Talk:History of concubinage in the Muslim world/Archive 3

Modern Muslim views
Many islamic scholars today believe that many of the passages relating to this topic may have resulted from mohammads detour into satany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:3289:5B00:4C34:792B:8621:2D64 (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC) you changed the original text which read

"While classical Islamic law permits sexual slavery, the vast majority of Muslims today oppose it. This contradiction is demonstrated by Ahmed Hassan, a twentieth century translator of Sahih Muslim, who prefaced the translated chapter on marriage by claiming that Islam only allows sex within marriage. This was despite the fact that the same chapter included many references to Muslim men having sex with slave-girls. Most ordinary Muslims ignore the existence of slavery and concubinage in Islamic history and texts. Most also ignore the millennia old consensus permitting it and a few writers even claim that those Islamic jurists who allowed sexual relations outside marriage with female slaves were mistaken."

The text indicated in bold above was removed by you.

However, the source material says, "These questions arise urgently when one considers that classical Islamic law accepts both slavery as an institution and the sexual use of female slaves, whereas the overwhelming majority of Muslims today completely reject all forms of slavery."

And on the very next page says,

"Yet quite a number of late twentieth-century and early twenty-first-century Muslim authors and laypeople gloss over the existence of slavery, and especially concubinage, in Muslim history and texts."

A little further down it says,

"Given that the vast majority of contemporary Muslims reject slavery, many have chosen to ignore the issue. Rather than reiterate the classical religious permission for slavery and slave concubinage, even to oppose it, they seem to believe that a moderate or progressive agenda is better served by emphasizing the contemporary agreement that slavery, and especially concubinage, is forbidden as completely outside the bounds of Muslim sexual morality. Although a few authors deny the validity of slave concubinage outright, asserting that “those jurists of Islamic law who laid down the rule that a master may have [a] sexual relationship with his female slave without marriage are totally mistaken,” most simply ignore what prevailed as the consensus for over a millennium."

Given that the original text is more faithful to the source material than your version, I am reinstating it. Mcphurphy (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The section could be broken up into different parts and improved as it is here [] As it currently stands, I agree with the points made by WilliamOR81 in the edit history.39.37.132.106 (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Concubinage
This article mainly deals with concubinage in Islam, not sexual slavery in Islam. "Sexual slavery" is a broad term that includes Forced marriage and Forced prostitution. Therefore this article should be renamed accordingly. If for some reason we decide that we want to deal with "sexual slavery" not concubinage, then we should include the magnitude of efforts Muslims have made against prostitution and forced marriage.VR talk  02:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They are synonymous in the Islamic context. A concubine refers to a slave-girl a man has sex with. And shouldn't we go by WP:COMMONNAME? "Concubinage in Islam" only shows 157,000 hits on Google Search. Whereas "Sexual slavery in Islam" shows 4.94 million hits on the same. Google scholar shows that "Sexual slavery in Islam" produces 75,600 hits. Whereas, "Concubinage in Islam" produces only 9,280 hits. Mcphurphy (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not true. Also, Google scholar gives only 2 results for "sexual slavery in Islam. You should use quotes around the term. Slavery, sexual and Islam are treated as separated terms if they are without quotes, that means if there is a book that contains the word sexual in page 20, slavery in page 50 and Islam in page 200 its going to be shown as a result. And even if slavery in page 20 and Islam in page 50 it is going to be shown as a result even if the other words are not in the book. Google scholar gives 2 results for "sexual slavery in Islam" and 25 results for "Concubinage in Islam" . This is how you use google hits.-- SharʿabSalam▼  (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no rule saying that. Nor is that a proper criteria. For example if we use your way of using quotes around "sexual slavery in islam" we don't see the academic sources which are obviously about Islamic sexual slavery like "Slavery and sexual ethics in Islam" or "Islam and modern-day sexual slavery" which you can see when you search without using the quotes. In substance they are the same subject. Its not necessary that every single word be the same as the title. We only need the substance of that term.Mcphurphy (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you were to create an article based on ""Slavery and sexual ethics in Islam" it would be called "Sexual ethics of slavery in Islam", not "sexual slavery in Islam". I repeat, "sexual slavery" is a specific term with specific connotations, that don't apply to the sources here.VR talk  09:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As I understand, Question is about definition of Sexual Slavery. Google Search gives: the state of being unlawfully kept in a situation in which one is repeatedly forced to engage in sexual activity against one’s will., This gives: Form of sexual exploitation of individuals through the use or threat of force, often occurring in times of armed conflict or belligerent occupation., and this gives: A criminal activity that involves forced sexual acts upon a person who is usually held hostage as a slave. Now, the sources mentioned in this article clearly support "Sexual Slavery in Islam", since, Slavery is permitted in Islam, Sex with slaves is permitted in Islam, hence, Sexual slavery is permitted in Islam. You are saying that sex with slaves is not forced but consensual, hence, concubinage. But, let me clarify, Sexual slavery means when one can't choose their sexual partner according to their will, since slaves don't have will to choose with whom they have sex with, it accurately and appropriately falls in the category of Sexual Slavery. Further, there even exist one Muslim jurisprudence that slave has to be monogamous with their master, which means, it is the master by virtue of being their master who is choosing their sexual partner not slave herself, hence, it is forced upon them, therefore, sexual slavery in Islam is more appropriate term. Dhawangupta (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What you wrote above is basically WP:Original research. The sources use the "concubinage" very often and very rarely use the term "sexual slavery".VR talk  00:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No he is right. "Concubinage in Islam" only shows 157,000 hits on Google Search. Whereas "Sexual slavery in Islam" shows 4.94 million hits on the same. Google scholar shows that "Sexual slavery in Islam" produces 75,600 hits. Whereas, "Concubinage in Islam" produces only 9,280 hits. Mcphurphy (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What is he right about? You and he are making different points? I've pointed this out before but everything he notes can be covered under concubinage in Islam and is indeed in the article including monogamy for the concubine, forced concubinage and marriage of slaves to others (ignore the Islam section which is contradictory and POV). A a side note you should have improved that section first instead of creating a new POV article out of the blue. The search results are also not clearcut as pointed out by SharabSalaam.
 * Dhawangupta's definitions are also pretty wonky in their relevance here. The first and third definition explicitly refer to sexual slavery as being inherently criminal or unlawful and the second definition implies this as well. However, what "law" are we going by here? These are clearly modern and not historically relevant definitions. This could even be said about the term "sexual slavery" in general which is why concubinage is the common, NPOV and historical title.
 * If more editors come along please direct them to at least read the previous conversations to avoid constant repetition. 39.37.182.26 (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You insist that this link presents sources that talk about "sexual slavery" in Islam. Yet when I look it, many of the sources don't even contain the term "sexual slavery". For example, the second link on those results is this book. I searched this book and it doesn't contain a single mention of "sexual slavery". If you disagree then provide the exact page number and quote. If you agree that the sources don't contain the term "sexual slavery", then why do you keep insisting on that link?VR talk  21:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, and the few that do include links like Quadrant, David Horowitz/Robert Spencer and well this... . No surprises here to be honest. Considering this is showing up on the very first page, I'm not convinced of these arguments. Plus I note that the source you give, included in the article (Hazelton includes Kecia Ali [and on that issue why are the same scholars quoted both directly from their works and indirectly from collections of different works which include the previous ones?, the same is true of Robinson as well, it seems like source inflation]), omits Keicia Ali's given reason for the alleged denial of concubinage and so does McMurphy above (in the beginning), but that's another issue... 39.37.182.26 (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Latest edits
Okay so a lot of material is being removed by incoming editors. But the reasons in their edit summaries are not adequate. And some other texts are being changed to say something completely different to what the cited sources are saying. There is also a lot of unsourced and unverifiable content being added such as "Islam strongly discourages slavery." That goes against the academic consensus, as stated by eminent historian Ehud R. Toledano.

Okay lets look into the three objections given by in his edit summary for the last blanket removal. His stated reasons doesn't cover everything. In other words, he has not explained the reason for removing each thing that he has removed. It seems like I will have to do this the hard way and quote the actual source material for each and every sentence which is being wrongly changed. Please leave this section untouched while I go get the quotes from the sources and paste them here. I also request editors to keep this page on hold as I want to keep up with all the changes being made and explain why they are unwarranted. Right now, things are going too fast for any explanation. Thank you. Mcphurphy (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that you sprung an extremely POV article into wikipedia, without much community input. Much of your content violates WP:REDFLAG, especially as you claim that Islam as a whole religion condones rape. Some of it is a misinterpretation of sources on your part as shown in above section; other is the fact that you take the opinion of one reliable source and present it as fact. I'm happy to go point by point and discuss, but please keep the contentious matter out of the article until there is consensus.VR talk  07:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue is that Arsi786 has not merely removed text. He has actually distorted the article's content in such a way that they are saying the complete opposite of what the sources are saying. I also reject the claim that this is a POV article, since NPOV is defined here by balancing the academic sources which I have done. Mcphurphy (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Consent
I am placing here each single sentence of my version next to the material from the original sources. Other editors can take a look, compare and verify whether my text has faithfully represented the source material or not. I am going to tag the editors I remember being active here. Perhaps they can judge this. and

My text: The Hanafi scholars allow the husband to have sex with his wife against her will, as long as he has paid her dowry. Source text: "Hanafi texts extend the ruling on loss of support for physical absence to also uphold its converse: physical presence in the marital home suffices for support...A wife who remained in her husband's home but refused hi sexually retained her claim to maintenance. Sexual refusal did not constitute nushuz, bevause it did not, in this view, make her sexually unavailable; as long as she remained physically present, he could have secual access to her even against her will...Still, while forcible intercourse might be sinful if th wife had the moral high ground because of unpaid dower, if an upnaid dower was not at issue then the husband's right "to have sex with her against her will" went unquestioned. In this case, they agreed: "It is lawful, because she is a wrongdoer (zalima)." The wife's reproachable behaviour justifies the husband's action. Al-Khassaf who reports these views, did not even raise the possibility that forced intervourse in these circumstances might be a sin."

- Kecia Ali, Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam, Harvard University Press, p. 83 My text: '''The Shafi'i, Maliki and Hanbali schools do not forbid a husband from forcing his wife to have sex nor do they expressly say anything in favour of it. For all Sunni law schools the concept of marital rape is an oxymoron.''' Source text: "The silence of the Hanafis can be explained easily: a wife's sexual refusal is irrelevant if not accompanied by her departure from the conjugal home, because her husband is permitted to have sex with her without her consent. Non-Hanafis do not penalize a husband for forcing sex on his wife, but neither do they explicitly authorize it in the way that al-Khassaf does. For all, marital rape is an oxymoron; rape (ightisab) is a property crime that by the definition cannot be committed by the husband."

- Kecia Ali, Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam, Harvard University Press, p. 120

My text: According to the Islamic jurists, rape is either a kind of zina or a property crime, which by definition cannot be committed by a husband or master, since he is the owner of his wife and slave's sexual capacity. Source text:"This scenario is never, however, illicit in the jurists’ conceptual world. Nonconsensual sex—what contemporary Westerners would term rape—might be either a coercive subset of zina¯, with blame lifted from the coerced participant, or a type of usurpation (ightisab), a property crime that by definition cannot be committed by a husband or owner, who possesses an entitlement to, or ownership over, his wife’s or slave’s sexual capacity."

- Kecia Ali (2017). "Concubinage and Consent". International Journal of Media Studies. 49. doi:10.1017/S0020743816001203

My text: There is no requirement in any of the Sunni law schools for the master to have his female slave's consent before he has sex with her.

Source text: "Though I believe in the strongest possible terms that meaningful consent is a prerequisite for ethical sexual relationships, I am at a loss to find this stance mirrored in the premodern Muslim legal tradition, which accepted and regulated slavery, including sex between male masters and their female slaves....I recall no instance in any Maliki, Hanafi, Shafii, or Hanbali text from the 8th to 10th centuries where anyone asserts that an owner must obtain his female slave’s consent before having sex with her. Indeed, I am aware of no case where anyone asks whether her consent is necessary or"

- Kecia Ali(2017). "Concubinage and Consent". International Journal of Media Studies. 49. doi:10.1017/S0020743816001203

My text: A slave, by legal definition, does not have the capacity to refuse consent.

Source text: "Complete legal capacity is only held in a person who has complete control of their body and mind. Slavery is premised upon the absence of control over the body, since it transfers control of the body and labour of the slave to another person, including sexual control. Therefore to ask the question pertaining to compulsion or consent of the enslaved person is to ask a question that does not have legal salience. Enslavement by definition removes the requirement for consent."

- Seedat, Fatima (2016). "Sexual economies of war and sexual technologies of the body: Militarised Muslim masculinity and the Islamist production of concubines for the caliphate". Agenda. 30 (3). doi:10.1080/10130950.2016.1275558.

My text: Coercing a concubine to have sex was fundamentally legal. Source text: "Coercion within marriage or concubinage might be repugnant, but it remained fundamentally legal."

- Hina Azam, Sexual Violation in Islamic Law: Substance, Evidence, and Procedure, Cambridge University Press, p. 69

My text: The Hanafis explicitly state that a man may force the woman to sexually satisfy him. Source text: "The followers of Imam Abu Hanifah said: "The right of the sexual pleasure belongs to the man, not the woman, by that it is meant that the man has the right to force the woman to gratify himself sexually."

- Al-jaziri, abd Al-rahman; Roberts, Nancy (2009). Islamic Jurisprudence According To The Four Sunni Schools Al Fiqh 'ala Al Madhahib Al Arba'ah. Fons Vitae. ISBN 978-1887752978.

My text: It is mentioned in Kitab al-Maghazi that Uthman ibn Affan had sexual intercourse with a war captive, Zaynab bint Hayyan, and that she "detested" him.

Source text: "He gave Uthman b. Affan a slave girl named Zaynab b. Hayyan b. Amr. Uthman had intercourse with her and she detested him."

- Rizwi Faizer. The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi's Kitab Al-Maghazi. 2013. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-92114-8.

My text: '''Muhammad and his Companions took for granted the allowance of having sex with female war captives. The consent of the women was irrelevant. Some modern Muslim writers seek to defend Islam by claiming that Islam permits men to have sex with female captives as a way of integrating them into society.'''

Source text:"The permissibility of sex with the captive women was taken for granted by all the men involved, including the Prophet himself. (There is no indication of what the captured women thought, or the wives of the men involved.) Not only do the Prophet and the soldiers ignore the question of the women’s consent or lack thereof, but so does Algosaibi, focusing solely on contraception in his discussion of this hadith."

- Kecia Ali. Sexual Ethics and Islam: Feminist Reflections on Qur'an, Hadith and Jurisprudence. 2016. p. 60

My text: '''But in the case of the women from the Banu Mustaliq tribe who were captured by the Companions, their captors wanted to practice coitus interruptus during sex with them because if these women became pregnant their captors would not be able to return them in exchange for ransom. According to Kecia Ali, modern Muslim scholarship is silent on the implications of this episode and only considers the event in the context of discussing contraceptive practices.'''

Source text: "When directly confronted, in a polemical context, with historical and textual permission for the sexual use of unfree women, Muslim authors sometimes respond defensively, seeking to protect Islam’s reputation. It may be argued, for instance, that Islamic “slavery” bore no resemblance to harsh American chattel slavery. In this view, the Qur’anic permission for men to have sex with “what their right hands possess” was merely a way of integrating war captives into society. Sometimes, it is added that the captives would be “integrated” into the Muslim community through becoming the property of a specific man who would be responsible for them and their offspring. Whatever merit these arguments have in the context of inter-communal polemics and apologetics, however, they are insufficient for internal Muslim reflection. In particular, the notion that women would be integrated into society by bearing offspring to their owners or captors does not apply to the case of the Bani Mustaliq: the rationale for the captors to practice withdrawal, according to other accounts, is that they did not want to impregnate the women lest they spoil their chances to ransom them."

- Kecia Ali. Sexual Ethics and Islam: Feminist Reflections on Qur'an, Hadith and Jurisprudence. 2016. p. 61

My text: '''All four law schools also have a consensus that the master can marry off his female slave to someone else without her consent. A master can also practice coitus interruptus during sex with his female slave without her permission.'''

Source text:"They agreed unanimously that an enslaved female’s consent was never required for a marriage contracted by her owner. Al Shafii (d. 820) is typical: “He may marry off his female slave without her permission whether she is a virgin or non-virgin.”7 It strains logic to suggest that an enslaved woman is subject to being married off without her consent or against her will to whomever her owner chooses but that he cannot have sex with her himself without her consent... All accepted—sometimes tacitly, sometimes explicitly—that a man could practice withdrawal with his own female slave without seeking her permission"

- Ali, Kecia (2017). "Concubinage and Consent". International Journal of Media Studies. 49. doi:10.1017/S0020743816001203

My text: A man having sex with someone else's female slave constitutes zina.

Source text:"A man’s intercourse with a female slave might constitute zina¯ only if she belongs to someone else."

- Ali, Kecia (2017). "Concubinage and Consent". International Journal of Media Studies. 49. doi:10.1017/S0020743816001203

My text: '''If a man marries off his own female slave and has sex with her even though he is then no longer allowed to have sexual intercourse with her, that sex is still considered a lesser offence than zina and the jurists say he must not be punished. It is noteworthy that while formulating this ruling, it is the slave woman's marriage and not her consent which is an issue.'''

Source text: "Even if he marries off his own slave and no longer has lawful access to her, his having sex with her is a lesser transgression than zina¯. The jurists’ occasional affirmations that a married female slave whose owner nonetheless has sex with her is not to be punished is the closest any of these texts comes to considering the relevance of an enslaved woman’s consent. Notably, the issue emerges only because she is married to another man, a marriage for which jurists uniformly agree that her consent would have been unnecessary"

- Ali, Kecia (2017). "Concubinage and Consent". International Journal of Media Studies. 49. doi:10.1017/S0020743816001203

Hanafi view on not recognising child born from slave
My text: '''However, Hanafi jurists state that the umm walad status is contingent on the master acknowledging paternity of the child. If he does not accept that he is the father of the child then both the mother and child remain slaves.''' Source text: "Schacht also states "The Hanafis on the other hand hold the view that the paternity of the child and the character of the slave as umm al-walad in this case depends entirerly on an acknowledgement by the master.' That is, if the master does not explicitkly acknowledge the paternity of the child, the mother of that child would remain a slave and not become an umm walad; her children then, would also be slaves."

- Jonathan E. Brockopp. Early Mālikī Law: Ibn ʻAbd Al-Ḥakam and His Major Compendium of Jurisprudence. 2000. BRILL. ISBN 90-04-11628-1. p. 201 Mcphurphy (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You actually need to engage here on the talkpage. You have not addressed this but have gone on to completely remove whatever content was left from Brockopp and replaced it with Freamon's opinion. That section is still in discussion here. Mcphurphy (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fair, but its also not completely relevant. That's referring to biological paternity of the child, not the legal paternity. Biological paternity is a fact and not subject to debate, whereas legal paternity could be at a person's discretion. I can integrate this material too.VR talk  09:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, recognize that what I added is from the Rashidun era, whereas the above reflects later attitudes.VR talk  09:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course, its relevant. Because the umm walad status as well as the child's free status is contingent on legal paternity. I suggest you reinstate all the material from Brockopp. You can keep the newly added content from Freamon. Mcphurphy (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Forced conversions
The source cited in this section was Yohanan Friedmann, Tolerance and Coercion in Islam : Interfaith Relations in the Muslim Tradition, Cambridge University Press, 2003. I will present the original text added by me and present it with the source material. The irony is that has modified my text to say the complete opposite of what the source is saying.

1. My text: Most traditional scholars require the conversion of a pagan slave-girl before sex, even through force if necessary.

Source text: "We have also seen that according to the prevalent view of the traditionists, a female polytheist must be converted to Islam, by coercive measures if necessary, before any sexual relationship with her can take place."

- pp. 176-177

2. My text: '''The majority of jurists do not allow sexual intercourse with Zoroastrian or pagan female captives. They require a conversion of these women before sex can take place. Ibn Hanbal allowed sexual intercourse with pagan and Zoroastrian female captives if they are forced to become Muslim. Many traditions state that the female captives should be forced to accept Islam if they do not convert willingly. Hasan al-Basri narrates that Muslims would achieve this objective through various methods. They would order the Zoroastrian slave-girl to face the qiblah, utter the shahada and perform wudhu. Her captor would then have sex with her after one menstrual cycle. However, others add the condition that the slave-girl must be taught to pray and purify herself before the master can have sex with her. The scholars significantly lower the threshold of conversion for the girls so that the master may be able to have sex with her as soon as possible. Only a few early scholars permitted sex with pagan and Zoroastrian slaves girls without conversion.'''

Source text: "The prevalent view of the jurisprudents is that sexual intercourse of any kind is not permissible with Zoroastrian or idolatrous women. According to some, a Muslim who has intercourse with such a woman is (from the religious view point) not better than the infidel woman herself. This being so, most fuqaha maintain that women belonging to these groups should embrace Islam before any intercourse can take place. If they refuse, they are used as servants, but sexual intercourse with them is not permitted. This is evidently not an optimal solution, and numerous traditions maintain that women who refuse to embrace Islam willingly should be subjected to coercion. According to a report included in the Jami of al-Khalal (d. 311 A.H./923 A.D.), Ibn ˘Hanbal maintained that if Zoroastrian and idolatrous women are taken prisoner, they are coerced into Islam; if they embrace it, sexual relations with them are permissible and they can (also) be used as maidservants."

- p. 107

"The contradiction inherent in this passage is evident: despite the unspecified coercive measures, some of the women in question resisted conversion and, consequently, the masters could not take full advantage of their services. If the only way to embrace Islam is pronouncing the declaration of faith, the conversion of a defiant woman may not be possible: it is not always feasible to force someone to utter the shahada. According to a tradition transmitted on the authority of Hasan al-Basrı, the Muslims used various devices to attain their objective: they turned the Zoroastrian slave-girl toward the Kaaba, ordered her to pronounce the shahada and to perform ablution. Her master then engaged in sexual relations after she had one menstruating period while in his house. Others hold that the master must teach the slave-girl to pray, to purify herself and to shave her private parts before any intercourse. The participation of the girl in this procedure is minimal, and this wording may be interpreted as a considerable lowering of the conversion requirements so that the girl becomes eligible for sexual intercourse as expeditiously as possible. Among the early traditionists, only a few were willing to go beyond this and allow sexual relations with a Zoroastrian slave-girl without insisting on at least a semblance of conversion."

- pp. 107-108

3. My text: Al-Mujahid and Safiid bin al-Musayyab say the master can still have sex with his Zoroastrian or pagan female slave even if she refuses to convert.

Source text: "Conversion to Islam is not mentioned here as a necessary condition for sexual relations. In the opinion of Mujhid, the captive girl should shave her pubic hair, trim her hair and pare her nails. Then she should perform ablution, wash her clothes, pronounce the shahada and perform a Muslim prayer. But even if she refuses to do these things, her master is still allowed to have sexual relations with her once she has had one menstrual period in his house. And Safiıd b. al-Musayyab simply says that “there is nothing wrong in a man having sexual relations with his Zoroastrian slave-girl”"

- pp. 177-178

My text: '''But Ibn Qayyim argues that the Companions of the Prophet had sexual intercourse with Arab captives, such as the women of the Banu Mustaliq tribe, without making the sex conditional on the conversion of the women. He also asserted that no tradition required the conversion of a slave-girl before her master can have sex with her.'''

Source text: "Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya observes, on the other hand, that: "they (i.e., the Prophet’s companions) did not make sexual relations with Arab captives contingent on their conversion; rather they had sexual relations with them after one menstrual period. God allowed them to do this and did not make it conditional on conversion." Summing up, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya says that there is not a single tradition which makes sexual relations with female captives contingent on their conversion."

- p. 178 Mcphurphy (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For the book you link in Google Books, I unfortunately can't view and therefore verify if those quotes are indeed there; nor, most critically, what the context of those quotes is. Is there another way to access that book?VR talk  07:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you wish, I can (through email) give you my online library login details through which you can access this book. Mcphurphy (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Other removals/modification
There's a lot of other material in the material which has been changed without justification I will also post a comparison of the material I wrote with the original sources they cite. This will prove verifiability.

My text: '''Early sources indicate that sexual slavery of women was viewed as both a male privilege and a privilege for the victor over the defeated. Islamic legal texts state that sexual pleasure was a male privilege over women.''' Source text: "The citations attributed to early authorities suggest that sexual slavery was seen as a matter of privilege; a male privilege as well as a privilege of the conqueror over a conquered people—which is demonstrated by an interest in slave ethnicities. According to contemporaneous Islamic legal writings, men had a number of privileges over women; sexual pleasure was one of them."

- Pernilla, Myrne (2019). "Slaves for Pleasure in Arabic Sex and Slave Purchase Manuals from the Tenth to the Twelfth Centuries". Journal of Global Slavery. 4: 196–225. doi:10.1163/2405836X-00402004 p. 203

My text: In Islam, it is the male's ownership of a woman's sexual organs which makes sex licit. Source text: "Established Islamic jurisprudence therefore often describes marriage as a type of sale, with the item being purchased being a wife’s sexual organs. There are qualitative differences between the rights of a wife and a female slave, of course, and the jurists do carefully lay these out, but nevertheless, the concept of male ownership of women’s sexual parts becomes an important part of the traditional juristic understanding of what makes sex licit in Islam."

- Asifa Quraishi-Landes (15 April 2016). "A Meditation on Mahr, Modernity, and Muslim Marriage Contract Law". Feminism, Law, and Religion. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-13579-1. p. 178

My text: '''South Asian scholars ruled that jihad was not needed to seize non-muslims nor was it necessary to invite them to Islam before seizing them. Raiders were free to take and enslave any non-muslim.''' Source text:"From this, South Asian scholars deduced that jihad was irrelevant when seizing infudels, who were "deproved of their rights of freedom without being possessed by anybody." It was unnecessary to invite infidels in the abode of war to embrace Islam before seziningtheir persons, because they were "something which is the property of no particular person and may by law become the property of a Mooslim...They are classed with inanimate beings...thus liable to be reduced to state of property, like things which were originally comon by nature.' For a raider, this entailed that 'such of the inhabitants, as have fallen into his hands, are at his absolute disposal, and may be lawfully reduced to slavery.""

- William Gervase Clarence-Smith; W. G. Clarence-Smith (2006). Islam and the Abolition of Slavery. Oxford University Press. p. 28. ISBN 978-0-19-522151-0.

My text: '''The female slave was essentially a chattel. An owner's slave could also be inherited by an heir.''' Source text: "The master could sell her or give her away as a gift. The concubine could not own property, because her master owned everything, although she could carry out a trade or business by herself. Levy described the concubine saying "She has no more right than other chattels". She could be paid compensation for an attack, which resulted in the death of a baby. Also her master could pass her on to his heir as an inheritance."

- Saad, Salma (1990). The legal and social status of women in the Hadith literature. University of Leeds, p. 245

My text: Uthman had sexual intercourse with her and she detested him. Source text:"He gave Uthman b. Affan a slave girl named Zaynab b. Hayyan b. Amr. Uthman had intercourse with her and she detested him."

- Rizwi Faizer. The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi's Kitab Al-Maghazi. 2013. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-92114-8.

My text: '''Uyaynah had earlier said at the Siege of Ta'if that he only came to fight for Muhammad so he could get a Thaqif girl and impregnate her. When Umar told Muhammad about Uyayna's comment, Muhammad smiled and called this "acceptable foolishness."''' Source text: "He replied: "I, by God, did not come with you to fight the Thaqif, but that Muhammad captures a;-Taif so that I may take a slave-girl from the Thaqif and impregnate her and perhaps she will give birth to my son. Indeed the Thaqif are a fortunate community." Umar informed the Prophet of his words, and the Prophet smiled, and the said: "Such obedient folly.""

- Rizwi Faizer. The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi's Kitab Al-Maghazi. 2013. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-92114-8.p. 459

Source text:"He further states that, when Umar b. al-Khattab informed the Prophet what Uyaynah had said, he smiled and said, "[the man exhibits] an acceptable foolishness." [He is an agreeable fool]."

- Tabari. The History of al-Tabari Vol. 9: The Last Years of the Prophet: The Formation of the State A.D. 630-632/A.H. 8-11. 1999. Translated by Ismail K. Poonawala. SUNY Press. ISBN 978-0-88706-692-4

My text: '''The most fortunate female captives were women like Safiyya and Juwayriah who were freed from slavery and married Muhammad. The lives of female captives depended on whether her tribe could ransom her or if her captor chose to marry her. If neither of the two happened such women suffered because their captors owned their bodies and lives. If they were unattractive the captors would keep them as servants and if they were beautiful the captors were allowed to keep them as their concubines. The captors were also allowed to sell her. Due to this some female captives committed suicide.''' Source text: "These were the most fortunate captive women, who held high a position in the life of the Prophet. Therefore, it can be said that the destiny of a captive woman depended on two points: a. if her tribe was able to pay the ransom b. if she was married to her captor. Sometimes neither of these events might occur and therefore the woman suffered and was humiliated because her captor or the one who bought her, had control of both her body and her life. He might keep her as a concubine if she was beautiful and young, or might use her as a servant if she was old and ugly. He had the right to sell her to anyone who was willing to pay her price. On this account some references mentioned captives, who committed suicide"

- Saad, Salma (1990). The legal and social status of women in the Hadith literature. University of Leeds, p. 248

My text: '''A modern scholar on Islamic legal history made an assertion that the Quran does not allow non-consensual sex between masters and female slaves. However, Kecia Ali states that this view is not found anywhere in the pre-modern Islamic legal tradition.''' Source text: "A surprising assertion about consent also appears in a recent monograph by a scholar of Islamic legal history who declares in passing that the Quran forbids nonconsensual relationships between owners and their female slaves, claiming that “the master–slave relationship creates a status through which sexual relations may become licit, provided both parties consent.” She contends that “the sources” treat a master’s nonconsensual sex with his female slave as “tantamount to the crime of zina [illicit sex] and/or rape.” Though I believe in the strongest possible terms that meaningful consent is a prerequisite for ethical sexual relationships, I am at a loss to find this stance mirrored in the premodern Muslim legal tradition, which accepted and regulated slavery, including sex between male masters and their female slaves."

- Kecia Ali(2017). "Concubinage and Consent". International Journal of Media Studies. 49. doi:10.1017/S0020743816001203

My text: Furthermore, the majority of modern Muslims are not aware that Islamic jurists had made an analogy between the marriage contract and sale of concubines and many modern Muslims would be offended by the idea that a husband owns his wife's private parts under Islamic law. Source text: "Most Muslims today either are not aware, or do not like to emphasize, the theoretical presumptions embedded in the Islamic jurisprudence of marriage law because they are quite far from contemporary sensibilities. Established Islamic marriage contract law uses the contract of sale as its basic conceptual framework—a model which leads to some uncomfortable conclusions about what is being sold and the role of women’s agency in that sale. Even more out of step with modernity is a historical context in which slavery and concubinage were socially acceptable. Because of their presumption that a man may legally have sex with his female slave, classical Muslim jurists draw an analogy between a marriage contract and a contract for sale of a concubine, using this analogy to work out the doctrinal details of the respective rights (sexual and otherwise) of a husband and wife."

- Asifa Quraishi-Landes (15 April 2016). "A Meditation on Mahr, Modernity, and Muslim Marriage Contract Law". Feminism, Law, and Religion. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-13579-1. p. 178

Source text: "Polygamy is tolerated in some Muslim circles, but the idea of male ownership of a wife’s sexual parts in marriage would strike most contemporary Muslims as inappropriate and probably offensive to a healthy sexual relationship"

- Asifa Quraishi-Landes (15 April 2016). "A Meditation on Mahr, Modernity, and Muslim Marriage Contract Law". Feminism, Law, and Religion. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-13579-1. p. 1782


 * This is a ridiculous quote you tried to insert:
 * First, surely all 1.6 billion Muslims of the world don't subscribe to this view! All reasonable people should think twice because this is WP:REDFLAG content. This is a WP:FRINGE view among Muslims, not a mainstream view.
 * Second, you'e misrepresented the the author. She gives a diversity of viewpoints in the source that you conveniently ignore: "I, personally, am not convinced that sex with one's female slave is approved by the Quran in the first place." She then goes on to say that even in this fringe view the "ownership" of a human is not like ownership of horses and wheat.
 * And finally, and most critically, the author says,
 * This is from the same source as you quoted. In light of this quote it is obvious why your addition must be removed. You have engaged in WP:CHERRYPICKING with the source and that's against wikipedia policies.VR talk  15:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is from the same source as you quoted. In light of this quote it is obvious why your addition must be removed. You have engaged in WP:CHERRYPICKING with the source and that's against wikipedia policies.VR talk  15:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is from the same source as you quoted. In light of this quote it is obvious why your addition must be removed. You have engaged in WP:CHERRYPICKING with the source and that's against wikipedia policies.VR talk  15:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Just a brief comment because I've already made some these points a lot. Too much unbalanced reliance on Feminist criticism and claims (Kecia Ali in particular) with other sources being synthesized into their arguments oftentimes even contradicting a particular author's argument. Despite the over reliance on (non-classical) modern feminist criticism, McMurphy loathes to include the views of modern scholars (both Muslim and non-Muslim and both on the topic of present and past slavery) except in cases where the obvious POV of the article is being pushed.119.155.36.109 (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

1. The views of 1.6 billon (lay) Muslims are not a criterion in either Islamic jurisprudence or Wikipedia. Besides their views were already represented in the "Modern Muslim views" section. So the WP:FRINGE argument does not apply.
 * 2. In the very next sentence the author says My own reading of the relevant Quranic texts has always led me to a different conclusion than that held by the majority of classical Muslim jurists. Note the word "majority" here. We can't make a WP:FALSEBALANCE between majority and minority viewpoints.
 * 3. Again please note the phrases of this quote I am bolding Theorizing about what could be the commonality between these two situations, these jurists come to the conclusion that some sort of male ownership (the Arabic term is “milk,” meaning control or dominion) is instrumental in legitimizing sexual activity. As Kecia Ali explains in her detailed study of the subject, “a comparison [i]s drawn between the dominion imposed by a husband through which his wife is caused to surrender her sexual self and the sovereignty established by the master [over his slave]” (Ali 2010: 15). Established Islamic jurisprudence therefore often describes marriage as a type of sale, with the item being purchased being a wife’s sexual organs. There are qualitative differences between the rights of a wife and a female slave, of course, and the jurists do carefully lay these out, but nevertheless, the concept of male ownership of women’s sexual parts becomes an important part of the traditional juristic understanding of what makes sex licit in Islam.
 * 4. The issue here seems to be that you want to take modern Muslim viewpoints and take that as the representor of Islam, when the "established traditional jurisprudence" says that sex is licit through male ownership of a woman's private parts.
 * 5. The way forward for resolving this is quite simple. Separate the article into the traditionalist and modernist viewpoints so we can differentiate between the two. I will do that restructuring later.
 * You need to show specific examples like I have done above (quite extensively) to verify the claims you are making. Secondly, Kecia Ali is a leading authority on Islamic jurisprudence. Likewise, you need to keep in mind WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE. We can't give all sources equal weight. We go by consensus views and write content in proportion to the majority and minority views in any given topic. That is why I earlier gave more weight to the view that there was no substantial Islamic aboloitionist movement, because academic consensus says there was none (Ehud R. Toledano) Mcphurphy (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Mcphurphy (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Mcphurphy, you said, "The views of 1.6 billon (lay) Muslims are not a criterion in either Islamic jurisprudence or Wikipedia". I'm glad you mentioned that. The article currently delves into the Armenian genocide and Rape during the Indian partition - yet neither of those have anything to do with Islam per se. In case of rape during the Indian partition, the perpetrators of that weren't all Muslim, plenty of Hindus and Sikhs were involved as well. Not every act of rape or concubinage committed by a Muslim merits inclusion in this article. We already have articles like Slavery in the Ottoman Empire etc. So most of that material should be moved to other articles.VR talk  08:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The rapes and sexual slavery in the armenian genocide and indian partition were clealy examples of islamic sexual slavery. Perhaps we should remove all content in this article dealing with the sexual enslavement of muslim women by non-muslism. Alternatively, we could change the title to Sexual slavery and Islam, which is a much broader topic. And we would be able to cover sexual slavery of Muslim women under that title. Because the scholarly sources say that sexual enslavement of Muslim women by non-muslims would be retaliation for Muslims practising it on non-muslims. So there is a link with Islam of non-muslims practising it on Muslims Mcphurphy (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "The rapes and sexual slavery in the armenian genocide and indian partition were clealy examples of islamic sexual slavery." this is an example of original research. No, just like slavery in Britain was not Christianity slavery or any other slavery has nothing to do with religion.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats not true. Sexual slavery in both cases were done in religious conflicts. Mcphurphy (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A conflict where opposing sides have different religions is not the same as religiously sanctioned slavery. Neither the laws of India, Pakistan or British Raj sanctioned anything of the sort. Islam did sanction slavery and it did exist, but this wasn't it.
 * "Perhaps we should remove all content in this article dealing with the sexual enslavement of muslim women by non-muslism." I agree.VR talk  08:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is about Islam, not, some Muslims did something or make something. This article would only talk about what Islam says about concubinage. See how similar articles are written, like homosexuality in Christianity etc.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well if this article is only about what Islam says about it and not just about the Muslims' practice of it, then lets delete the parts which say "most Muslims today are against slavery." Mcphurphy (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That could work and we could make this article even more specific "Concubinage in Islamic law" or "Concubinage in Islamic jurisprudence". This was we can narrowly limit to what the jurisprudence has to say about this, as opposed to what popular culture might say.VR talk  11:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Then how do we include the history of sexual slavery in the muslim world (and its effects, such as non-muslim retaliation and what the sources say about muslims breaking the Islamic law by sexually enslaving other muslims. The sources make that link) while at the same time referring to its obvious underlying link with the jurisprudence? Moreover, you have not addressed my idea of separating the modern views from what the established jurisprudence says. Nor have you addressed the fact that my content which you were criticising (about male ownership of woman's private parts making sex licit) is part of established jurisprudence. I have shown the quote above and also explained that the article already differentiated between that traditional view from the views of modern Muslims. Mcphurphy (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Geez, I wonder if there was an article that already covered the History of slavery in the Muslim world. Or maybe you can look at specific articles: Arab slave trade, Slavery in the Ottoman Empire, Barbary slave trade etc.
 * I just addressed the idea of separating jurisprudence from popular opinions (modern or otherwise), by narrowing the scope of this article to "Concubinage in Islamic jurisprudence". Do you agree?VR talk  12:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Those articles are on Muslim history of slavery in general. Not Muslim history sexual slavery/concubinage.
 * I don't agree with narrowing the scope of this article (there is no need). A better idea is to separate the topics into separate sections within the same article, as I did in this edit by separating the "modern Muslim" attitudes from the jurisprudence (under the heading "Premodern Islamic views") Mcphurphy (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We keep going in circles. Just a few comments ago you suggested: "lets delete the parts which say "most Muslims today are against slavery.'" But when I proposed narrowing the scope of the article to jurisprudence, you changed your mind.VR talk  12:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend it as a proposal. It was a rhetorical reply to SharabSalam's wrong argument that "This article is about Islam, not, some Muslims did something or make something". I meant that just as we had modern Muslim views, we can also have content about what Muslims did. Mcphurphy (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * (Response to earlier comment)
 * 1 McMurphy, Ehud R. Toledano who you rely so much upon now wasn't even part of the article or discussion until I pointed out that Smith's views were being so badly misrepresented and selectively cited. An issue which has still not been resolved and still does not explain why Smith is cited so often while twisting his points to conform to the edits of some other academic. Smith should have equal wight-age to Toledano especially considering Toledano is being cited from a mere book review while Smith is being cited from a book. This point has already been made by Eperton. There is plenty of praise for Smith's book and his arguments are in many ways supported by the likes of Professors like Jonathan Brown. []


 * 2 Also, even if Toledano's views are considered as gospel (and there is no reason why this should be the case) even his criticism is being misrepresented to some extent. If you read his criticism of Smith [], one of the things he takes issue with is Smith's attempt to create a unified theory of abolition about the entire Muslim world from Morroco to Malaysia and generalize things about Islam (or Islamic societies as he puts it). He regards such an endeavor as simplistic and superficial given the vast cultural, religious and social diversity within Islam. The thing is that Toledano's criticism could actually very well apply to this article and it's treatment of Islamic concubinage as well. This article too tries to create a superficial and simplistic narrative of Islamic Concubinage throughout the centuries, tying it to Prophetic practice (denied by Robinson) and trying to fit in almost unrelated "manifestations" such as partition violence. At least Smith focuses on a relatively short time period and as as an academic can be allowed to engage in original research. Wikipedia editors don't have that liberty.


 * 3 You're the one who needs to keep WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE in mind. As stated Kecia is is reliable but the point was on unbalanced overreliance on feminist criticism. We don't rely too much on a single approach whether it's feminism, Marxism, Euro-centricism or any other analytical approach. Even within her feminist approach, her views are disputed by some equally reliable scholars including harvard professor Intisar Rabb [] and professor Azizah Y. al-Hibri.[][]. You've added dozens of citations from her work without any balancing at all. Why should Smith be so thoroughly be disagreed with while scholars who support your POV simply get a blank cheque?


 * 4 "Separate the article into the traditionalist and modernist viewpoints" I've already pointed out the fallacy of creating such a distinction (at least in the way McMurphy understands it, see above discussions), Islamic scholarship doesn't exist in a vacuum and there is no fixed true jurisprudence or "representor of Islam". You can easily be accused of doing the exact opposite of Vr. Plus you have even rejected the claim that Modernists reject slavery despite the fact that every single Muslim country including those with partially or fully implemented Sharia law ban slavery, often with Islamic justifications. The issue here is that you not only want to highlight the classical position (which is understandable), but essentialize, homogenize, freeze it in time, hold it as the "representor of Islam" (See for example Koreangauteng's quaint comment above about Muslim modernists going against the Quran Al-Hijr) and give the impression that it never evolved at all and any such attempts ended in near dismal failure. This is clearly POV and goes against numerous reliable academic scholars of Islam who discuss both Modernist and Classical positions. Some examples (which have been repeated before) include Khaled Abou El Fadl, Jonathan Brown, Brunchvig and Brockopp. Some of these academics are even cited in the article but only for minor technical and trivial details. The academic consensus you claim is fictitious on this issue as it is on a number of other issues as well. 39.37.151.149 (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Smith has been cited dozens of times in this article. He is a good source for many facts but when his views go against academic consensus that needs to be stated. And the second paragraoh of our article does that quite well by mentioning both Smith's view and the academic consensus which is the opposite of Smith's view.


 * The views of other academics such as Intsar Rabb have also been presented (although Rabb is not mentioned by name). Secondly, to determine what deserves more weight you should check the number of citations each scholar has received. Google Scholar shows a good accounting. So for example Intisar Rabb is cited by 249 whereas Kecia Ali's one book alone has 600 cites.


 * I suggested separating classical Islamic views fromm modern views. This version is a good example. Another point that needs to be noted is that the modern anti-slavery views of Muslims did not exist for most of the time slavery was practised in the Muslim world. So when we talk about the history of slavery in the Muslim world, how are we suposed to include modern views instead of the classical jurisprudential rulings which allowed, for instance, slave beating and forced marriages of slaves and not allowing slave women to cover? How are modern Muslim views against such things relevant to the history of how it was practised historically with the sanction of their contemporary classical scholars? The historical Muslim practice of slavery can't be explained without rference to the views of Islamic jurists in those days Mcphurphy (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Concubinage in pre-Islamic peoples
The article currently says:

The author does say it was condemned by Christians in the Byzantine empire. But I could not find the exact text of "condemned wherever it existed". Especially, since the author also points that concubinage was allowed by the Mazdean faith in Persia, and as practiced in the Sassanian Empire. What is the source for this?VR talk  08:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Quoting the original texts from the Robinson source:


 * 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.


 * I would say its a faithful representation of the source material. "Condemned wherever it existed" is a summary of the positions of the various civilisations Muslims conquered. Even the Mazdean practise was quite different. Mcphurphy (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, where exactly in that quote does it say that the Sassanians and Mazdeans "condemned" concubinage? From what I can see the author says the exact opposite - that they practiced it and officially allowed it.VR talk  17:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems he ignored you and yet still reverts edits he is just wasting time. CircassianBilyal (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

This plain stupid. Stop monopolizing the article, this is not your personal wikipedia section. Firman.Nst (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is not about rapes committed by Muslims
The topic of this article is Concubinage in Islam, not List of rapes committed by Muslims. So we can't just list every horrific rape committed by Muslims in this article, like happened here. The source doesn't mention Islam or anything about Islam. Yes it is true that Muslims have committed rapes (and Muslim women were raped during the same time), but that doesn't belong in this article.

The entire section should be removed. For now I've only reverted the new edits to it, and not removed the previous material, to give time for some discussion first.VR talk  16:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If the sources describe what happened as slavery, concubinage or war booty then they belong to this article. Did you actually read all the cited sources? Do you want me to quote them here on the talkpage again? Mcphurphy (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I did read the source I quoted above. It did not talk about Islam at all. It also talk about concubinage anywhere in that book. If you think this is about "slavery" then take it to slavery. If you think this is about "war booty", take it to war booty. Saying something is related to Islam, when the source says no such thing, is a violation of WP:NOR.VR talk  14:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Noted this too. I've said this before and I'll say it again. Discussing partition violence under such a paradigm is downright absurd. No serious scholar of partition considers partition violence as an example of Islamic concubinage or Sexual slavery. When I asked Mcmurphy to prove that this is what the sources claimed he forwarded sources that turned out to show that this view was held by Hindu fundamentalists and not by any scholar (see above). Other that this he went on an unrelated tangent about Ottoman slavery, and threatened to delete non-Muslim enslavement of Muslims section (which he says provides a counterweight to """apologetics""") as if that is some kind of concession to include the previous equally unrelated content. He also claimed that the sources state that partition slavery was in response to Islamic enslavement and that the Ulema condoned Islamic enslavement here. Again no source can be found for partition. One can find sources for this in the medieval Muslim rule section (Sharma and Smith) but how are fatwas given in the Medieval ages relevant to partition violence? Did anyone cite them and it beggars belief that so many Muslim women were raped and abducted [twice as many compared to non-Muslims according to some sources] in this "manifestation of Islamic Concubinage/Sexual Slavery"? This is just another example of how this article badly homogenizes Islamic history jumping from Prophetic practice to Muslim rule to the modern-day all the while mishmashing and synthesizing sources to create a an originally crafted narrative.39.37.129.3 (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Any instance of Muslims practising sexual slavery belongs in this article. We should also add ISIS rapes to this article. Mentioning "Islam" is not a requirement for inclusion. Many books talk about Ottomans practising concubinage yet don't mention Islam. But its still a no-brainer that it stems from Islam. Scholars have already classified the partition rapes by Muslims under slavery, sex slaves and concubinage. Here are some examples.


 * "Usually, rape and sexual assault were invariably followed by abduction of the victimised women. These abducted women typically became domestic servants and sex slaves. Many abducted women were sold into prostitution and some, in very rare instances, were married to their abductors and later claimed to be leading happy and respectable lives"

- Arunima Dey, Violence Against Women During the Partition of India: Interpreting Women and their Bodies in the Context of Ethnic Genocide, pg. 109


 * "Armed Pathans, operating in bands, were perhaps the worst offenders in West Punjab, especially in the districts of the Rawalpindi division (where they were concentrated), for it was they who systematically preyed upon the refugee trains and convoys, carrying off women to be sold for as little as Rs10 or 20 to Muslim men. Non-Muslim women from Kashmir also were offered for sale in West Punjab, ending up as 'slave girls' in factories. A report from Sargodha district claimed,The Pathans brought a very large number of abducted women and children from the Kashmir front and they had been selling these like cattle and chattel. There were cases in which a woman had been sold thrice or four times. The Pathans had made this a regular trade."

- Andrew Major, ‘The chief sufferers’: Abduction of women during the partition of the Punjab, pg. 62


 * The BBC also has Pakistani jihadis confessing they enslaved non-muslim women after killing their men for not reciting the kalimah. They also say they took them as war booty.


 * ""They shot everyone who couldn't recite the kalima - the Arabic-language Muslim declaration of faith. Many non-Muslim women were enslaved, while many others jumped in the river to escape capture."..."They had returned with war booty," he says. "Some had brought cattle, some horses. Most of them had brought arms, and many brought women. One Afridi tribesman walked back with two women in tow. They wept incessantly and just wouldn't stop."""

- BBC


 * We also know from scholars who have written peer reviewed works on slavery in the subcontinent that these women became part of the international Islamic sex slave trade. Many Arab Muslim countries still had not abolished slavery yet in the 1940s and these poor women were made part of the trade of Islamic concubines.


 * "The Punjabi Sikh and Hindu girls and Kashmiri women are proverbially beautiful, so they were in great demand in the Muslim countries of Africa and the Middle East. They were sold there by the barbarian Muslim kidnappers for very high prices. These ill fated women were confined in their purchasers' harems and bound to accept concubinage"

- Amal Kumar Chattopadhyay, Slavery in India, pg. 129


 * Other sources also list this with the Islamic sex slavery practised by ISIS:


 * "Many Pandits and Sikhs in Kashmir shared a parallel fate as the Yazidi shortly after the partition of India and Pakistan in October 1947. Aided by Pakistani army regulars, Islamist tribesmen descended into the Kashmir valley killing hundreds of Hindu and Sikh men, forcibly converted thousands while raping and taking the women as sex slaves back to Pakistan."

- HuffPost, "How Genocide Brought Together Two Unlikely Communities: The Yazidi & the Hindus"


 * You can't railroad all these sources and pretend that what happened at Partition wasn't another example of Islamic sexual slavery/concubinage. Mcphurphy (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Mcphurphy said That's not the name of this article. Do you wish to start another article with the name List of rapes committed by Muslims? There is a big disconnect between what Islam says about concubinage and the rapes some Muslims have committed in history.VR talk  14:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The name of this article originally when I wrote it was "sexual slavery." You renamed the article forcibly without consensus. Do not think the name change has been accepted yet. The onus is still on you to gain consensus for the change. Mcphurphy (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Mcmurphy, you are simply evading the issue. No scholar considers partition rapes within this framework and you have been unable to show any scholar that agrees with this assessment. Please provide scholarly assessment and not your own arguments. You are once again synthesizing sources to engage in OR. How was twice the numbers of Muslims abducted by Hindus and Sikhs an example of Islamic concubinage? Partition violence was quite clearly two way and your claim (when you don't completely ignore it) that mass scale abductions by Hindus and Sikhs were "mere retaliation" is both unsourced and patent nonsense I might add. If you want I can quote mine aplenty too, to show the horrors that Muslim women were subjected to including from the same sources you are using but this is not the topic of the article as VR notes. For example this source [] says nothing about any Islamic motivation and simply gives a generic account of Hindu and Muslim abductions. Infact the source you quote is not even talking about Muslim sex slavery in particular as it says in the same paragraph:


 * "the issue of abducted women was so widespread that the  governments  of  India  and  Pakistan  established  the  Inter-Dominion Agreement on November 1947 for the recovery of abducted women from  both  sides  of  the  border.  To  begin  with,  9,000  women  were  recovered  from  India  and  over  5,500  from  Pakistan  during  the  first  year  of  the  Recovery  Act.  By  December  1949,  the  numbers  had  risen  to  12,500  Muslim  women  recovered  from  India  and  over  6,200  Hindu  and  Sikh  women  from  Pakistan."


 * Again, an utter misuse of the source which is talking about something completely different ("gender-specific reading  of  partition  genocide" and both Hindu and Muslim abductions). No offence but this is not the first time you have been twisting sources and then claiming a fictional scholarly concencus. First Smith, then Robinson and now this...


 * You also simply don't seem to be getting Eperton and my point about essentailaism and the homogization of history, jumping as you do from medeival slavery to partition and forward. The source about Hindu Pundits is mainly about September 1989, not 1947. The source about the Pathans is about the 1947 Kashmir war not partition again. You simply seem to be incapable of de-alienating events. I have previously mentioned reservations about this relatively unknown Chattopadhyay character as well. Do you really think HuffPo blogs and the BBC are going to argue in favour of characterizing Islam as legitimizing sexual slavery and being its source given their general stances?


 * Earlier I was unsure about the status of this article but by now I am pretty sure that this article is written with a very strong couter-apologetic bias that attempts to preempt what it perceives as "apologetics". In addition to the neurtality tag I believe this article also warrants an expert attention required tag.
 * P.S Multiple users agree with concubinage in Islam including me and Sharabsalaam. Infact noone other than McMurphy has supported the tile Sexual slavery in Islam. This is becomming an edit war once again... 39.37.175.252 (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the previous page move to "concubinage in Islam" as opposed to "sexual slavery in Islam." The history of the content shows that it was always more about the broader topic of sexual slavery. IP, I am unsure how you claim that no scholar considers partition rapes within the framework of sexual slavery? Mcphurphy has provided quotes from at least three scholarly sources which do. Andrew Major, Arunima Dey and Amal Kumar Chattopadhyay. The HuffPost and BBC sources about Hindu Pundits are quite clearly talking about sex slavery in 1947. Also your objection that this was two-sided does not hold much water. The article already accepts that by mentioning both. Another thing you should know is that sex slavery was historically 'two-sided'. It was not unique to Muslims. Just as they took other people's women, others also used to take their women as slaves. So based on that, does that mean we should remove all the content on the history of sex slavery in the Muslim world? There is also a section on Muslim victims. This provides good information about this topic in the history of the Islamic world. Bolanigak (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Bolanigak, did you carefully read my comment? Arunima Dey says nothing about Islamic sexual slavery and its discussion is about "INTERPRETING WOMEN AND THEIR BODIES IN THE CONTEXT OF ETHNIC GENOCIDE". Mcmurphy's qoutation about this scholar considering Partition rapes as Islamic sexual slavery is deceptive as the source is talking about rapes by both Hindus and Muslims, yet Mcmurphy makes no mention of this. I retariate no scholar considers. partition rapes within the framework. Andrew Majors too gives a generic account and I have said my piece on Amal Kumar Chattopadhyay.


 * "The article already accepts that by mentioning both." Then this article is as much about Hindu sexual slavery as it is about Islamic sexual slavery. Mcmurphy is incorrect by linking it exclusively to the latter as he has done multiple times. Please read my extensive discussions with Mcmurphy above.
 * There is no prerequisite that the author call it "Islamic" sexual slavery. That is an absurd requirement and if it were to be followed we would not have any content on the history of sex slavery in and with the Muslim world. Does every source on sex slaves in the Ottoman Empire require a mention of Islam? Sexual slavery was a practice like forced marriage is a practice. It exists and existed among both Muslims and non-Muslims. There are many books which mention how Muslims used to kidnap and enslave Christian women and likewise how Christians used to kidnap and enslave Muslim women, for instance: K. Bekkaoui, White Women Captives in North Africa: Narratives of Enslavement, 1735-1830 (2011). Now are you going to argue that what Muslims did here in North Africa was not "Islamic sexual slavery" just because Christians used to do the same to Muslim women? There is no logic in your proposition. Mcphurphy (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is going nowhere Mcmurphy. You are simply unable to stick to the topic i.e partition violence and have been unable to link partition violence to the topic outside of OR and the beliefs of Hindu fundamentalists. Please see [] and the sources it uses. Nowhere are the rapes linked to Islamic sexual slavery any more than Hindu sexual slavery. Yes I know that there is no hard and fast rule that we have to follow other wikipedia articles (though consistency is important) but it is this article that includes heavily disputed content and so those articles can be used as a precedent for as how to structure them. This is true for other Islam and slavery related articles as well which are not disputed. The partition massacres were spontaneous in innature and while communal were not theologically based.
 * I have already shown you numerous sources fitting this into sex slavery. There is no requirement that there has to be an explicit declaration that this is "Islamic" sexual slavery before Muslims take sex slaves. Otherwise, as Bolonigak says, we could not have any content on the history of this practice in the Muslim world. Do you think each time Ottomans or Barbary pirates kidnapped non-muslims as slaves they flew a banner saying "hey this is Islamic sexual slavery." So please do not create your own rules. Mcphurphy (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Mcmurphy considering the number edits on this article you are the one whos making up rules and I have to say this is not going to last. It's only T-minus a few hours before VR and the other editor contesting your edits is going to engage in reversions again. The Ottoman and Barbary pirates were not similar to what happened at partition... GOD... No scholar says this and please don't apply sleights of hand in your interpretations of the scholars who don't link it to the topic in any way whatsoever. And yes this article is about Islamic sexual slavery/ or concubinage, not sexual slavery in general, we already have an article on that, so please stick to the topic. As stated partition violence was spontaneous and two way in nature. The two way nature is important because this article fails to account for why Hindus and Sikhs raped and enslaved if (assuming what you say is true) the Islamic motivation was paramount from the Muslim side. Yet to hear any convincing response for this.39.37.175.252 (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * IP - it is becoming very difficult to understand what you mean exactly. Are you saying the sources Mcphurphy has listed above are not calling the partition rapes slavery? They very clearly are. I also do not understand your insistence that this was not "Islamic sexual slavery" just because Hindus and Sikhs took sex slaves too. That does not erase the practice of it from the Muslim side. I think you should drop this line. Mcphurphy - I would recommend changing this articles's name to "Sexual slavery and Islam" like Islam and domestic violence. So that the history of sexual slavery's prevalence in interaction with the Muslim world and its history can be covered more broadly. Dr Silverstein (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Silverstein, I'll try to keep this brief. As pointed out the [] article makes no mention of the Islamic nature of sexual slavery. The sexual slavery practiced by the Barbary corsairs in the pre-19th century and partition violence from the 20th century was clearly poles apart (though both horrific in nature) and words do indeed fail me if people fail to see such a distinction between these centuries apart and geographically apart occurrences. The former was indeed theologically motivated to some extent (although some corsairs were interested in plunder as well) but partition violence was a spontaneous example of mass rapes. There was no legal sanction for partition slavery considering its haphazard nature from both sides. Mcmurphy trying to tie its justification to medeival fatwas that Muslims never even heard about or cited is even more bizzare. This has happened in India where Muslims are not involved as well. For example yet noone would call this Hindu sexual slavery or inspired or included under such a label.39.37.157.86 (talk) 07:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not "Islamic rape" or "Islamic sexual slavery", because the source makes no connection to Islam whatsoever. When you take a source that doesn't make that connect and then make the connection yourself, that constitutes WP:OR. Not all rapes or sexual slavery that happens in the world is connected to Islam, even if a Muslim does it. Take the example of terrorism. Kurdistan Workers' Party is regarded as a terrorist organization and its composed entirely of people who are either Muslim or of Muslim background - yet it is not an example of Islamic terrorism, because they are motivated by a different ideology.VR talk  15:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * IP there is no comparison between rapes during riots and rapes where Muslims abducted non-muslim women during partition and sold them as chattel and kept them as sex slaves or forced wives. Mcphurphy's sources have already clarified that what happened at partition is sexual slavery and concubinage. And any practice of sexual slavery by Muslims belongs in this article. Period. Muslims ran a slave trade for 1350 years. From the time of Muhammad to the 1960s. The normative practice of Muslims was to kidnap any non-muslim they could find and enslave them because they regarded any non-muslim who did not have an explicit treaty or contract with a Muslim government to be a "harbi." This is how numerous non-Muslim Africans and Europeans were enslaved by Muslims. Through raids, piracy and kidnappings. The sanction for this had already been laid down 1400 years ago and Muslims did not need to go back and open their books each time they kidnapped non-muslims to seek justification for their slave trade. And the Chattyopadhyay source quoted by Mcphurphy clearly shows that the non-Muslim women kidnapped by Pakistanis were made part of the slave trade in the Muslim Middle East, which had still not abolished slavery at the time. And the sources say women were part I also find Vice regent's assertion that Muslim rapes need to be "theologically motivated" for them to stay in this article to be dishonest. If that is so, why does he keep on removing this sentence (which is cited to two sources) which say that Pakistani Army rapes in 1971 had theological motivations (backing in fatwa)? "Mullahs and a West Pakistani fatwa declared that Bengali Hindu women could be treated as war booty.[199][200] Tikka Khan ordered that Bengalis be turned into "slaves and concubines."[201]" I also note that Vice regent keeps on removing "and concubines" from the second part of Khan's quote. Bolanigak (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Bolanigak, I'm honestly just ready to give up. That you can surmise over a thousand years of what represents "a complex and multifaceted body of Islamic thought" in such sweeping terms in a small paragraph by compensating substance with buzzwords like "harbi" is simply not possible to properly contest in such a short space, I'll wait for Eperton to come around, and in the meanwhile find out information about Indian Muslim King's homosexual paramours (there were actually many) since that obviously also includes the practice of sexual slavery. This is Koreangauteng-esque gibberish all over again... Could you, in the meantime bother to read our discussion with Mcmurphy about Robinson and keep track of the points that have already been covered. I could say much more including a point about an anachronistic 1400 year old sanction, this obscure and unheard of non-mainstream source like Chattyopadhyay, the complete lack of explanation for Hindu and Sikh enslavement according to this paradigm not to say anything about essentialism and the homogization of history but I'll hold my peace for now. Might as well say that the "war on terror" began 1400 years ago as well. To refer to this in South Asian terms, heavy communal interpretations of history seem to be in fashion no doubt considering the state of affairs across the region. This point is a digression but I feel entitled to it after engaging so long on this talkpage... Plus can someone please report this editwar and get this page protected again so we can engage in yet another pointless debate about what was the NOCON version this time around. According to me it was Mcmurphy who started it after a hiatus of one month but I am honestly beyond caring on this point.39.37.181.243 (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also a final point, while I do not believe Chattyopadhyay is a reliable source, if he is indeed (and I am willing to consider that) would you agree in adding the following text to the article perhaps paraphrased if it is too long? Even Chattyopadhyay does not seem to agree with the theological motivations being given here by Bolanigak.:

""many Muslim slave-owners, on the eve of their death, liked to release their slaves from bondage. They did so in accordance with the teachings of their Prophet Muhammed, who had always taught his disciples not to own slaves. Muhammed, further, laid down that the soul of any master, who would release at least one of his slaves before he dies, would go to Behasta (heaven), and God himself would receive him there He asked his followers to treat the captive slaves generously. Moreover, the Koran never admitted slavery as a recognised institution. And the Muslim slave- owners of India generally treated their slaves generously and leniently throughout the Muslim rule." (pg 28 'Slavery in India”)"


 * My point here is to highlight the complications in treating what is Islamic and what is not especially when it comes to interpretations of classical Islamic positions and texts as well as these scholars who are talking about them. Let's not be sweeping here and err on the side of caution. The structure and flow of this article (as well as editors like Bolanigak) clearly makes assumptions and impressions that actually contradict various points of the source material and the authors.39.37.181.243 (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , The paradigm of slavery in the Muslim world was no different to slavery in the rest of the world. There was nothing specifically theological about it. In that sense it was no different to child marriage which was practised among all religions. Like Muslims, non-muslims also used to take slaves and concubines. There are multiple mentions in this article itself of non-muslims enslaving and taking Muslim concubines. There are also instances described where Muslims enslaved fellow Muslims - which is forbidden in Islamic law. Most slaves were obtained by Muslims through random or systematic kidnapping, mostly of non-muslims, outside battle. The multiple sources in this article attest to this. Kidnapped people were sold and traded as chattel. The fact that they were sold made them property. And this is the definition of slave - a person who is bought and owned by someone who can sell them in turn - especially in Islam. The sexual slavery during partition on both sides is part of the same paradigm as the slavery historically practised in both the Muslim and non-muslim worlds. On the Muslim side this is proven by the fact that the non-Muslim women who Pakistanis kidnapped were sold and traded like chattel and many of them were also sent off as concubines to harems in the Middle East. Muslim countries in the Middle East still had slavery until the 1960s.


 * For these reasons I favour the title of "Sexual slavery and Islam" as opposed to "Sexual slavery in Islam." The article is obviously about the history of the interaction of the practice of sexual slavery with the Muslim world and its intersection with Islamic law, than specifically about sexual slavery "in" Islam. The latter is a very narrow topic and would probably just be about sexual slavery's status within Islamic jurisprudence instead of the history of how the Muslim world practised it. Muslims used to enslave fellow Muslims, which is forbidden in Islam. But sources still describe it as part of slavery in the Muslim world even though it had no theological support. This weakens IP's argument that the article should only include instances of enslavement by Muslims where Islamic theology was explicitly cited as support for the practice. Most slaves in the Muslim world in the 18th-20th centuries were actually kidnapped Muslims. But sources still cover all instances of slavery in the Muslim world as part of their discussion of the history of slavery in Islam, regardless of whether the jurisprudence allowed it or not. Because there was also an intersection of this practice with the jurisprudence.


 * We already have precedent, for my suggested solution, in articles such as Islam and domestic violence. The "and" allows a broader coverage of both the history of the subject's interaction with the Muslim world and the connection of the subject to the Islamic jurisprudence. The Islam and domestic violence article includes both the incidence of that subject in the Muslim world and the Islamic jurisprudence views about it. The same should happen here. This article should be renamed "Sexual slavery and Islam." Dr Silverstein (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The article Islam and domestic violence doesn't list every instance of domestic violence perpetrated by a Muslim, and nor should it. If you don't believe me, we can totally ask this question at Talk:Islam and domestic violence. So even with the "and" this article will not, and should not, list every instance of rape or sexual slavery perpetrated by Muslims.
 * The name "sexual slavery", as opposed to concubinage, is problematic for at least two reasons: 1) it is quite a WP:POVTITLE, and 2) as I explain below, it is not a WP:COMMONNAME when considering that most reliable source call Maria the Copt or Hafsa Hatun as "female slave" and "concubine" but few, or even none, call them as "sex slave" or "sexual slave".VR talk  08:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is an entire table of country-wise list of incidence of domestic violence, both old and new, in the Muslim world. Would you like to convert our information on incidence by region into a table format?
 * The examples you have given of individual names are red herrings. Look at the actual terms themselves, not individual ladies. The term sexual slavery is indeed the WP:COMMONNAME. Compare the hits of Sexual slavery in Islam with Concubinage in Islam. Again here on Google scholar:  vs . The term "concubinage" is a POV euphemism. Mcphurphy (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sexual slavery and Islam is not a good suggestion either. It is not WP:COMMONNAME and has less hits than Sexual slavery in Islam. Mcphurphy (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * "The paradigm of slavery in the Muslim world was no different to slavery in the rest of the world. There was nothing specifically theological about it." Dr Silverstein, that's actually precisely the issue at hand here. McMurchy and this article clearly and most emphatically maintain that it most certainly does! It's chowk full of alleged theological motivations starting with an anachronistic discussion of jurisprudence and progressing from there. And this is in contradiction to many sources that have now been examined, this Indian scholar being the most recent of them. As a test, would you agree or disagree with his statement Mcmurphy?


 * As a second point slavery was always banned in Pakistan from its inception so there clearly is a difference between the practice of slavery before and its illegal varient here. Your claim about slavery being legal till 1960 in this context about partition is factually incorrect or misleading. Partition violence was a communal frenzy not an exercise in slave taking and infact concubinage was a secondary activity in what was non-theologically (but still communally) motivated ethnic/religious cleansing. This had never occurred before in the history of South Asia. Neither the government of India or Pakistan condoned or encouraged the acts though armed militias did. Though this is a very loose comparison the partition violence and past slavery could be compared to anti-Semetic pogroms by Christians and the later holocaust. The former had clear theological motivations but the latter though related (according to some scholars) was a different kind of modern atrocity. As I said it's a loose comparison but I hope I can carry the emphasis here. 39.37.181.243 (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Being legal or illegal makes no difference to the existence of a practice. Slavery is also constitutionally illegal in Sudan. Yet scholarly sources say that the Sudanese government secretly allowed its soldiers to take slaves in the Sudanese civil war. I can also show you sources about the Pakistani government's similar discreet and illegal sanctions for violence and abduction of women. For example,
 * "In this nefarious design, the Pakistan Government made an internal secret agreement called “Zen and Zar “with the Pathan mercenaries according to which if Mirpur city was captured, the captured women would be taken by the Pathans and the immovable property would be the share of Pakistan Government."

- C P Gupta, Fall of Mirpur, The Daily Excelsior Mcphurphy (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That source doesn't look reliable. We have no idea who the author "C P Gupta" is; the author doesn't even bother giving a first name. No references are cited.VR talk  13:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The source is definitely reliable. Its a widely circulated daily. The author's full name is Chander Prakash Gupta. And the information he gives about the Pakistani government's complicity is corroborated in multiple other sources. For example
 * "No one could predict how long this sold-off woman would remain there. These poor women were housed by the government in the Kunja camp as there was fighting going on in Kashmir. The army handed them over to us when they were useless...All 600 had been used by the Pakistani army...Pakistan's attitude was that it should be thankful that it had managed to recover so many women. Naturally, they would not admit that they had any hand in the situation the women found themselves in."

- Borders and Boundaries


 * There are many sources on the complicity of Pakistani state.Mcphurphy (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * McMurphy there is a lot of Indo-Pak propaganda and narratives that needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Take a look at the popular Swarajya (magazine) and the things it claims. It'd be right up your alley. Partition was a pretty hectic situation and the general scholarly consensus is that the highest authorities on both sides did what they could to minimize the violence. The source you give notes that soldiers engaged in rape but the Pakistani government recovered them and this is noted from both sides. Moreover, the sexual violence again seems to be similar to Korean comfort women situations and does not seem to have anything to with "Islam" in particular. Also with your previous source, you're once again conflating the Kashmir war with partition but enough about that.
 * I wanted to point out that I support the inclusion of Dr Silverstein's most recent edit. One can nitpick some problems ("argues against those who claim" instead of "has refuted" would be better for example) but it is the factual opinion of an Islamic scholar. I do not find it contentious or undue and it is actually a step in the right direction to break this article out of stasis and make it more NPOV (This section was actually my first concern on this article). The statement is in context seeing as it is about ISIS in the modern Muslim views section and can corroborated by other similar statements made by reliable modern Islamic scholars.39.37.181.243 (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You are engaging in WP:OR and your claims about (non-existent) scholarly consensus are unsubstantiated. Its generally accepted that the partition violence was not spontaneous or a "pretty hectic situation". It was quite organised.. Plenty of scholarly sources talk about the complicity of the Pakistani state. One Muslim member of the Legislative Assembly was said to have five hundred girls in his possession in West Punjab, while an abducted Muslim girl from a well-known family was reported to be with the Maharaja of Patiala. In West Punjab police officials, members of the Muslim League and landed magnates were involved The Muslim League was the ruling party of Pakistan at the time. I can also show you sources which say that the Pakistani Prime Minister ordered attacks on Hindu trains after which Hindu girls were "distributed" among Muslims. The book "Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947" also documents the role of the Pakistani state in the partition violence. Pakistani scholars such as Ishtiaq Ahmed have corroborated that book's statements and say its claims can be independently verified. Admittedly there was some state involvement on the Indian side too[vhttps://scroll.in/article/813521/did-sardar-patel-order-the-eviction-of-muslims-from-delhi-villages], but those were mainly Sikh princely states. In almost every account given in the book Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947 there are details of the Pakistani military involvement in the killing of Hindus and Sikhs and taking of their women. You are also standing on thing ground by claiming this has nothing to do with Islam. "Jihad" was proclaimed against minorities and maulvis forcibly converted people to Islam. Here is what is said in Chapter 4 of Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947: "Later they were distributed among the Muslims to be kept as concubines or were forcibly married." Clearly, this is part of historical Muslim practice of concubinage. .Mcphurphy (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And who exactly is "Chander Prakash Gupta"? Is he a professor? Some academic? Google search doesn't show much. In any case, he's not connecting this to Islam in any way.VR talk  04:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The IP looks like they are hairsplitting. Lots of sources connect the sexual violence by Muslims during partition to Islam and age old enslavement practised by Muslims It's as clear as day. Vishnu Sahib (talk)
 * Vishnu Sahib, there is a lot of source degradation in the sources being presented now. Your presented source is a very strong example of this as was the previous article by Mcmurphy. Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947 is reliable I believe but even Mcmurphy is being forced to equivocate now. For instance why did the Deputy Prime Minister of India have direction over Sikh princely states and Delhi isn't part of a Sikh princely state. The source you give makes no mention of this. And the mass rapes of so many Muslim women is simply unaccounted for in this "historical Muslim practice of concubinage". I know some have responded to this argument but I once again maintain that these abductions can not be viewed as tit for tat responses to Muslim provocations as McMurphy insists.


 * This source even says the situation you describe has "chilling parallels" to the 2002 Gujrat riots (which was by Hindus). Was that an example of historical Muslim practice of concubinage too? The thing is that the partition violence by both Hindus and Muslims, Calcutta killing violence, and we can add all the riots in India we can think of Moplah, anti-Sikh, Nokhali, everything here  and here  all belong to an inter-communal violence category not a purely Islamic one.


 * I'll also need a second opinion on this. Please try to add this seemingly crucial information (which is omitted there) on partition violence or violence against women in partition and we'll see if editors can gain consensus about the purely Islamic theological motivations of partition violence. Plus you know what I mean by hectic situation. The Gujrat riots as well as many other riots and pogroms like the Anti-Sikh riots, were for example organized and managed in a certain manner but were nonetheless hectic and out of control cases of mob violence as well. I don't deny the semi-organized nature of it but the idea that partition violence was preplanned from the start is something I do have a hard time believing. In any case the Pakistani involvement is unimportant for the purposes of this article, the Islamic motivation on the other hand is so let's focus on that and not get sidetracked.39.37.181.243 (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Vishnu Sahib: the source you cited here is super unreliable. Mcphurphy has also cited unreliable sources in this section.VR talk  03:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The source of Vishnu Sahib which you call "super unreliable" has been cited by 25 scholarly sources.. I too have not cited any "unreliable source" either. Sources don't become unreliable just because you don't like them. Mcphurphy (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Citations by scholarly sources don't make a source reliable. Scholarly sources cite unreliable sources for a variety of purposes. But if you want, we can take this to WP:RSN. And yes, you have cited sources where not much is even known about the author (who doesn't even provide their full name).VR talk  04:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Discuss first
Mcphurphy, we were discussing changes on this article a few weeks ago. Then you disappeared for a month (the last comments were mine and you never responded to them). Now you come back out of the blue and start reverting and make other changes without even discussing? Many of your recent changes also have spelling errors. I'm reverting these changes for now. Please continue the discussion. Please don't disturb the status-quo without discussing first.VR talk  16:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Its your version which has restored spelling and other kind of errors. For example you have changed a coherent sentence ("However, Islamic jurists held that non-muslims who lived in areas which had formal pacts with Muslims were to be protected from enslavement.") to this incoherent gibberish ("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").
 * And if you are so serious about discussing new changes first before making them then lets first switch back to the longstanding version of the article before you and the now topic banned editors (Arsi786 and SharabSalam) made so many cuts without discussion (and when I opened discussion on the talkpage you hardly responded). Mcphurphy (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mcphurphy. The real status quo must be restored be. Mcphurphy raised the new changes being made then here on talk. Vice regent did not reply. I am restoring the longstanding version as it stood before 17 May. The onus is on Vice regent to get consensus for all the cuts which were made after 7 May. You can't just bulldoze your way through and demand that the status quo be your POV version which everyone must take as the starting point for discussion. Bolanigak (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your observation . You're right. We should begin discussion from the start of the dispute. And for the meantime keep the status quo version before the dispute started.
 * also disagreed with VR's mass changes and removal of content I had put a lot of effort into writing. See  I gave quotes from the sources to prove every single sentence which VR had removed without consensus. Here, here and here. But VR did not respond to most of my points and kept on making more changes without consensus. VR is not being careful. They have to get consensus for every sourced sentence they want to remove. Mcphurphy (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Mcphurphy you say: They have to get consensus for every sourced sentence they want to remove.
 * That is wrong. WP:ONUS clearly says,
 * "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."
 * Anyone can look at the Talk page history and see Mcphurphy last commented on 00:05, May 26, 2020‎. After that I commented on two separate occasions (04:22, May 26, 2020‎ and 21:59, May 27, 2020‎) with no response from Mcphurphy. Then, suddenly Mcphurphy comes on June 25, 2020‎ and starts making edits that include reverts without any discussion on the talk page. Anyone has the right to take a break from editing. But you can't come back from the break and make the same old reverts without discussion and consensus.VR  talk  14:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to read WP:NOCON. It says: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. "
 * Since there was no consensus last month to remove material we need to retain the article as it was before Arsi786's edit on 17 May.
 * Please desist from further changes till we resolve the dispute here. Mcphurphy (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It depends on how you define consensus. If you are talking about consensus where people come on the talk page and explicitly agree, then no such consensus has existed in the short history of the article. As soon as you created this article, it became under dispute. If you are talking about consensus in terms of a long standing version, then this version, when the article was protected, was the long-standing version until you came and made your controversial edits in the last two days.VR talk  15:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope that is not how it works. That is a blatant misinterpretation of policy. This article has existed since 4 April and did not come under dispute until the disruptive topic banned editor Arsi786 made contentious removals starting from 17 May. Those removals were contested by me on the talk page. And for the most part those objections were not responded to. So its lack of consensus for these removals which is at issue here. Since there is obviously no consensus in favour of these removals we ought to keep the pre-removals version of the article per WP:NOCON and start discussion from that point. The protected version of 21 May is not the longstanding version just because its your preferred one lol. Mcphurphy (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus for the article before May 17, now was there? Much of the article's content is disputed. The protected version is not my preferred one. As mentioned in above sections, I would like to make drastic edits, but its best to do so with discussion.VR talk  15:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOCON does not care for whether there was consensus for the material before its bold removal or not. It simply says that the version before the bold edit should be retained if there is no consensus for that bold edit. The bold edits were Arsi786's and yours. So we need to restore that version. Mcphurphy (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. Your contentious additions to the article can be considered Bold Edits too. And Arsi786 and me aren't the only ones to have challenged your edits. Plenty of others have too.VR talk  16:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with VR. There is no consensus for the previous version and for the most part my objections (see above) were ignored which was easy to do since I didn't engage in an edit war. Epertron clearly notes that this article requires improvement and states "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." Most of his points are just more carefully worded objections of my own points for example, he notes the essentializing nature of this article as well. At most he gives Mcmurphy benefit of the doubt and praises his hard work (no doubt the article was hard to put together) since it is hard to check the sources for himself, and as I have shown quite a few of the sources are indeed misrepresented. Epertron also recommended Professor Jonathan Brown's book and Mcmurphy even agreed with its addition when I mentioned it above but there does not seem to be any move in that direction for now.On the other hand some of the changes like renaming the article from Sex slavery to concubinage do have consensus. Bolonigak and Mcmurphy are also trying to revert even my wellsourced corrections of Robinson without any discussion. Among other things I do dispute the neutrality of this article and the relevance of unrelated and topic straying content like partition violence (no need to rehash arguments for now) but in any case any changes need to be discussed here before attempting ninja like reversions.


 * Also user showed interest in this article on his talkpage. Can you give your opinion as well?39.37.129.3 (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edits concerning Robinson and Umayyads have been restored. Don't worry. Mcphurphy (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with . Vice regent either does not get it or is being deliberately deceptive. The bold edits started from 17 May. Those edits were contested. No consensus was gained for those bold edits. So revert back to the version which was here before that. And, don't quote half of 's comment. They also said "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 also agree that the onus of consensus is on Vice regent of they want to remove these passages. The bold edit is theirs. Respect WP:NOCON and no one must do any more reverts. 76.69.117.20 (talk)


 * I have looked through Mcphurphy's sources. They seem to corroborate his version of the article. It does not appear you seem to have considered the whole list of source quotes compared against Mcphurphy's text. Can I ask how you have claimed in a mere one or two sentences that they are all problematic? So far you have only raised issues with one or two sentences. You have not managed to explain issues with that entire list. So the mass removal really appears unjustified. Maybe you could have removed those one or two sentences which you specifically raised issues with on the discussion. But you have gone overboard. Dr Silverstein (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Many of the objections with that are listed in the sections above, I'll summarize below. But my general idea here is that we should stick to the month long status quo (which is not my preferred version) for the sake of article stability. If I was go and edit all the sources Mcphurphy has misrepresented, the user would likely revert back, and the article would become unstable again. What I'm advocating right now is to discuss first and then edit. Do you not agree with this approach? As shown above, Mcphurphy didn't respond on this talk page for a month and then reverted, and only discussed on this talk page when I pointed out he wasn't discussing.
 * The objections can be summarized as:
 * Mcphurphy attributes text to sources where the source is saying no such thing. (Example: Talk:Concubinage_in_Islam)
 * Mcphurphy selectively quotes from a source. For example, Mcphurphy added:A prophetic hadith permitted corporal punishment and Ibn al-Jawzi stated that both slaves and wives should put up with physical mistreatment. But the source also says this in the same paragraph that Mcphurphy omitted: Islamic law strictly prohibited the molestation of dependants, but subordination in the protected sphere of the household made it hard to police transgressions
 * Mcphurphy uses sources that are not considered reliable. For example, Mcphurphy uses: Mubarakpuri, Saifur Rahman (1998). When the Moon Split. And if someone thinks that this source is reliable, perhaps we should also add to Wikipedia that prophet Muhammad was able to split the moon.
 * Mcphurphy uses primary sources to create a narrative. For example, the section Concubinage_in_Islam is almost entire written of primary sources (some of them are scholarly translations of Arabic primary sources, which still makes them primary)
 * Much of Mcphurphy's additions are unrelated to this topic. He believes Any instance of Muslims practising sexual slavery belongs in this article. We simply can't allow this article to become "List of rapes committed by Muslims".
 * Finally, some of his edits are against wiki policies (for example he continues to lead the article with "Sexual slavery in Islam..." even though the consensus was to move the article to Concubinage in Islam and thus the lead should start with that).VR talk  14:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Vice regent, how can you claim that this is the status quo version? The status quo was the version before the dispute began on 17 May when Arsi786 started removing content without any consensus.
 * Now lets take a look at your objection.
 * "Mcphurphy attributes text to sources where the source is saying no such thing. (Example: Talk:Concubinage_in_Islam)"
 * Reply: That is a sweeping claim to make. If you want I can repeat the process I did here and list down quotes from the sources for each sentence to prove verifiability of my content. Its time consuming but I am willing to do so.
 * I am wiling to consider the other objections. But WP:PRIMARY says that primary sources can be used with care and as long as we do not interpret them. I have been careful to stick to the sources and not add any interpretation where primary sources have been cited.
 * The example you gave of the text on Ibn Jawzi is not an instance of selective quotation. That text is in a section called "Overview of slave-concubines' experiences." And the paragraph concerns the history of how the female slaves were treated in the Muslim world. Multiple sources cited there such as Pernilla and Ayesha Chaudhry discuss the extensive history of Muslim violence against female slaves and its permissibility in Islamic law, respectively. So I needed to include Ibn Jawzi's opinion to make the reader understand how such violence against slaves was sustainable in the Islamic world for so long. And if I was being selective then why would I write this ("The slave owner was also encouraged to not use excessive violence")?
 * The original title of this article was sexual slavery, not concubinage. That is also the more common name. Compare the hits for both terms on Google Scholar:. You moved the page without consensus. Mcphurphy (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I should point out that this discussion about Nocon is (to me) a technical triviality compared to the very real problems with the article I have been ranting about for quite some time now. No one other than Mcmurphy is actually defending his version of the article holistically. My point with Eperoton's comment was that he too has mentioned a number of different problems with this article for example this article giving an incorrect impression that Islam was the cause of concubinage rather than a regulator of it, the argument that Islam improved the lot of slaves and that beginning the article with a discussion of jurisprudence is anachronistic. Mcmurphy can even be seen arguing against Eperoton as he can be with every other editor who has commented on the articles content. There are a lot of issues with this article beyond this isuue and Mcmurphy seems to act as if he has a monopoly on it (98% edits).


 * P.S. McMurphy There is a concensus for Concubinage in Islam. I am not too adept in technical matters but Sharab Salam has already given some arguments in favor of Concubinage as the common name. You are also ignoring my own arguments given above as well. Editwarring like this and ignoring arguments is not going to end well and saying that Sex slavery was the original title is not very convincing since you created it.
 * Islam was the cause of concubinage. The Robinson source says that concubinage increased among Arabs in the lifetime of Muhammad due to military conquests. It was uncommon among Arabs before Muhammad. And in many other civilisations, Robinson says, concubinage was dying out by the time Islam came and revitalised it throughout the Middle East. In fact academics say this was the way Islam spread in the non-muslim Middle East, through sex slavery. I can also show scholarly sources saying the same about the spread of Islam in South Asia. Has any other religion spread in that manner? Also there is no consensus for the page move. I objected to it and showed why it was not the common name. Mcphurphy (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry Mcmurphy but I disagree. Eperoton also disagrees and most importantly Robinson disagrees. I have said all I can about Robinson above and you broke off the discussion above. Now you are just ignoring everything I said and repeating the same things over and over again. Robinson notes that concubinage spread under the Umayyads yes (previously you refused to admit even this and falsely claimed that he linked it to prophetic practice and this article also still does, my minor edit notwithstanding) but he says nothing about the spread of Islam being linked to it and his main point is about refuting its link to prophetic practice and yes the ancient Middle East as well. Another example of egregious OR. Also concubinage was fairly common within India and China and Robinson specifically mentions Sassanid Persia. Changing "not a common practice in Late Antique Middle East" with "condemned wherever it existed is also an example of a sleight of hand that this article regularly employs. Eperoton has already made these points and if you are not going to listen to his affable comments, I doubt you are going to listen to me either.


 * "Has any other religion spread in that manner?" McMurphy comments such as these and others are making it increasingly clear to me that this article was written with an axe to grind rather than a scholarly interest. Your POV edits on other articles such as rape in Islamic law only strengthen my suspicion in this regard. This article needs serious scholarly attention to make it into a factual and reliable article rather than a hitpiece on Islam. In that regard I reiterate my request for expert attention on this article.
 * Please assume good faith. WP:AGF. I was not speaking my personal views, but merely reiterating whatever is in the reliable sources. And please don't claim to speak for Eperoton and let the man talk for himself. I have also already removed "condemned whatever it existed" as you asked so its unfair for you to raise that point again.


 * As for Robinson, you can verify my text which is in the article from the source. I will quote it here. Note he is speaking here not of the Umayyads, but of the men in Muhammad's generation.


 * "It is clear that, although there are some reports of concubines producing children for the men from before Muammad's generation, they are infrequent and found solely in the generations of his father and grandfather. Like the absence of concubinage in earlier generations, this finding concurs with the traditional narrative sources; concubinage was uncommon in pre-Islamic Arabian society, but this changed for the men of Muhammad's generation as a consequence of military conquests."

- Majied Robinson, Concubines and Courtesans: Women and Slavery in Islamic History, pg.17 Mcphurphy (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * McMurphy I am merely quoting Epertons own comments. I don't like quoting but:


 * "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."


 * "I think that starting the article with a discussion of jurisprudence is anachronistic."


 * As for Robinson, Mcmurphy you have cited this before and I have responded to it. Robinson clearly states that  concubinage was a marriage practice adopted early in the Umayyad period and his point about concubinage in Muhammad's time later builds up to this point. He explicitly denies any parallels with prophetic practice, do I have to re-quote that too, and if so haw many times?


 * You're accepting some of my (and Robinsons) points while rejecting others which are linked to the first point, which is quite confusing and yet another example of cherrypicking. Robinson most certainly provides evidence for the claim that the Umayyands and not prophetic practice was responsible for Islamic concubinage.
 * P.S I don't find the quote ""Has any other religion spread in that manner?" " sourced at all. It is most certainly a personal opinion. An incorrect one as well but that's another matter.


 * 39.37.175.252 (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Robinson clearly attributes it to the prophetic practice. How do you explain this text? "concubinage was uncommon in pre-Islamic Arabian society, but this changed for the men of Muhammad's generation as a consequence of military conquests. Mcphurphy (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Mcmurphy, how do you expalin this? "[]. I don't wish to type the text so please read the third paragraph carefully. He quite clearly does not attribute normative Islamic concubinage to Prophetic practice and explicitly says so. Please stop misrepresenting Robinson's point. He's quite explicit about his claims and leaves no room for doubt.


 * On a different note, I'm actually quite curious about a recent claim you made namely "I can also show scholarly sources saying the same about the spread of Islam in South Asia." The spread of Islam is a pretty disputed issue especially in South Asia. There are multiple theories about it's spread, all contested and I find it curious that you know the answer to a question that has stumped so many scholars. More strangely, your theory that Islam spread in South Asia through Sex slavery (this is different from its existence) is not one that I have come across in academic treatments of the subject matter. Is it a mainstream or a fringe theory? Infact wikipedia's article on the spread of Islam in South Asia [] make no mention of this seemingly important fact and neither do any other article (either on or outside Wikipedia) I have come across. At most the issue of concubinage was relevant during the Umayyad times when Muslims were small in number but studies of Islam in South Asia that I have come across focus on the missionary angle and do not give this point much weight at all. Moreover, studies have shown that the genetic impact of Muslim concubinage in India was quite negligible especially considering (as this article notes), it was only prevalent amongst the elite (see for example []). Genuinely curious about the sources 111.119.187.47 (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Read this source for impact of concubinage on South Asian Muslim population growth. And you did not answer my question about Robinson saying that concubinage increased dramatically in the generation of Muhammad. You can't answer a question with another question. Mcphurphy (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it'll take some time to read it and see how it connects to my question but on the surface the source seems to be about the political machinations around and about 1857 with little focus given to concubinage (though I have yet to read it carefully).39.37.181.243 (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The above is yet another example of Mcphurphy misquoting the sources. He claims that this text: "concubinage was uncommon in pre-Islamic Arabian society, but this changed for the men of Muhammad's generation as a consequence of military conquests." implies concubinage came from the prophetic practice. Yet, just because something happens in someone's generation doesn't mean they caused it. The text clearly says it happened as a "consequence" (meaning after) the conquests and we know that happened under the Rashidun and Umayyads (after Muhammad's death). "Muhammad's generation" can most certainly apply to the founder of the Umayyad dynasty, Muawiya. In fact Robinson directly says the opposite of what Mcphurphy wants him to say over here: "Having exhausted the possibility that the behavior was borrowed we will turn to another seemingly obvious source of chance in marriage behavior - the Quran and Prophetic practice. Here too we will find no obvious parallels between revelation and normatic Islamic concubinage. Instead, it will be suggested that the emergence of was a result of the unique set of circumstances faced by the Muslims of the Umayyad era...." Despite this Mcphuphy insists Robinson clearly attributes it to the prophetic practice.VR talk  14:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

That explanation does seem to clear up the seeming contradictions in Robinson's work that Mcmurphy clings to. Its also quite clearly what he means to say. It's also rather hard to categorize these generations considering Muhammad had uncles his own age or even younger than him. Muwaviya could certainly be included amongst them as could (and in fact is) Ali. 39.37.181.243 (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC) Mcphurphy (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Mcphurphy (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A couple of pages down your cited Robinson source, after almost affirming your POV, Robinson immediately goes back and affirms that concubinage became larger among Arabs as soon as the conquests began. These conquests happened in the time of Umar. "Despite this, according to the narrative suggested by the trends in the nasab data, the Arabs took concubines in large numbers as soon as the conquest began." Mcphurphy (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @Mcphurphy why do you always quote the source out of context? Robinson says:
 * "Concubines were still uncommon amongst Muslims of the Prophetic era; this is supported by the near-complete absence of unambiguous references to the institution in the Qur'an and recorded Prophetic practice. Despite this, according to the narrative suggested by the trends in the nasab data, the Arabs took concubines in large numbers as soon as the conquest began."
 * VR talk  12:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I already said. He almost affirmed your POV but then immediately went back and reaffirmed his other statement that the expansion of concubinage happened as soon as the conquests began/i.e. during the Prophetic period. How do you explain the second sentence? The first sentence relies on absence of information from Quran and Hadith. But the second sentence relies on Nasab data. In other words the second conclusion has evidence. The first was a mere hypothesis which he refuted in the next sentence. Mcphurphy (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The first is a statement of fact: "Concubines were still uncommon amongst Muslims of the Prophetic era". It is not qualified. The second statement doesn't refute the first sentence because they are talking about different periods of time. Finally, the nasab data, the hadith etc are all written records of early Muslims. Its not like one is written records and the other is DNA data.
 * Also make up your mind, sometimes you say conquests began in time of Umar, but in the comment below you claim they began in the prophetic period.VR talk  13:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No they are talking of the same time period.
 * Sorry that was a typing error. I meant to write Muhammad. Mcphurphy (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nowhere does the source say that. That is simply your WP:OR. I have provided quotes above that contradict your understanding.VR talk  13:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The only OR here is your comment that ""Muhammad's generation" can most certainly apply to the founder of the Umayyad dynasty, Muawiya." Muhammad's generation means Muhammad's generation. The source does not specify Muawiyah but speaks generally of the entire Prophetic generation. Mcphurphy (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Another gem from Robinson! Specifies that this happened in the era of Muhammad.
 * "Like the absence of concubinage in earlier generations, this finding concurs with the traditional narrative sources; concubinage was uncommon in pre-Islamic Arabian society, but this changed for the men of Muhammad's era as a consequence of military conquests."
 * No the sentence doesn't say it happened in Muhammad's era. It says it was practiced by "men of Muhammad's era". Men of Muhammad's era survived after his death and one even went on to found the Umayyad dynasty. This is indeed what Robinson says.VR talk  13:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You are engaging in WP:OR now. Why not just read the entire chapter in the Concubines and Courtesans book and look at examples from their nasab data. Also answer this. How many concubines did Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali and Muhammad have? And how many did their fathers have? Compare. Mcphurphy (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Mcphurphy, to engage with the questions you ask would mean to actually engage in OR. The fact is that we have clearcut, indisputable statements from Robinson himself that normative Islamic concubinage started in the Umayyad era and had no parallels with prophetic practice. Before them (according to him) the institution was in it's genesis in Muhammad's period, as was it in the Sassanid period (Robinson rejects both arguments about this being its origin). You simply cannot railroad his unambiguous statements.39.37.181.243 (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with your reading of Robinson but moving forward to a resolution what wording do you have in mind? Exactly what part of this passage does not follow Robinson? I take it you don't deny that Robinson said "Muhammad's generation." Of course, we differ on whether this is a reference to the Prophetic era itself or only to the men of Muhammad's generation after the Prophetic era. But our passage is already vague on that. So what exactly do you want to change?
 * "A study of the Arab genealogical text Nasab Quraysh records the maternity of 3,000 Quraishi tribesmen, most of whom lived in between 500 and 750 CE. The data shows that there was a massive increase in the number of children born to concubines with the emergence of Islam. An analysis of the information found that no children were born from concubines before the generation of Muhammad's grandfather. There were a few cases of children being born from concubines before Muhammad but they were only in his father's and grandfather's generation. The analysis of the data thus showed that concubinage was not common before the time of Muhammad, but increased for men of his generation as a result of military conquests. Due to these conquests, a large number of female slaves were available to the conquerors. Although there were more births, the attitude towards children born from slaves still remained negative. Some early Arab Muslims discriminated against those people who were born fron non-Arab female slaves. However, there is no indication that these attitudes were ever acted upon."
 * It fails to mention that concubinage is not to be attributed to prophetic practice or the Qur'an. "with the emergence of Islam" is vague and should be changed to the Umayyad dynasty, as Majied says. It also distorts the source by saying "the attitude towards children born from slaves still remained negative". The source specifically says that early Muslims were unique in that they gave more legitimacy to children of concubines than the previous civilizations they conquered.VR talk  04:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Emergence of Islam" is a compromise because 1) it does not specify either Prophetic era or Umayyad dynasty, since both can come under the heading of "emergence of Islam" and 2) emergence of Islam is the phrasing used in the source.
 * You are also ignoring this part of Robinson which says: "the Arabs took concubines in large numbers as soon as the conquests began." When did these conquests begin you suppose?
 * What Robinson means by delinking concubinage in prophetic practice from concubinage among Umayyads is that the latter expanded concubinage and did it more than the Prophet. That does not mean that the concubinage among the Prophetic generation was not in itself a major expansion compared to the pre-Islamic days.
 * On Table 1.1 on page 14, Robinson places Muhammad, Abu Bakr in generation 5 and Umar and Uthman in Generation 6. On Table 1.4 on page 18 it shows that only 1-2% of children born to the pre-Muhammad generations were from concubines. Then in generation 5 (Muhammad and Abu Bakr's generation) it shows that 12% of their children were from concubines. Then in generation 6 (which was Umar and Uthman's) almost 27% of their children were from concubines. This increases to 35% in the next generation and 42% in the generation after that. So yeah the concubinage among Umayyads was way more common than concubinage in the Prophet's generation. Thats what Robinson means when he says Umayyad concubinage was not like the one from Prophetic practice. It was far more wide scale. But the concubinage in the generation of Muhammad was itself the first major expansion of concubinage and was way more widescale than its practice in the pre-Islamic era.
 * Muslims may have given more legitimacy to children of concubines than previous civilisations. But that does not negate the discrimination against such children. Robinson says:
 * "Despite the increasing numbers of children, attitudes towards concubine unions and their progeny remained largely negative."

- Majied Robinson, Concubines and Courtesans: Women and Slavery in Islamic History, pg. 12


 * After questioning this line of thought in scholarship, almost 10 pages later Robinson says:
 * "None of this should be taken as a denial that, among the early Arab Muslims, there were some who denigrated those with non-Arab slave mothers. This is certainly true, and the earlier scholarship has done a credible job of marshaling the supporting evidence. But, this is not enough to prove these prejudices were ever acted on seriously or held by a critical mass of Muslims.""

- Majied Robinson, Concubines and Courtesans: Women and Slavery in Islamic History, pgs. 20-21 Mcphurphy (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * McMurphy, in a late attempt to defend your treatment of Robinson, you are making this more complicated this than it needs to be. It's true that the Umayyads treated early children of concubines with some amount of discrimination but this in itself is actually evidence that normative Islamic concubinage was not properly established even at this period. In fact according to the more scholarly Goldziner (with whom Robinson disagrees) the acceptance of these unions and hence normative Islamic concubinage can be brought forward even later to the late Umayyad or Early Abbasid period when these unions became more accepted . One can bring up these issues and can most correctly state that concubinage existed in various forms both before and after the Early Umayyad period but I believe that Robinson's final conclusion on the matter stated in easy to read terms is as clear as day and I do not believe I have to repeat it. Also I think you're being a bit too Muhammad focused here, Great Man theory and all that, but this is an issue for another time. Suffice to say this article needs to shift away from prophetic practice.
 * As for the issue of changing stuff I believe I pointed out that Hoyland's remarks are somewhat of a non-sequitur and do not follow or relate to Robinsons arguments at all. The next section "the Women of Hawazin" again also comes full circle to the issue of Prophetic practice again giving a false impression. To be honest I'm not sure how to improve the article without a total rewrite.39.37.181.243 (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Mcphurphy, the above calculations seem like WP:OR. Robinson clearly attributes it to Umayyad practice and clearly denies that prophetic practice was behind it. We can't pretend otherwise.VR talk  03:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The calculations aren't mine, they are Robinson's. Perhaps we should add the tables from Robinson into the article. He also says that concubinage expanded as soon as the conquests began? When were these conquests you reckon? Mcphurphy (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

We can add all three of Robinson's claims: 1) that concubinage expansion was not related to Prophetic practice nor the Quran, 2) it was related to Umayyad desire to have more sons, 3) it expanded when the conquests began.VR talk  10:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Move without consensus
The article was moved from "Sexual slavery in Islam" to "Concubinage in Islam". At that point the move was agreed to by all except Mcphurphy. Or at least, no one but Mcphurphy objected to the title change.

Now the title is being changed without any sort of discussion let alone consensus. Please seek consensus before changing the title of the article.VR talk  11:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no clear consensus for any page move. The onus is still on you to get consensus for the re-titling of the article to concubinage instead of sexual slavery. Mcphurphy (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually I did, at the time it happened. The title has been stable since May 20, more than a month ago. While you did object then (you were the only person who objected), even you haven't said anything about this since. You can't come back more than a month later and move something without any discussion.VR talk  12:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That is wrong. also opposed it. And I was recuperating from an operation for the past month so did not say or edit anything. Besides the article from the date of its creation (4 April) to May 20 has been sexual slavery, not concubinage. A longer period than May 20 - now. Mcphurphy (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about your health issues. Everyone has the right to take a WP:BREAK. But you have to realize that wikipedia moves on. When you come back from the break, you should seek consensus before moving the page.VR talk  12:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * But there was no consensus for your first page move from "Sexual slavery in Islam" (original title) to the POV title "Concubinage in Islam." In the absence of consensus, the original tittle should be retained until you can gain consensus for "concubinage" as the title. Mcphurphy (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah there was, as evidenced by lack of objection. Even you stopped objecting to it. Your last objection seems to be on May 21, yet we continued discussion until May 27 on this page.
 * Also Concubinage in Islam has been the long-standing title, it has been stable for more than a month.VR talk  13:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Lack of objection"? At least two people rejected it. Besides, there was no explicit agreement. Lack of objection (mainly due to diversion of discussion to content) is not enough.
 * This page's title has been sexual slavery longer than it has been concubinage. So sexual slavery is the longstanding one. Your page move is disputed. You ought to move it back to the last title before dispute began. Mcphurphy (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Its not about which page title has been there longer. Its about the last stable title.VR talk  14:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The last stable version is "Sexual slavery in Islam." It was stable for more than a month. The new title has been in dispute and never fully accepted by editors. Just you and SharabSalaam don't count as "consensus" when 2 editors opposed you.Bolanigak (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You must be mistake. Check the article history page. The last stable version was/is "Concubinage in Islam". It was stable from May 21 to June 28.VR talk  03:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My objection to Vice regent's disputed page move still stands. "Sexual slavery" is the more commonly used term. Not concubinage. A search on google scholar can yield that finding. Vice regent ought to stop edit warring and restore the status quo title. I am also curious why Vice regent keeps on censoring and removing this sourced sentence from the article. "Muhammad gave a girl called Zaynab bint Hayyan to Uthman ibn Affan. Uthman had sexual intercourse with her and she detested him." Repeatedly removing sourced content without explanation even after being shown that its verifiable is just POV pushing.Vishnu Sahib (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I would disagree concubinage is more accurate and acceptable in academia while “sex slavery” is not even in Islam the term used for such women is Surriya (concubine) not sex slave. CircassianBilyal (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Not commonly used in reliable sources
Lets consider what famous concubines in Islamic history are called by reliable sources: "concubine" or "sex slave"/"sexual slave"? I could probably go on. "Concubine" seems to be the normative term for women we seem to be describing here.VR talk  09:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Maria al-Qibtiyya: called a concubine of Muhammad by these sources:,. Not a single reliable source seems to call her "sex slave" or "sexual slave". The only sources I could find are very unreliable and blatantly Islamophobic: . These sources that call her a "sex slave" also refer to Islam as the "Cult of Muhammadan Islam".
 * Hafsa Hatun called a "concubine" by this possibly reliable source. Couldn't find a single source that called her a "sex slave".
 * Haseki Sultan, in general, are sometimes called "concubines", by these reliable sources: ,,,. Some call her "consort" instead. Not many sources call them "sex slaves" or "sexual slaves".
 * This is a red herring. I could just as easily argue that Yazidi women taken by ISIS are more commonly described as sex slaves than concubines.
 * I am not interested in specific personalities. I am interested in the general practice. The term for which is more commonly sexual slavery. Compare the hits of Sexual slavery in Islam with Concubinage in Islam. Again here on Google scholar: vs . You get the gist. Mcphurphy (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that ISIS victims are referred to as "sex slaves" not concubines. So go create a page called ISIL and sex slavery.
 * And for the, you did not use quotes. Hence most of the results on that page actually say: "sexual ethics", "sexual fantasy", "sexual access" etc.
 * If we search google scholar for:
 * "sexual slavery" "islam" - 6,210 hits
 * "concubinage" "islam" - 8,940 results
 * concubine islam - 11,900 results
 * Lets take at one source you like citing: Kecia Ali's "Sexual Ethics and Islam". It uses the term "sexual slavery" 1 time and "sex slavery" 1 time (in connection with ISIL). It uses "concubinage" 5 times (including once in a title of the chapter) and "concubine" another 5 times. Majied Robinson, another author you like to quote, also uses "concubinage" in the title of a chapter here. In general, works cited here use the term concubine/concubinage far more often than "sex slavery"/"sexual slavery".VR talk  12:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Using quote brackets around a term is not a rule anywhere. It was a made up method of SharabSalaam. It is also not a good method for figuring out WP:COMMONNAME. For example if we use this way of quote brackets around "sexual slavery in islam" then we don't find the academic sources which are obviously about Islamic sexual slavery like "Slavery and sexual ethics in Islam" or "Islam and modern-day sexual slavery." But you can see these come up when you can see when you search the same term without using the quote brackets. Sexual slavery remains the more common hit on Google as well as Google scholar. Concubinage means something else altogether and is not suitable for this article. Mcphurphy (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't put quotes around "sexual slavery in islam", instead I did this "sexual slavery" "islam". Using quotes is common sense so we narrow down results to "sexual slavery" and exclude those that talk about "sexual fantasy", "sexual ethics" etc.
 * Funny you mention that academic sources which are obviously about Islamic sexual slavery like "Slavery and sexual ethics in Islam". That chapter is from a book that uses the term "concubinage" on 24 pages, and the term "concubine" on 25 pages. It uses "sexual slavery" one only one page, and not in connection with Islam.
 * The article Islam and modern-day sexual slavery is from the magazine Quadrant (magazine) which is controversial and accused of spreading hoaxes: Quadrant_(magazine).VR talk  13:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats an ineffective way of finding sources. Try searching up sexual slavery Islam and concubinage Islam without any quotes. Hint, one has more than 6 million hits. The other only ~700,0000. Guess which one is which? Mcphurphy (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And guess which is filled with irrelevant topics like "sexual fantasy" etc? Using quotes is common sense and even mentioned here: Google_searches_and_numbers. Finally, I think I've provided more than enough evidence to support "Concubinage in Islam" (or "Concubines in Islam"). You have so far provided two sources: one actually uses "concubinage" not "sexual slavery", and the other source you provided publishes hoaxes.VR talk  13:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No its not a matter of common sense. And there are many examples besides those two. Take a look through them all yourself. And the wikilink you have shown is not a Wikipedia policy. Its a dormant proposal which has never been adopted. Mcphurphy (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * What does Surriya mean in Arabic sex slave or concubine you clearly have some problems with Islam and I am not going to assume good faith here CircassianBilyal (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * since you have not made any more comments, are we then agreed on the name "Concubinage in Islam" (or "Concubines in Islam") as the WP:COMMONNAME and NPOV name? I'm asking as I don't want another move war to erupt on this article.VR talk  10:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course not. I am not convinced at all. I have already stated my arguments. Sexual slavery is clearly the common name on Google search and Google scholar. Besides, "concubine" in the English language means "mistress" and Islam does not allow having mistresses. Thats "zina." It only allows men to have sex with wives or slaves. It seems that several other editors have not agreed to the new name "concubinage" either. You need to consult them too. Mcphurphy (talk) 10:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Brief comment. Concubine does not mean mistress in English even if it does carry that implication in the West (not sure about this claim). Note that the English language and Western perception are also different things, Wikipedia provides a global perspective of the topic. Plus the term concubinage is liberally used in the sources not here and in the discussion of other places with legally permitted concubinage as well. You seem to be claiming that Islam technically prohibits concubinage which is odd and you are the only one making such an objection (other editors are concerned with consensus). Plus I'm not convinced of the Google search claims. Due to the nature of the internet titles including terms like "sex" are going to drudge up more hits regardless of their nature. Also Vr, try to cut McMurpphy some slack. Too much responding is not good for this already bloated page. Let's take this slow and concisely.119.155.18.22 (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Undue?
What was contentious and undue about thisedit? The section is about modern Muslim attitudes. Imam Zaid is a modern scholar. This content fits in that section.Dr Silverstein (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * McMurphy, I'm interested in this question too. Both of us have directly asked and you've certainly come across it so...? 119.152.137.241 (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Mcphurphy didn't answer this question, nor many others yet started edit-warring without any sort of discussion on this page in a week.VR talk  15:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again Mcphurphy reverted without any justification on the talk page.VR talk  15:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dr Silverstein the statement that you added was very subjective as if Imam Zaid Shakir speaks for the entire entire modern Muslim community. It is a very well established fact that sexual relationships with females slaves or captives of war are allowed all mainstream Muslim schools of jurisprudence. You can't simply pick views of any random Imam and pretend as if he speaks for the Muslim community who aren't ISIS members. Balolay (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)$banned user$

Sunan an-Nasa'i 36-3411
Muhammad having sex with his slave is not directly mentioned in the Article. It is only indirectly referenced in the line Muhammad and his Companions took for granted the allowance of having sex with female war captives.

I understand that Primary sources are not to be quoted directly without proper context and reference. But, Islamic legal sanction comes directly from words of Allah and actions of Muhammad, hence, I think it is quite relevant to quote it here. Inviting further comments from other editors and specifically @Mcphurphy who has done most of the recent additions.Dhawangupta (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sure I can find sources for the relationships with Maria the Copt or Rayhana who was a captive from Banu Qurayza. I have already included content on Safiyya and Juwayriya. Mcphurphy (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Verification failed
The article currently says Umar prohibited slave girls from resembling free women and forbade them from covering their hair. The source given is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concubinage_in_Islam#cite_note-FOOTNOTEEl_Fadl2014198-77 Khaled Abou El Fadl (1 October 2014). Speaking in God's Name: Islamic Law, Authority and Women page 198]. I looked at that page and couldn't find the quote. Please provide the full quote.VR talk  00:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You can get the quote from here . It says "In fact, it is reported that Umar b. al-Khattab prohibited slave-girls from imitating free women by covering their hair." Mcphurphy (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is page 483, not page 198. And your text is slight misquotation, where the word "and" needs to be replaced by the word "by". There is a difference. Because according to other sources, slaves are allowed to cover their hair in most circumstances. The same book says:
 * page 525 VR talk  21:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Quote requested
The article says The Hanafis allowed potential male buyers to uncover and touch a female slave's arms, breasts and legs. Please provide the source quote for this. I'm asking because it directly contradicts a reliable source:

In any case, WP:NPOV requires the above content I provided to also be included and the content to be rewritten with attribution.VR talk  00:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The source says "The women’s bodies were examined before the purchase and Hanafi jurists permitted male potential buyers of a female slave to “uncover her legs, her arms, her breast (ṣadr), and to touch her carefully.” I am okay with you adding your material provided that you do not remove pre-existing content. Also be careful not to break text flow. So show me here please what you want to include into the article before you add it. Mcphurphy (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in the section above, this isn't the only example where one POV is selectively presented. I think the whole section on awrah of slaves needs to be rewritten.VR talk  21:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Name of the article should remain "Concubinage in Islam"
There has been a debate and even a move war as to whether this article should continue to be called "Concubinage in Islam" or be moved to "Sexual slavery in Islam". Below I will present reasons for keeping the name "Concubinage in Islam": In all the sections below (except "general discussion") please keep comments directly related to the evidence I provided, for example, if I accidentally misquoted something. Any comments not directly related to the evidence I provided should go in "General discussion". VR talk  20:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Concubine" and "concubinage" is the WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources used in this article
 * "Concubine" and "concubinage" is the term reliable sources use to discuss the concepts and women this article is about
 * "Sexual slavery" is WP:POVTITLE
 * Google scholar and Google Books search results return more hits for '"concubinage" "islam"' than for '"sexual slavery" "islam"'

"Concubinage" used more commonly in reliable sources
"Concubinage" and its variants are used far more often than "sexual slavery" and its variants in the most commonly used sources in this article. I went through more than a dozen and compiled my results below. VR talk  20:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments about the table above go here:

"Concubine" used to described this article's concepts
VR talk  20:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments about the quotes go here:

"Sexual slavery" is POV
As mentioned above, many of the sources that use the term "sexual slavery" with respect to Muhammad's concubines tend to be anti-Islam. It is telling that when I asked Mcphurphy to provide sources that use the term "sexual slavery" with respect to Islam, Mcphurphy pointed out to this article: Islam and modern-day sexual slavery. The publisher of that article is a right wing magazine known for spreading hoaxes (Quadrant_(magazine)), and the author of that article, Victoria Kincaid, writes "It is no secret that Islam is the most misogynistic institution in the world".

The term "sexual slavery" is commonly used by reliable sources to describe atrocities committed by ISIL/ISIS. However, this article is about Islam the religion, not "Islamic state" the terrorist group, and it very POV to try and conflate Islam with ISIS.VR talk  20:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments about the POV discussion go here:

Google search results
WP:COMMONNAME points out that google search results "are subject to certain biases and technical limitations", so we should not give much weight to them (especially in light of all the evidence I provided above). Nevertheless, google results also favor the term "concubinage" over "sexual slavery". VR talk  20:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments about the google results go here:

General discussion
I am a bit busy so don't have enough time these days to take a detailed look. But a brief survey shows a very unconvincing collection of data premised on endless hair-splitting. Concubinage is an example of WP:PEACOCK. The fact that sexual slavery is the WP:COMMONNAME has been pointed out by multiple editors multiple times in discussions above. They don't need repetition in a new section of WP:TEXTWALL. Mcphurphy (talk) 08:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments about the name in general go here:
 * Far from it, it's Sexual slavery that's actually the Contentious label. Though on the other hand, the title is suitable in that it's a POV title for a POV article...39.37.187.161 (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have worked on various biographies that involve concubines, e.g. Ismail I of Granada, Yusuf I of Granada, Marwan I, my experience can confirm the data provided by above that sources commonly describe these women as "concubines", or sometimes just "slaves", but I have not seen them referred as "sexual slave" or similar. Furthermore it's an oversimplication to focus on just one aspect of the multi-faceted relationship. HaEr48 (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a page on individual concubines. The title refers to the practical framework in which those concubines existed, which is sexual slavery. Mcphurphy (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * At the very least, the status of those slaves changed after child birth and the idea that they can be forced into this relationship is disputable. Don't these, and probably many other, facts make this something more complicated than a simple "practical framework [of] sexual slavery"? — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The status of women did not necessarily change after giving birth to a child, especially if the father denied paternity. And a concubine in Islam is by definition a slave. If they couldn't be forced into a relationship then why were they still slaves? Does anyone choose to be as slave? Mcphurphy (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "if the father denied paternity" You're focusing on the exception rather than the rule. Numerous sources go into detail about the status of Umm-ul Walid. In any case I'm glad other editors are having a look in to this article. Would appreciate further input from them. 39.37.187.161 (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sexual slavery in Islam is the more commonly used term on Google scholar and Google search so its to be considered the WP:COMMONNAME.

The term "concubinage in Islam" is an apologetic euphemism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.174.207.74 (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Then why is it that most reliable sources use the term "concubinage"? Why is it that very few reliable sources use the term "sexual slavery" and even when they do, they use the term "concubinage" more often? Did you see this table: Talk:Concubinage_in_Islam? VR talk  13:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Google search: Concubinage in Islam - 141,000 results, Sexual slavery in Islam - 5,030,000 results
 * Google scholar: Concubinage in Islam - 9,010 results, Sexual slavery in Islam - 73,300 results
 * Wikipedia is not interested in hairsplitting each single source further. No precedent for such methodology exists on Wikipedia. Mcphurphy (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your google link to sexual slavery is actually incorrect, as I've pointed out here. You include sources that do not mention sexual slavery at all! Also, did you look at Talk:Concubinage_in_Islam? Why do you think every reliable source uses the term "concubinage" (and its variants) more often than "sexual slavery" (and its variants)?VR talk  14:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "did not necessarily change after giving birth" - Meaning, you already admit it did change, maybe not every single time, but it did. Furthermore, in case it wasn't already obvious, by being forced into a relationship, I meant forced into a sexual relationship - and this idea is definitely disputed.
 * "concubinage in Islam" is an apologetic euphemism - Or perhaps, anti-Islam POV? By design, how many sex slaves in the world were supposed to become the mothers of rulers of vast empires? That their children would inherit the legacy of their fathers, and that they would be equal to their half-siblings? I believe that it is pretty much indisputable that the term "sexual slavery" hides the significant complications present in these relationships. — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources have pointed out that the concept of consent for sex is redundant in the framework of slavery. And the sources don't take the fortunate few mothers of monarchs as representative of most of these poor women who endured unspeakable tragedies. Mcphurphy (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Either you're claiming that all Muslims accept the allowance of forced relationships or you're accepting this is disputed - which one is it? Regarding, fortunate mothers of monarchs, from what I understand, sometimes entire dynasties of Muslim rulers were limited to children of concubines. Furthermore, since you tend to focus on the "framework", this was indeed how the system was designed to work, regardless of whether these instances were few or more. — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Although I think you are adding further confusion to a dense topic with your comments I will say the former. Also please stop with WP:OR comments like "this was indeed how the system was designed to work." If you want an idea of how most of these women lived, I recommend you go through this eye-opening article about Islamic sexual slavery.
 * When writing this article I took great care to present all aspects of the history of these women, both light and harsh, according to the space given to each in the sources. What you and Vice regent are trying to do is undo the balance by diluting the harsh history and over-representing the light aspects, which is against WP:NPOV. Mcphurphy (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You realize you just affirmed the POV that "all Muslims accept the allowance of forced relationships"? That not only contradicts reliable sources (like Kecia Ali), but also exposes your POV-pushing.VR talk  01:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's surprising, but it's really not. McMurphy said things to similar effect in previous sections as well as in other article talkpages.


 * The treatment of the subject material is simply atrocious and the lack of care taken, obvious, to anyone who can access even some of the sources. Not only are dissenting views airbrushed but the views of the very same cited scholars are carefully sharpshot to make it seem like the are arguing for claims that they explicitly reject. Examples include Smith, Robinson, Qureshi, sources on partition violence and now even Kecia Ali whos material I'm going through now. Honestly, the list could go on and on... Abu Fadl, Brockopp, Bruchvig, etc...


 * The issue of POV exists on both sides but with Mcmurphys claims of documenting "unspeakable tragedies" and Vishnu Sahibs obsession with ISIS Recentism quite clearly indicate that this article is meant to function as a polemical and lachrymose presentation rather than a scholarly overview of a complicated and multifaceted topic in its historical context. Much of this material has infact been rejected in other Islam and slavery related articles and this new POV article essentially functions as a POV fork for material rejected there. 119.155.49.194 (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * “the term "sexual slavery" hides the significant complications present in these relationships”: And by which means would the term “concubinage” reveal such complications instead? --Grufo (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I support the former title. The new title is just POV pushing. I also agree that the table presented by Vice regent is needless hairsplitting. The comparative number of hits for both terms on Google Scholar, which Mcphurphy has shown, suffice to show what the common term is. Its also horrible that some people are taking well off women as representative of a miserable sample. And then trying to use them to distort the historical picture. Also there should be content on the Yazidis in this article and more content on women who were abused. Like even Hurrem Sultan was kidnapped. Don't sugarcoat this. Kidnapping and trafficking should be called for what it is. The word concubinage is just a screen to hide uncomfortable realities.--Vishnu Sahib (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The table presented includes some of the most scholarly work done in this subject area. Can you comment on why is it that all the scholarly sources prefer the term "concubinage"/"concubine" over the term "sexual slavery"/"sexual slave"?VR talk  01:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In light of the above discussion, I think Sexual Slavery in Islam is the preferable name for the article. Concubinage seems to be a particular version of it adopted in some societies and can be mentioned under individual section. There seems to be another page with the same name but was redirected to this article. Epelerenon (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Epelerenon is a sockpuppet.VR talk 12:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the name used in reliable sources in this section Talk:Concubinage_in_Islam?VR talk 12:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The current title (“Concubinage in Islam”) is completely misleading. Concubinage happens between free people, not slaves. “Concubine” is just an old-fashion synonym of “lover”, and it has few to do with slavery. The Catholic Church still uses the term in official documents for defining non-married couples. --Grufo (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Concubinage happens between free people, not slaves"
 * Grufo, if you'd bothered to do even a basic amount of research on the topic or even read the discussions above, you'd realize how easily disprovable your claim is, whether made in an Islamic or global context. 39.37.128.59 (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that an average English speaker has to do “a basic amount of research” to shift from his/her familiar meaning of the word “concubinage” goes already against WP:COMMONNAME. --Grufo (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Atleast you don't disagree. Western English speakers familiar with Catholic church regulations are not representative of global views (including global English speakers). Concubinage has been and is, the common name for this (now mostly defunct) historical practice from China, to all across the world, back to China. Sexual slavery is mostly used in modern criminal contexts as well as in RECENT discussions involving ISIS. See previous discussion with Dhawangupta. 39.37.128.59 (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The familiar meaning has nothing to do with Catholicism, it has only to do with the English language. Concubinage comes from Latin and it means only “sleeping together”, and as such it has been used for most part of the history of English language. Using “concubinage” for describing sexual slavery is per se an exceptional usage of the word, which goes against WP:COMMONNAME. --Grufo (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Etymological origins do not always conform to the later meanings attached to a term. What matters here are the sources and they do indeed use “concubinage” for describing "sexual slavery" (a term itself used sparingly). No-one has even bothered to address any of the arguments in the table presented above. 39.37.128.59 (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not the etymological origin of “concubinage” that describes “a non-married couple”, it is the main current meaning of “concubinage” that is used for “non-marital relationships”. Rather, the sources that use “concubinage” for “sexual slavery in Islam” – still less numerous than the ones that use “sexual slavery in Islam” – tend to talk about sultans, caliphs and the past. --Grufo (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "sultans, caliphs and the past"
 * Err, sultans, caliphs and the past is the main topic of the article'. The non-elite didn't have concubines as the article makes clear. This isn't about slavery in the 21st century. We have a separate article for that.
 * The fact that sultans, caliphs and the past are the main topic of the article is your personal view. The main topic of the article is neither the past nor the present, neither caliphs nor sultans, it simply is sexual slavery in Islam. --Grufo (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What matters is the RS which extensively focus on historical concubinage practice. If this isn't the topic, why are the citations given even discussing it? Yes, there are issues with the scope of the article but these have been discussed. 39.37.128.59 (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Sexual slavery in Islam. There is a clear apologetic intent behind the name “concubinage” for a phenomenon for which being apologetic should be absolutely deplored – we are not talking here about apologetics for Islam, which is perfectly fine (although it would still be problematic on Wikipedia), we are talking here about apologetics for sexual slavery. Furthermore nobody noticed it, but “concubinage” is not just used in less academic sources, it also tends to be used for describing the past of Islam, together with eunuchs and harems. “Sexual Slavery in Islam” is definitely the modern WP:COMMONNAME for it, many English speakers don't even know what a concubine is, and the ones that do are likely to know it through the only marginal usage that “concubinage” has always had in the Western world: non-marital sexual relationship between free persons, usually condemned by churches (concubine). --Grufo (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Grufo, this article does indeed involve a discussion about historical harems (and infact is mostly about it) so "concubinage" is actually more appropriate here. I've also made a point about how sexual slavery may include topics like homosexual slavery (like Bacha Bazi), which is clearly not the topic here. 39.37.128.59 (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Did you actually look at the reliable sources? At Talk:Concubinage_in_Islam, I gave an example of 14 very scholarly sources on this topic, and every single one uses concubinage more often than sexual slavery. Most of these sources have been published in the last 20 years.VR talk 01:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think both you and did not use Google in the most accurate way:
 * - “Sexual slavery in Islam” on Google: 5 170 000 results
 * - “Concubinage in Islam” on Google: 771 000 results
 * - “Sexual slavery in Islam” on Google Scholar: 65 700 results
 * - “Concubinage in Islam ” on Google Scholar: 7 600 results
 * Check now if non-relevant pages still appear. --Grufo (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They quite clearly do, from Quadrant online to cites that don't even mention sexual slavery. All of this has been discussed over the past month or two. Here we go again... 39.37.128.59 (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are reading, but to me it seems that Quadrant online does talk about sexual slavery ( – fifth result on Google Scholar). --Grufo (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean that Quadrant online is unreliable while reliable sources use the term either sparingly or not at all, most give preference to the term concubinage. 39.37.128.59 (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course! How can sources that call sexual slavery with its name possibly be reliable! --Grufo (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * :::::::: For more on Quadrant online see: . It's generally unreliable for factual reporting. God help us if were going to treat it as a reliable academic source on history. 39.37.128.59 (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

--Grufo (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Quadrant is unreliable because it has been accused of spreading hoaxes Quadrant_(magazine).VR talk 13:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Grufo, non-relevant results still appear. google scholar search result for "sexual" "slavery" "islam" gives the result Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam, a book which contains 0 references to "sexual slavery" (but more than a hundred references to concubine/concubinage). If you want things that reference to "sexual slavery" you gotta put both in the same quotes. Otherwise you get sources that references to "sexual ethics", "sexual fantasy" etc.VR talk 13:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How can you possibly think that Marriage and slavery in early Islam is a “non-relevant result”? You are basically confirming that by using “sexual” “slavery” “islam” as keywords one can access the right literature. The first occurence of “sexual” and “slavery” in the book is (p. 11): "Household slavery was common. Slaveholding, in practice everywhere, included sexual use of enslaved women and sometimes men."
 * Yet there is no occurrence of "sexual slavery", which is an actual term (see sexual slavery). The debate here is what is the WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources. And the common name seems to be "concubinage". Reliable sources usually don't use the term "sexual slavery", "sex slavery", "sexual slaves", "sex slaves" etc. See Talk:Concubinage_in_Islam.VR talk 13:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is because the book in question (which is only one of the zillion academic articles returned by Google Scholar) does not focus only on sexual slavery, but focuses on a broader topic which is Marriage and slavery in early Islam --Grufo (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This list of sources (Talk:Concubinage_in_Islam) is a result of a pretty exhaustive search of the most scholarly books on this topic. If you have other sources, please compile them into a new section and we can take a look at them.VR talk 14:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

A very misleading and deceptive name! It should be changed to Sexual Slavery! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.255.6.100 (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at the well investigated VR's sources I am incline to agree with HaEr48's points emphasizing the correct usage of "concubines". I think 'scholarly' works should make the core or of our decision, so the current title, i.e. "Concubinage in Islam", should be kept. -- M h hossein   talk 11:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support concubinage. The practice is referred to overwhelmingly as "concubinage" in the context of Islamic history and traditional jurisprudence, as shown by Vice Regent. While "sexual slavery" may be more common in a modern context, though no one seems to have shown this definitively, the practice is extinct in the vast majority of Muslim societies. The historical/juristic term "concubinage" thus holds priority. Just to add to their list:
 * Women, Family, and Gender in Islamic Law (Judith E. Tucker, Cambridge University Press, 2008): 8 instances of "concubine" or "concubinage"; 0 of "sexual slave" or variants
 * The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire (Leslie E. Pierce, Oxford University Press, 1993): 300+ instances of "concubine" or "concubinage"; 0 of "sexual slave" or variants
 * Women and Slavery in the Late Ottoman Empire (Madeleine C. Zilfi, Cambridge University Press, 2010):: 45 instances of "concubine" or "concubinage"; 0 of "sexual slave" or variants. Note that Zilfi explicitly focuses on the cruelties of concubinage in Ottoman society.
 * This is in accordance with the common definition of "concubinage" as "(in polygamous societies) a woman who lives with a man but has lower status than his wife or wives". In fact, this definition is the primary definition of "concubine" in both Google and the Cambridge English Dictionary, and the use of "concubine" in this sense is easily found in non-Islamic contexts as well:
 * "A man named Zhou Lu (33) had purchased a concubine, Liu Shi (19 at the time of purchase)... But the concubine and the main wife did not get along, so after two years Zhou's mother ordered him to sell the concubine".
 * "Female palace slaves (in Dahomey, West Africa) included royal wives and concubines, some with positions of authority, and domestics".
 * "In Babylonia a man normally chose a concubine for himself. A commercial letter concerned with buying many goods including a slave-girl expresses a wish to have proof of that woman's fertility... In this chapter we are concerned with slave-girls as concubines, not with situations where a married woman would go to live with another man and even have children by him".
 * This is par for the course in historical scholarship, and refraining from using "concubine" and "concubinage" because some readers might not be aware of the very widespread meaning of "a man's sexual partner of inferior social status to his wife" is like avoiding the use of the word "theory" in the evolution article or "myth" in the Genesis creation narrative article.
 * The Google Scholar search results given by proponents of "sexual slavery" have not been formatted correctly, leading to any page with the words "sexual", "slavery", and "Islam" being included—even if the content in question were something as utterly unrelated like "Fulan, a medieval scholar of Islam who had been freed from slavery, wrote on the sexual implications of Islamic law".
 * The proper formatting yields the expected results:
 * "concubinage" "Islam" gives 7,640 results; "sexual slavery" "Islam" and "sex slavery" "Islam" together combined give 5,200 results. The latter might include overlapping results, while the former does not.
 * "concubine" "Islam" gives 12,200 results; "sexual slave" "Islam" and "sex slave" "Islam" together combined give 1,231 results. Same caveat with overlap.

There is no real dispute here in academia.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is now a formal move request for the page: Talk:Sexual_slavery_in_Islam. Requesting users in this discussion to also give their input below, , , , , , , .VR talk 16:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging the editors that have been forgotten by Vice regent:, , --Grufo (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

No consensus
The dispute has ended and we are very far from any consensus about the disputed renaming. Many editors have explictly opposed the new title “Concubinage in Islam”. Among these: (many interventions),  (see for example ),  (see for example ),  (see for example ),  (see for example ),   (myself) – I have left out the anonymous IP addresses that have defended both sides and I apologize if I have forgotten to mention anyone else among those who have opposed the new title. What should we do? --Grufo (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Wait you're mistaken I support the change to Concubinage in Islam. Firman.Nst (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My bad,, I have removed your name. --Grufo (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are users who have opposed "Sexual slavery in Islam" and instead preferred "Concubinage in Islam":, , , ,  and myself. There also's an IP who has given strong arguments in favor of "Concubinage in Islam".
 * But since WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, we must consider naming on the strength of arguments. I have presented overwhelming evidence of the usage of the term "concubinage" over "sexual slavery" in reliable sources here: Talk:Concubinage_in_Islam and Talk:Concubinage_in_Islam. Most of those who prefer "Sexual slavery in Islam" have not responded to evidence I provided above (in fact many of their votes came before I presented that table). Since I presented that table, most users seem to have favored "Concubinage in Islam" (AhmadF.Cheema, Mhhossein, HaEr48, Firman.Nst, an IP, and Vice regent vs Grufo, Mcphurphy and Vishnu Sahib).VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 13:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no doubts that according to you you have “presented overwhelming evidence” in favor of “concubinage”. But the disagreement is exactly about what you call “evidence”. For example I strongly believe that concubinage presents at least the following problems:
 * 1. It goes against WP:COMMONNAME
 * 2. It is more ambiguous and (unacceptably) apologetic compared to “sexual slavery”
 * 3. “Concubinage” primarily means “extra-marital sex”; and the fact that Islam does not allow the latter among free people only indirectly makes it carry the secondary meaning of “extra-marital sex with a (female) slave”; there is no reason for such indirection on Wikipedia
 * 4. It creates confusion with other articles that use “concubinage” with its actual meaning (see for example Concubinage in Canada)
 * 5. It is used by less sources – in particular it tends to be used by old sources that focus on the past, while the sources that deal with the phenomenon in contemporary Islam do not use “concubinage” but prefer to use “sexual slavery”
 * I believe that the term “concubinage” appeared in literature with this strange meaning only because the current meaning of the English word “sexual” is relatively recent, while the studies about sexual slavery in Islam are older. “Sexual” in the past meant only “pertaining to the gender of people”; the modern meaning of “pertaining sexual intercourse” appears only after 1929. So basically there was no word in the Western world for the Islamic phenomenon, and the weird shift of meaning should be considered as a linguistic relic that served as a fallback, and that today would be only misleading. We can keep fighting and repeating ourselves, but this is exactly the lack of consensus I was talking about. We have five editors in favor of “concubinage” (AhmadF.Cheema, Mhhossein, HaEr48, Firman.Nst, Vice regent) versus six editors against “concubinage” (Mcphurphy, Vishnu Sahib, Bolanigak, Dr Silverstein, Dhawangupta, Grufo) – IP addresses cannot be counted: we can just mention that there have been at least one in favor and one against. I agree that this cannot be a democracy, and indeed I believe that a renaming would rather require a large consensus, with virtually no opposition – so more than a simple majority. But even a simple majority is missing here. --Grufo (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you might be mistaken about the word "concubine" here. The English word comes from a Roman institution in which a man had a fixed sexual partner of lower social status than his legal wife. Accordingly, the primary definition of the word in many sources is "(in polygamous societies) a woman who lives with a man but has lower status than his wife or wives", as given by Google, the Cambridge English Dictionary, and Collins English Dictionary. This sense of the word is also ubiquitous in scholarship on polygamous societies that make some status distinction between a man's sexual partners (East Asia, West Africa, Mesoamerica, etc.), not just Islamic ones. So I don't agree that there's a real nomenclature issue here, or that "concubine" is apologetic.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe you are making a series of mistakes:
 * 1. With Ancient Rome you are making the wrong example. Romans did have slaves they could have sex with, and in that case it would not be called concubinage, it would just be called with the right name: slavery. As mentioned in and differently than what we are talking about here, concubines were free women and absolutely not slaves. See also.
 * 2. As mentioned by the dictionaries you quoted yourself, a concubine had a lower status than her patron, but was not a slave. Moreover while the term “concubine” inherently describes unbalanced situations (one is the concubine, the other one is the patron), “concubinage” instead (which is what we are talking about here) simply describes an extra-marital relationship, where both persons can have the same social status – and this is actually the current meaning of concubinage (please see the same Collins dictionary using the right word this time, and check also all other dictionaries if it pleases you, but still using the right word).
 * 3. Other pre-modern societies can have mixed regulations, where concubines might be both slaves and free women, and where it might be justifiable to focus on the extra-marital status of the relationship rather than the fluid social status of the person involved, thus using a word for it that is basically a synonym of “lover”: “concubine”. In Islam instead it seems clear to me that a “concubine” cannot be a free woman, so “concubine” (i.e. “lover”) is just not the most accurate term. As for why it has been used in the past and sometimes is still used today for describing sexual slavery in Islam, see my previous message.
 * 4. Concubinage is apologetic for one simple reason: it hides the fact that we are talking about sexual slavery and it hides the fact that Islamic “concubines” do not have the rights that concubines normally have, simply because concubinage does not normally involve slavery. So yes, whether accepted or not, it is apologetic.
 * --Grufo (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're focusing on the details rather than the essence of things. Concubinage practice varies, for example concubines in Islam can have legitimate children when this is not usually the case. Does that make it not concubinage as well? There are other differences with practices varying all over the world. Claiming that it's apologetic is not a sufficient reason to ignore academia. Concubinage may not be perfect but it's still better than sexual slavery which seems to have more to do with modern sex trafficking (or more rarely BDSM). So too do the dictionary definitions provided above by Dhawangupta. 119.152.159.62 (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My intention in bringing up Rome was to demonstrate that inferior social status is a key part of the original definition of "concubine", because you are making the argument that "concubine" primarily means "extra-marital lover" and was associated with the Islamic institution in this sense, which would indeed make it apologetic. This is not the case; the word was and continues to be used for the Islamic institution because it refers (in academic parlance especially) to sexual partners of inferior social status, as is the case in the Islamic practice.
 * None of the dictionaries cited say that a concubine was not a slave, only that they were of inferior social status, which a slave is compared to a free woman. Your argument that the word "concubinage" no longer has its original meaning of "sexual partnership between a man and a woman of inferior status" is a bit strange to me to hear because the word is very transparently a derived noun form of "concubine". Cambridge literally defines it as "the practice of having concubines". So I don't agree that there is a "correct word" here; the dictionary definition of "concubine" is clearly relevant.
 * Other pre-modern societies can have mixed regulations, where concubines might be both slaves and free women, and where it might be justifiable to focus on the extra-marital status of the relationship rather than the fluid social status of the person involved. Concubines in the Ancient Near East appear to have been at least predominantly enslaved—some sources explicitly distinguish between a "free woman" and a "concubine"—yet they are consistently referred to as "concubines" in specialist sources, e.g. Women in the Ancient Near East. I think you're making assumptions based on the idea that "concubine" is analogous to "lover" unqualified, which again doesn't hold up in a historical context.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * “My intention in bringing up Rome was to demonstrate that inferior social status”
 * Historically concubines tended to be of inferior social status simply because the position of a concubine possessed less privileges than the position of official wife in societies where women had in general very few rights. This has nothing to do with slavery. But let's do an exercise. Let's translate “concubine” as “lover of inferior social status”. Definitely the article wouldn't state a false thing if it was called “Lovers of inferior social status in Islam” (surely slaves are of inferior social status). And I believe that also “Extra-marital relationships in Islam” would formally be correct (sexual slaves are definitely extra-marital affairs). But the question is: would all these labels, although non-false, be as precise as “Sexual slavery in Islam”?
 * “you are making the argument that "concubine" primarily means "extra-marital lover"”
 * My argument is that the main current meaning of “concubinage” is that of “extra-marital relationship”, while “concubine” has no current meaning, because the word is obsolete – while historically has meant “lover” (possibly “of inferior social status” because of contingent reasons – see above). For example Giuseppe Verdi, in a time when the word “concubine” was already obsolete, was accused of concubinage because he never married his partner, a lyrical singer (it was not a crime, only a bit scandalous for the time) and the Catholic Church still uses the term today for non-married couples . On the other hand if a girl got kidnapped and enslaved for sexual pleasure nobody would ever call her a “concubine”, or her relationship a “concubinage”. So we are basically going against WP:COMMONNAME.
 * “the dictionary definition of "concubine" is clearly relevant”
 * I agree. And most dictionaries indeed give as first meaning “The state of cohabiting or living together as man and wife while not married” (see concubinage), some dictionaries give as secondary meaning “The state of being or keeping a concubine”, but I do not know any dictionary that gives “The state of being or keeping a sexual slave” (which is precisely what we are talking about here instead).
 * “Concubines in the Ancient Near East appear to have been at least predominantly enslaved”
 * Then we are talking about slaves. Words change meanings during the centuries. The Latin word for slave was “servus”, but with the disappearance of slavery in the late Roman Empire it started to mean “servant” – which is the current meaning of the English word that derived from it. Then in the Middle age Slavic people started to be used as slaves, and since these people where of Slavic origins and there was not anymore a word for “slave” (the old word meant “servant”), the word “slave” (originally meaning “Slavic”) started to be used with its current meaning. Today we use the word “slave” also to describe what the Romans called “servus” (we do not use “servant” for it), because we want to be precise. I repeat myself, until 1929 we did not even had the word “sexual” with its current meaning (see above). But today we do.
 * --Grufo (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually Dr Silverstein has objections to both titles. Feel free to ignore my contributions that probably make up around 30% of the talkpage. I won't repeat my arguments but I'll just say that sexual slave is certainly a contentious title. Imagine saying that Hagar was Abraham's sex-slave instead of concubine . Plus, I'd be willing to bet that there's still a sock of Balolay that we're overlooking. 39.37.190.80 (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually Dr Silverstein has objections to both titles. Feel free to ignore my contributions that probably make up around 30% of the talkpage. I won't repeat my arguments but I'll just say that sexual slave is certainly a contentious title. Imagine saying that Hagar was Abraham's sex-slave instead of concubine . Plus, I'd be willing to bet that there's still a sock of Balolay that we're overlooking. 39.37.190.80 (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The page is move protected for almost a year, 1 July 2021. You should look at Requested moves/Controversial and use that to bring in more editors to comment. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Before going to Requested moves/Controversial, I would like to ask you one thing. The page has been created by editor with the title “Sexual slavery in Islam” . Someone has renamed the page to “Concubinage in Islam” without consensus. Why should the disputed renaming be kept in the meanwhile? --Grufo (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good question and one I don't know the answer to. See Administrators' noticeboard. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for posting the question to WP:AN. --Grufo (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Concubinage and sexual slavery have different historical contexts. Ideally both deserve separate articles on their own. This was the case until the articles were merged in a haste. However, in the current scenario, sexual slavery in Islam seems to be the right name.Mingling2 (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Sockpuppet of indef blocked user who has tried to comment on this page many times. See Sockpuppet investigations/Mingling2.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 22:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)