by Muslims was quite different from what was practiced in pre-Islamic Near eastern civilizations. But the author also says that the concubinage eventually practiced by Muslims was also quite different from the practice of Prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an, and is instead rooted in the unique circumstances presented to the Umayads. The author says this literally on the same page, yet Mcphurphy omitted to mention this in his edits. This bit was added to the article by an anon IP twice (twice, cause after the first addition Mcphurphy removed it). This is just one example of extreme WP:CHERRYPICKING that is being practiced here. I'm also seeing the same pattern quoting sources out of context at Rape in Islamic law. VR talk  08:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The part about Umayyads was not originally included because I was not talking merely about the Umayyads, but about early Islam which includes both Umayyads and the Rashiduns. And it was during the Rashidun days and the generation of the Prophet that concubinage dramatically increased as a result of the military conquests. It was uncommon before the time of the Prophet. Here is what the same author Robinson says :
 * What the source says set the Umayyads apart from the time of the Prophet, was the practoice of keeping slave women in harems. This was how they imitated the Sassanids. Mcphurphy (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Different issues have gotten mixed up there. Normative attitudes are different from historical practice. E.g., slave concubinage didn't have religious or legal sanction in southern U.S., but it was widely practiced. Also, the question of whether slave concubinage in Islam can be called "mild" is different from how it compared to contemporaneous civilizations. I think that starting the article with a discussion of jurisprudence is anachronistic. It was elaborated largely in the aftermath of the early conquests. Eperoton (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean that I can't assume a violation of NPOV per WP:AGF and quotes provided. I would need to look at each of the cited sources, see how the question is handled there, and how well the source is represented in the article. Unfortunately, many of the sources are overpriced publications which I can't afford or access with my current subscriptions. Eperoton (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just as a general point, cherrypicking concerns over passages that are well-sourced individually should be treated with some care. Including additional well-sourced material to improve NPOV is fine; removing or changing sourced passages en masse and without careful justification is not. That may seem like a lot of work, but that's how WP works. Mcphurphy has put in a lot of effort into making this article, and it will also take effort to improve it further. Eperoton (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Responding to the earlier point that concubinage was not widely practised prior to Islam. So the source that Mcphurphy cited says it was indeed practiced in Sassanian Persia. And a few sources also say that it was widely practiced by the Byzantines: Daily Life in the Byzantine Empire (page 51) and Byzantine Slavery and the Mediterranean World (page 142). Like in the Caliphate, children born to concubines could reach high status (for example, Basil Lekapenos was born to the concubine of Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos). Outside of the Near East, other countries that Islam would come to also practiced concubinage. For example, the Majapahit emperor Hayam Wuruk had two sons, one born of a wife and the other of a concubine, leading to civil war between the two. Concubinage was also popular among Mongols like Genghis Khan long before their conquest of Muslim lands. In pre-Muslim India, concubinage was also practiced and again, sons of concubines could rise up. For example, the mother of Skandagupta may have been a concubine.VR talk  19:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There was only the opening line in the original lead which dealt with the jurisprudence. The rest was mostly just about the history of this practice in Muslim civilisation. Mcphurphy (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet another source that shows that sexual aspects of slavery were widely practiced:
 * When the author says "Roman antiquity", the context is the time of John Chrysostom (d. 407 AD) in the Byzantine Empire.VR talk  15:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are clutching at straws here. The Romans had done away with sexual slavery long before the Islamic conquests and even whatever remained of this practice was in no way comparable with the Muslim practice of it. A more detailed explanation from the Robinson source:
 * When the author says "Roman antiquity", the context is the time of John Chrysostom (d. 407 AD) in the Byzantine Empire.VR talk  15:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are clutching at straws here. The Romans had done away with sexual slavery long before the Islamic conquests and even whatever remained of this practice was in no way comparable with the Muslim practice of it. A more detailed explanation from the Robinson source:


 * Mcphurphy (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, Robinson is talking about Christian communities, not the Byzantine empire. Secondly if he's talking about the Byzantine empire, then he's contradicted by at least 3 scholarly sources that I cited above. Thus we need to include all of the scholarly opinions and make note of which scholarly opinion occurs most often.VR talk  04:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Status quo
I am going to restore this article as it was in its longstanding version before made sweeping changes on from 17 May onwards  without seeking consensus. The Wikipedia policy states that "During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo." Multiple editors  reverted his changes. Until came in to restore his version. I have explained in the above section that there are many problems with this new version, not only in that it distorts the content to make it say something completely different to what the sources are saying, but it has produced disjointed, incoherent and grammatically incoherent sentences such as this: However, Islamic jurists held that Dhimmis who lived in areas which were known as Dhimmi's which had formal pacts with Muslims were to be protected from enslavement.. Therefore, I will restore the longstanding version and request all editors to respect the WP:STATUSQUO while we resolve any content issues. I would also urge to stop moving this article's title without obtaining a clear consensus. Ping other editors active here to keep an eye on this. ,, , please keep an eye. Mcphurphy (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , this article has just recently being created. There is no status quo. There is clearly more people who support the current version than you.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not relevant. What is relevant is that new changes being made by Arsi786 require consensus. Moreover, he and the others will actually need to actively engage on the talkpage to explain and convince why the old version should be changed. Furthermore, Arsi786's version cannot be kept for now simply because it contains grammatical errors, inconsistencies and distorts the text from the original sources. Mcphurphy (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * please revert your last edit. There is no consensus yet for any page move to modify the opening words. Mcphurphy (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , there is enough consensus to change the title. This article was recently created. You should not editwar in the title.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There are at least 3 users who have supported the new title "Concubinage in Islam" over "Sexual slavery in Islam."VR talk  08:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is too early to declare a consensus as of now discussion on this point is still continuing and has not been resolved. Mcphurphy (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You could say that, but there's certainly no consensus for the name "sexual slavery". In fact, there's no consensus for most of the material that's present in this article - this article was very recently created and before that it was in your sandbox.VR talk  08:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , you just recently created this article. Multiple editors have said that this is not the common name and not an accurate title that is used by reliable sources.--08:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And how exactly does this new version of the article you keep on restoring have consensus? Its certainly not the WP:STATUSQUO. I have presented a full breakdown of the changed material in the above sections demonstrating the verifiability of the original content. You and the other editors have not responded to that or engaged with it. Moreover, the version you are re-introducing contains clear grammatical errors and inconsistences. I request you self-revert.Mcphurphy (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And I have responded to you, with quotes from the sources, showing how you are misrepresenting the sources. You can disagree with my response but you can't claim "You and the other editors have not responded to that or engaged with it". That's false and you know it. I do apologize for grammatical errors. If you point those out I will definitely fix them.VR talk  08:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No you only engaged me on one sentence out of the dozens whose verifiability I demonstrated in four whole sections. I replied to that one objection you made with the full quote (you only showed half the quote) and also with arguments showing why you were incorrect. Then instead of replying to my point of differentiating between modern and pre-modern viewpoints you went on a tangent to a different issue. And you have also been adding new content without consensus to the lead such as "Islam discourages slavery." Please don't do this. Mcphurphy (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * From 600 to 2020 Islam and the Quran both have a particular view of the role of women for the pleasure of men. Setting aside prostitutes and houris, there are two (different) groups of women used for this purpose:


 * 1 Concubines  > Think sultans, harems, eunuchs, Die Entführung aus dem Serail, Ottoman palaces, willingness, etc, etc


 * 2 Sex slaves > Think 'ma malakat aymanukum', ISIS and Yazidis women, manumission, Arab slave trade, captives of war,  Boko Haram, unwillingness, etc, etc


 * Any reorganising / rewording of the two (2) relevant articles must not be taken as an opportunity to diminish any of those realities. Koreangauteng (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Koreangauteng, first of all, thank you for removing the insult you made in your comment earlier. Attacking someone on the basis of their religion makes discussion impossible.
 * You say there were two (different) groups of women, but that's not correct. Concubines in the Sultan's harem (i.e. not wives) were a subset of "ma malakat aymanukum", i.e. slaves. So these two groups of women actually fall under the same category. Also, I'm not sure what Boko Haram has to do with any of this.VR talk  07:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * VR. You say they are the same.
 * I say they are completely different.
 * Concubines:
 * Ottoman Imperial Harem
 * The harem is not what you think it is https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/indepth/opinion/2016/03/harem-160313075243286.html
 * Sex slaves 1:
 * Chibok schoolgirls kidnapping
 * Hostages Used As Boko Haram Sex Slaves, Labourers https://allafrica.com/stories/201806050109.html
 * Sex slaves 2:
 * Genocide of Yazidis by ISIL
 * Raped by dozens of 'owners' for five years: Yazidis recount harrowing tales of life as sex slaves - as investigators gather evidence to prosecute ISIS fighters for crimes against humanity
 * "They explained everything as permissible. They called it Islamic law. They raped women, even young girls."
 * https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8343035/amp/Building-genocide-case-IS-crimes-against-Yazidis.htm Koreangauteng (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I read all the quotes from the sources Mcphurphy showed. This article before Arsi786 represented the sources faithfully. The new version is just a distortion. For example, it changes "The Ottoman ulama maintained the permissibility of slavery" to "The Ottoman ulama maintained the impressibility of slavery." This is just one example of numerous unfaithful changes. Also, look at the cherry-picking in the new version of the consent section.. It leaves the view of some writers on "integration of captives" while deleting the old content on the female captives of Banu Mustaliq. Presumably because that narrative contradicted the views of those apologist writers. The content on marrying off female slaves without their content has also been deleted. There are many other instances of such POV deletions. The old version should first be restored and editors can take it from there and discuss what can go and what can stay. The new title is also WP:PEACOCK. It should be changed back. Any contentious page move such as that requires consensus. Vishnu Sahib (talk)
 * Did you honestly read all the quotes from the sources Mcphurphy cited? In that case, can you explain this section (Talk:Concubinage_in_Islam) where I was utterly unable to find the text that said that concubinage "was condemned wherever it existed".VR talk  04:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I read the quotes. Like I said, if there are issues with some of the content they need to be hashed out by editors on the talkpage first before deletion. But unilateral deletions of 5000 bytes + of old verifiable content is wrong. Isn't that your argument here ? Besides, there are too many distortions in the present version. Vishnu Sahib (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You did say
 * Yet, as I showed above, some of the quotes appear absolutely nowhere in the source and actually contradict the source (see Talk:Concubinage_in_Islam).
 * Anyway, WP:ONUS says, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.
 * So if I or someone else finds that the sources have been misrepresented, the onus is on Mcphurphy (assuming they want to include the content) to show why there has not been a misrepresentation.VR talk  21:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)