Talk:History of concubinage in the Muslim world/Archive 5

Requested move 30 August 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure)  Vpab15 (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Sexual slavery in Islam → Concubinage in Islam – Wikipedia requires that "article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources". Below is overwhelming evidence that reliable sources use the term "concubinage" (and its variants) as opposed to "sexual slavery" (and its variants).
 * Part 1 shows that 5 major encyclopedias on Islam have entries called "concubine"/"concubinage". It also shows that the reliable sources used in this article (plus a few others) use the term "concubine" (and its variants) much more frequently than "sexual slavery" (or its variants).
 * Part 2 shows that reliable sources describe the the subject women of this article using the term "concubine" not "sexual slave" nor "sex slave".
 * Part 3 are Google search results, but Search engine test points out many limitations to using them, thus sections 1 and 2 are more important. VR talk 16:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support move to "Concubinage in Islam" as nom. VR talk 16:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The topic has been widely discussed,, the reasons why “Concubinage in Islam” is not appropriate for the page have been extensively explained to you. Seven editors have opposed your proposal and just in my last three comments I have shown at least a dozen of reasons against it . You cannot keep repeating the same arguments even if they have already been addressed. Furthermore:
 * 1. Part of what you show with your research goes exactly in support of the current title (“Sexual slavery in Islam”). For example, what you state (“more frequently than "sexual slavery" (or its variants)”) is simply false, since you don't consider to be a variant of “sexual slavery” even a sentence like “sexual use of enslaved women and sometimes men”. And if you do include all the variants of “Sexual slavery in Islam” we go back to the numbers I had previously shown, more numerous than “Concubinage” (with all the limitations of search engines).
 * 2. It is bizarre that you admit that “Sexual slavery in Islam” is the only title that describes the contemporary manifestations of sexual slavery within the Islamic world and yet you consider it as a reason not to use it. This is exactly POV pushing.
 * As for the many other reasons against “concubinage”, I invite you to read the entire discussion. --Grufo (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2. With regards to contemporary concubinage, this reliable source uses the term "concubines" and "concubinage".VR talk 23:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Every single objection in the discussion has been responded above by one editor or the other while noone has bothered to present any evidence against the quantitative data above other than calling it haisplitting or accusing the sources of being Muslim and hence biased, or some other such nonsense.
 * If the arguments have broken off at some point as in the case of Karaeng Matoaya, it is probably because the arguments were getting repetitive rather than the argument being "won" (I find his explanations more convincing). In any case the admins over at the incident page explicitly told us to seek concensus over the issue. Claiming consensus after status-quo stonewalling due to NOCON is rather rich. 39.37.150.110 (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We have main articles on both Sexual slavery and Concubinage, and based on the definitions there and the content of this article, this article seems to be about sexual slaves and not concubines. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * can you then explain why most of the sources cited in this article use the term "concubinage" and "concubine"? (see the table at above).VR talk 23:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You'd have to ask them to know for sure, but one possibility is that many Islamic scholars happen to be Muslim themselves and want to put the most positive spin on it as they can, so they choose to use a more sanitized, yet less accurate term. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you realize these sources have been published by Oxford University Press, Harvard University Press, Cambridge University Press etc. So what if some of the authors of these scholarly works happen to Muslims (e.g. Kecia Ali)? Are you saying Muslim authors can't be WP:RELIABLE SOURCES? VR talk 23:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My oppose is based on our definitions of "sexual slavery" and "concubinage" in those respective articles, and I think the title of this article, as a sub-article of one of those, should follow from those primary articles. Based on my review of what this article is focused on, it is primarily concerned with sexual slaves and not concubines as defined by our other articles. Perhaps there should be a different article regarding concubinage in Islam, but this article seems focused on sexual slavery in Islam. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't let other Wikipedia articles, especially one as poorly written as concubinage, decide an article's title. Furthermore, the issue is that the word "concubine" is used as the English equivalent of a number of different practices in historical societies. In an Ancient Roman context, a concubine would have been a free woman of inferior social status than the man's wife, whose children are illegitimate; in the East Asian context, "concubine" is used to translate 妾 qie, a free or enslaved woman of markedly inferior status to the wife, whose children may be legitimate and continue the family line (as is generally the case in China) or illegitimate (as is the case in Korea); in the Islamic context, "concubine" refers to enslaved women whose children are legitimate. So there isn't any Platonic ideal of "concubinage" floating about for us to compare the Islamic institution to and say whether the latter is concubinage or not; the word means different things in different academic fields.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 03:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. For a number of reasons:


 * First, the proponents of the "sexual slavery" title have not offered any quantitative data that "concubinage" is the WP:COMMONNAME, while the proponents of the "concubinage" title have given quite overwhelming evidence. I disagree with Grufo's argument that "a sentence like 'sexual use of enslaved women and sometimes men'" should be used as an argument against "concubinage". For instance, the Encyclopaedia of Islam entry's first sentence directly states that "in the context of Islamic law it is used to refer to a slave woman who is a man’s legal sexual partner as a result of his ownership of her" yet nonetheless has the entry title "Concubinage, in Islamic law". This rigid distinction between sexual slavery and concubinage exists in the minds of Wikipedians but not those of academics; that being the case, we go by the common name, which is "concubinage".
 * Tied to that, there has been a recurrent argument that "concubinage" is WP:POV because it supposedly refers to adulterous relationships generally and is thus euphemistic. This is not the case; Google, the Cambridge English Dictionary, and the Collins Dictionary all note that the primary definition of "concubine", especially in historical contexts, refers to a man's sexual partner of lower social rank than his wife. The fact that a concubine is not equal to a wife is not being glossed over by the word.
 * Furthermore, the use of the word "concubine" to refer to sexual slaves historically is quite common in non-Islamic fields as well. Concubines in the Ancient Near East were enslaved women and yet are quite consistently referred to as "concubines": see Women in Antiquity: Real Women across the Ancient World, Women in the Ancient Near East, etc. This can hardly be because a cohort of Akkadians are spreading their personal biases in academia!
 * In fact, I consider the "sexual slavery" title WP:POV. The word has a fixed definition in modern international law and, at least to me, has a modern connotation—one would certainly not call Hagar a sex slave—and is accordingly the generally used term when it comes to ISIS and other Islamist groups (e.g. Princeton University's ISIS: A History makes references to "sexual slavery" but none to "concubine"). This means that the "sexual slavery" title is privileging the modern activities of a small fringe of Islam, when slavery is abolished in mainstream Islam and the vast majority of this article ought to accordingly discuss the historical phenomenon (as is actually done in more reputable encyclopedias such as EoI). In these circumstances, the "sexual slavery" title is both WP:RECENTISM and WP:POV. There could perhaps be a separate article on "Sexual slavery in modern Islamism", in which case I wouldn't oppose "sexual slavery" as the WP:COMMONNAME.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * “I disagree with Grufo's argument that "a sentence like 'sexual use of enslaved women and sometimes men'" should be used as an argument for "concubinage"”
 * For disagreeing with me you should at least disagree with what I actually said: “sexual use of enslaved women and sometimes men” would be a paraphrase of sexual slavery, not concubinage.
 * “distinction between sexual slavery and concubinage exists in the minds of Wikipedians but not those of academics”
 * Most sources, including the sources proposed by Vice regent, are very clear in using the right words: slaves, enslaved, captive, sexual use, etc. etc. – fact that you keep not acknowledging. Once a source has made it clear that it is talking about slaves it can even call the sexual slaves “lovers”, “concubines”, “lower wives”, etc.: the reader won't forget that it is talking about slaves. In the same way, if a source were talking about other kinds of slaves whose main task was a different one – let's say house holding – it could perfectly start calling such slaves the “householders”, as long as it has made clear at least once that it is talking about slaves.
 * “This is not the case; Google, the Cambridge English Dictionary, and the Collins Dictionary all note that the primary definition of "concubine", especially in historical contexts, refers to a man's sexual partner of lower social rank than his wife”
 * I belong to a lower social rank compared to a lot of people but I am very far from being a slave. Moreover, it must be a common thing among the supporters of “concubinage” to keep repeating the same arguments despite they have been already addressed, but as I said before, try with “concubinage” instead of “concubine”, and you will see that in two of the three dictionaries of yours even the “lower social rank” will disappear (see Google, the Cambridge English Dictionary, and the Collins Dictionary for “concubinage”)
 * “In fact, I consider the "sexual slavery" title WP:POV”
 * Considering as WP:POV the term “sexual slavery” in an article that talks about “sexual slavery” is really funny rhetoric.
 * “one would certainly not call Hagar a sex slave”
 * Why not? Most academic sources that talk about the institution in the Middle East of what you keep calling “concubines” – including in Judaism – call the persons involved exactly as sexual slaves (or variants, like “slave-girls”, “slave-wives”, etc.). And some sources even complain against who keeps not being clear in what they are talking about. See for example what Epstein said back in 1935 – despite the premise about the Greeks and Romans he is talking about the term “concubine” within Judaism (emphasis mine):
 * "The Greek and the Roman came to call a concubine any woman who had a more or less permanent agreement with a man for common sexual living without being full legitimate wife. It included every form of sub-marital relation. And because of this, a tradition of confusing terms has been established among all writers since that day, so that even when speaking of the original institution they speak of the slave-wife, the slave-girl or even of common-law wives as concubines. This lack of precision has also marred most of the research done in this field by modern scholars."

- Louis M. Epstein, "The Institution of Concubinage among the Jews"


 * Note that when Epstein wrote this sentence the English word “sexual” still meant “concerning the gender” (not “concerning the sexual intercourse”), so he could not use the word “sexual” as we mean it today.
 * “ [ Sexual slavery ] is accordingly the generally used term when it comes to ISIS and other Islamist groups”
 * Modern manifestations of sexual slavery in Islam are among the topics of the article. So, if all the points raised so far were not enough, this would be a further argument against “concubinage”.
 * --Grufo (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you answer this question: why should Wikipedia not use "concubinage" as the title when effectively all generalist encyclopedias of Islam do, even while clarifying that in the field of Islamic studies concubines refer to salves? Can you offer any tertiary source of the level of the Encyclopaedia of Islam that uses "sexual slavery" as the entry title?
 * "Concubinage" is the derived noun of "concubine", as correctly noted in both Collins and Cambridge and as should be clear to all English speakers. There is no semantic distinction between "concubine" and "concubinage" that you keep trying to draw.
 * "Slave-girl" is not directly comparable because not all young enslaved women in the Ancient Near East were concubines. Nonetheless, this is categorically false: 3,000+ results for "ancient near east" "concubine" versus 1,640 for "ancient near east" "slave girl", 6,600 results for "judaism" "concubine" versus 3,910 results for "judaism" "slave girl". Suffice it to say that "slave-wife" and "sex(ual) slave" are even rarer in both contexts.
 * Clearly he has not made much of an impact, since "concubine" remains current today (in Islam, Judaism, ANE, etc) as shown by Vice Regent and by Google Scholars results.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * To add the Jewish Pilgesh is a concubine. That it is indeed used an a equivalent of the English "mistress" with no legal status in the modern day, does not override it's historical legal and the current academic understanding of the term. 39.37.150.110 (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * “Could you answer this question: why should Wikipedia not use "concubinage" as the title when effectively all generalist encyclopedias of Islam do, even while clarifying that in the field of Islamic studies concubines refer to salves?”
 * Sure. I apologize if I partially repeat myself, but since it seems still not clear…
 * 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”
 * 6. Wikipedia is not an “encyclopedia of Islam”, where “concubinage” can only mean “sexual slavery” (since any form of extra-marital sex between free people in Islam is forbidden). Wikipedia is simply a generalist encyclopedia, which must take into account the wider semantics of the terms.
 * 7. Some sources (correctly) raise an argument against who still uses “concubinage” in this context
 * 8. “Concubinage” is simply less precise than “Sexual slavery”: if there is choice (and I think there isn't – see next point) the second term should be preferred.
 * 9. “Concubinage” carries a heavy baggage of history. The article is not about “Historical concubines in Islam-majority countries and kingdoms”, the article is about the relationship between a religion (Islam) and the practice of sexual slavery, and it tries to address aseptically how this is allowed or not, from a theoretical point of view.
 * The more I keep thinking, the more arguments against “concubinage” I find. So I will stop here for now.
 * “"Concubinage" is the derived noun of "concubine", as correctly noted in both Collins and Cambridge and as should be clear to all English speakers.”
 * And indeed “concubine” simply means “lover”. You keep repeating that a concubine has a lower social status than the wife, but so does a modern “lover”.
 * “There is no semantic distinction between "concubine" and "concubinage" that you keep trying to draw.”
 * And yet there is currently a distinction, despite the common etymology of the two words. In particular “concubinage” is used for symmetrical relationships when applied to the contemporary world.
 * “Clearly he has not made much of an impact, since "concubine" remains current today (in Islam, Judaism, ANE, etc) as shown by Vice Regent”
 * Who does not agree with you and Vice regent is trying to show that using “concubinage” for meaning “sexual slaves” is a problematic linguistic relict that is used only in particular contexts, not suited for Wikipedia.
 * --Grufo (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody has demonstrated this except a Google Search result based on a flawed understanding of the search engine, and refuted by correct implementation of Google quotation marks. Do you have any quantitative evidence that "sexual slavery" is the WP:COMMONNAME, as Vice Regent has shown for "concubinage"?
 * This is insufficient ground to overturn academic WP:COMMONNAME. You consistently make the claim that the title is apologetic, but unless English-language academia accepts this opinion and abandons the term "concubinage" this remains your opinion and nothing more. My opinion is that "concubinage" is absolutely apt for the Islamic institution, likely because I first encountered the word as the English equivalent of East Asian 妾. But my opinion doesn't matter any more than yours do; the sources (as provided by Vice Regent) do. See also the dictionary section.
 * This is unfounded. See the dictionary section below. And no, in the historical context, a concubine is an institutionalized position a woman can hold (as in Islam, as in Rome, as in East Asia), not remotely comparable to a lover in the Western sense.
 * See section below.
 * Islam does not exist in some world of ideas, independently from the practices that it enables as a religion. The article should be (and already is) about the practice of concubinage in the Islamic world by lived human beings, not about its theoretical presentation in Islamic law completely divorced from the realities of its implementation. In any case, if the article focuses "aseptically how this is allowed or not, from a theoretical point of view", the correct term would still be "concubinage", as that is how the term is translated in English-language treatises on Islamic law.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 08:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * “Nobody has demonstrated this”
 * to demonstrate how “concubinage” goes against WP:COMMONNAME with a simple example.
 * “Do you have any quantitative evidence that "sexual slavery" is the WP:COMMONNAME, as Vice Regent has shown for "concubinage"”
 * What Vice regent has shown is very far from evidence in favor of “concubinage”, since it has several flaws and the same sources presented in favor of concubinage in most cases have clear paraphrases of “sexual slavery”. Furthermore,, using what I think is the most accurate research attainable for a label that is often paraphrased, to which you have complained that my search words “have not been formatted correctly” and that “something as utterly unrelated” appears among the search results. Yet you have not given any quantitative estimate (i.e. How often does an unrelated result appear? Is it one every ten results? One every two? One every twenty? How should that correct my numbers according to you?).
 * ''“This is insufficient ground to overturn academic WP:COMMONNAME.
 * In academia “concubinage” is in no more WP:COMMONNAME than “sexual slavery” is, and it definitely has a more circumscribed meaning compared to “sexual slavery” (i.e. early Islam only).
 * “You consistently make the claim that the title is apologetic, but unless English-language academia accepts this opinion and abandons the term "concubinage" this remains your opinion and nothing more””
 * Using the term “concubinage” for “sexual slavery” is undoubtedly apologetic regardless of how much it is used, simply because it is a wider vaguer term that mainly means something else (i.e. extra-marital relationship) and hides the lack of consensus from the Islamic “concubine”. Imagine we all started to use the label “helpers” to define the slaves in Ancient Rome: would such label stop being apologetic if Wikipedia started promoting it? And pay attention: calling a slave a “helper” would not be a wrong label (slaves are definitely helpers).
 * “I first encountered the word as the English equivalent of East Asian 妾”
 * Again, with China you are talking about a historically circumscribed (now unproductive) phenomenon that got first described in the West in a time where a label such as “sexual slavery” would not even be possible, thus as such it got crystallized. With Islam we are talking about a potentially productive phenomenon (unless you consider “Islam” – which is what the article talks about – a dead religion), and using a linguistic relic for it, such as “concubinage”, is unjustified.
 * “See also the dictionary section”
 * I agree that we should pay attention to the dictionaries.
 * “a concubine is an institutionalized position a woman can hold (as in Islam, as in Rome, as in East Asia), not remotely comparable to a lover in the Western sense”
 * In Rome a concubine is exactly a lover, institutionalized by the law. Non-marital relationship are also institutionalized in the modern world, and today a non-married couple in the West (i.e. living under concubinage) often sees reconognized some of the rights that are typical of marriages – see for example the 1999 French law about the rights of living in a concubinage . This is very far from sexual slavery.
 * “Islam does not exist in some world of ideas”
 * Sure, I meet Allah every now and then.
 * --Grufo (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, I meet Allah every now and then.
 * --Grufo (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Sexual slavery is a very valid name for the article. If there is a need for Concubinage in Islam, a separate article can be created for that purpose. 103.255.7.21 (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We should 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) 07:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is based on an improper and misleading use of Google, as "sexual slavery in Islam" with no quotation marks would include any result that happens to have the three extremely general words "sexual", "slavery", and "Islam". The proper results for Google Scholars, with correct quotation formatting, are given by Vice Regent.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. What purpose does the dated term "Concubinage in Islam" serve? - other than to give the impression that this was an "old" problem. In my lifetime I have witnessed multiple examples of sexual enslavement by Muslims not least the sexual enslavement of Yazidis, Kayla Mueller (Leader of Islamic State took American hostage as sexual slave) and the Rochdale child sex abuse ring. And no I don't think all Muslims are like this. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The term "concubinage" is not dated. Many sources in the table at have been published in the last 10-20 years.  ISIL and Rochdale are not representative of the entire religion of Islam and its history - both have been widely denounced by Muslims. By contrast the prophet Muhammad, Qur'an are more representative of Islam (even to this day), yet I can't find reliable sources that accuse them of prescribing "sexual slavery" - all the sources use the term "concubinage" instead. Also would you prefer splitting the article into historical concubinage practiced by Muslims and contemporary phenomena?VR talk 10:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The WikiIslam article Concerns with Islam: Sexual Slavery in Islam points to "reliable" source Sahih Bukhari about Mohammed's dodging the explicit question aswell as Quran references. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You are citing WikiIslam as a source? Also any interpretation of Sahih Bukhari or Qur'an by a Wikipedian is WP:Original research. By contrast, I have cited the most reliable sources which interpret the Qur'an and Muhammad as allowing "concubinage" (see table at and ), but do not accuse them of prescribing "sexual slavery".VR talk 14:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Is Sahih Bukhari not "reliable"? Is the Quran not reliable? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Youtube link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6SfFYRljeY&t=3m10s you posted above is not reliable. And you can not use the Qur'an as a source on wikipedia per WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. You can only use reliable sources that interpret the Qur'an. An example of a reliable source is the Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an, whose entry on this subject is called "concubines". VR talk</b> 16:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You state: I can't find reliable sources that accuse them of prescribing "sexual slavery - and then you provide me with a reference that does exactly that. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The source (unfortunately behind a paywall) is entitled Concubines and says The vague quranic pronouncements on concubines are matched by vigorous debates in the first few centuries over the status of children born to concubines. Although the Prophet is known to have had a child by his concubine Mariya.... I don't see any reference to the term "sexual slavery", "sexual slave" etc in that article.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 18:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The first sentence reads Female slaves who enter into a sexual relationship with their male master JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am still not seeing the term "sexual slavery" (which is an actual term with legal definitions: Sexual_slavery). Few to no reliable sources describe the Qur'an as allowing "sexual slavery". VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 19:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Islamic law allows a Muslim man the right of sexual intercourse with his female slaves. This right is based on ancient Arab custom and on several verses of the Qurʾān The next two sentences for the reference you supplied. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, no mention of the term "sexual slavery", which is an actual term. The source does say quranic pronouncements on concubines.... The name you want is conspicuously absent in most reliable sources.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 21:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And yet it falls within the statement you (wrongly) described as an actual term with legal definitions Sexual_slavery JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The OR connections being made and the impressions of a continuity (neither upheld nor discussed by even a single source here) between the Rochdale child sex abuse ring and historical Islamic slavery is actually one of the reasons why concubinage is the neutral title as opposed to the POV "sexual slavery". Should the Rochdale child sex abuse ring be added in the "modern day manifestation" sections I ask (btw the stary from the topic tag should be replaced to that section, there is also a dispute about it)? As VR has pointed out, this isn't supposed to be an article about rapes committed by Muslims.


 * Keica Ali points out that on the issues of sexual slavery:


 * "There are reasons why the story of enslaved Yazidis is one that captures the front page of the New York Times: it fits into familiar narratives of Muslim barbarity...In focusing on current abuses in the Middle East, perpetrated by those claiming the mantle of Islam, Americans — whose Constitution continues to permit enslavement as punishment for crime — deflect attention from partial U.S. responsibility for the current crisis in Iraq. Sanctions followed by military invasion and its brutal aftermath laid the groundwork for the situation Callimachi describes. Moral high ground is in short supply. '"


 * As evidenced by your comment as well as some others above, the title simply perpetuates myths that Kecia Ali (the most cited scholar on this article who prefers the term concubinage in her academic works) explicitly condemns, both in her books as well as her blogposts. Simply put, every single academic source prefers the term concubinage without any reservation and it is only faithful to endorse the terms they themselves use. On the other hand the term sexual slavery is mostly associated with modern day criminal activities including forced prostitution and child traficking. You literally have to twist entire sentences to arrive at even a single occurance for sexual slavery in some of the sources, while the term concubine/concubinage is used recurrantly. 39.37.150.110 (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OR? Original Research? What research are you refering to? Interesting that you interpret her "familiar narratives" as myths and not truths. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per the quantitative comparison given by Vice Regent (VR) above, strong additional arguments by Karaeng Matoaya, and my own experience working with sources from the historical Islamic world confirms that calling these women "sexual slave" or calling the relationship "sexual slavery" is extremely rare compared to concubinage, except for the more recent ISIS case. If we're talking about the general historical phenomenon, the current title seems unduly focused on one aspect of the concubinage. HaEr48 (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OpposeThe terms 'Concubinage' and 'Sexual slave' are radically different in meaning. The former involves forceful domination of the enslaved partner, while the later is ambiguous in this regard and only points towards a lack of marriage contract.Episcopa (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: this account was created a few hours ago and has only made 3 other edits.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 16:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support the move. The sources overwhelmingly favor "concubinage" and I don't see how some articles about ISIS and Yazidis change that. Also even if it's the case that concubinage is a lesser-known term than sexual slavery among the general public, that shouldn't be a reason to override the term academia uses. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources overwhelmingly favor "concubinage": On the contrary, the acedmic sources rather favor “sexual slavery” or a similar construct . And while most academic articles that talk about antiquity tend to use both “concubinage” and one or more paraphrases of “sexual slavery”, the sources that deal with sexuality today do reject the term “concubinage”. --Grufo (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * See and  for a long list of reliable sources that prefer the term "concubinage".VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 01:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose I am against it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.178.134 (talk) 18:49, 6 September, 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: When in doubt, we need to consult the Article titles to find the most appropriate title for a given page. Arguments like the title "is not appropriate for the page", "Sexual slavery is a very valid name for the article",'the new title just functions to impress it's an old problem', 'the two titles have different definitions' and like are never considered as "Move Request" arguments. There are few other users saying the new title is not a common name. Though they are already given responses it can be said that besides the WP:CRITERIA a title should have, which the suggested title has, the policy demands using a COMMON NAME, which is determined by the prevalence of the title in "a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". VR's collection of sources are indeed showing how the "concubinage" term is used for very same purpose of this page. I don't see the opponents of the new title giving proportionate response in face these reliable sources using "concubinage" (actually they even fail to discuss the sources, let alone saying they're not applied here). I guess most of the users favoring "Sexual slavery in Islam" are puzzled by the recent acts of enslavement by ISIL, which is not what the current page is going to say! Also, I am seeing some of the users are resorting to Original Research, as opposed to arguing based on the policy, to express their objection. -- M h hossein   talk 07:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * “the WP:CRITERIA a title should have”
 * “Concubinage” fails to meet every single one of the five WP:CRITERIA for a page title (i.e. Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency).
 * “I don't see the opponents of the new title giving proportionate response in face these reliable sources using "concubinage"”
 * The onus of giving sources is on the proponents of the change, and nevertheless several editors have shown how the sources that use “sexual slavery”, “sexual slave”, “sex slave” or a similar variant are at least as numerous and not focused only on the past. Moreover, even in this last case (the past) the term “concubinage” often needs to be completed and the sources that use it feel the need to clarify that it is sexual slavery what we are talking about – which is per se a sign of the fact that “concubinage” alone is not a well suited term for describing the Islamic phenomenon.
 * “I guess most of the users favoring "Sexual slavery in Islam" are puzzled by the recent acts of enslavement by ISIL, which is not what the current page is going to say”
 * The article does talk also about the “recent acts of enslavement by ISIL”. On the other hand the article does not talk about concubinage, whose WP:COMMONNAME is the free cohabitation of a man and a woman not legally married – definitely so on Wikipedia (see for example Concubinage in Canada – Consistency). At most it talks about slave-concubines, which is hardly a concubinage. A hypothetical article named “Concubinage in Islam” could contain only three words: “Islam forbids concubinage”. The same cannot be said about “sexual slavery” instead: the latter has been allowed for a long time and sometimes it is still today. For more arguments see this other comment.
 * --Grufo (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The source that Grufo refers to that uses the term "sexual slavery" more often than "concubinage" is this article by Quadrant (magazine) (it was mentioned by Mcphurphy and Grufo). That publisher has been accused of spreading hoaxes Quadrant_(magazine) and can't be considered a reliable source.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 14:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it necessary to lie, Vice regent? I never referred to that source in particular (look at the context of my comment). --Grufo (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Grufo: Accusing other editor of lying is a clear WP:personal attack. Stop repeating that please. -- M h hossein   talk 14:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Note, the term "concubinage" meets all 5 of the WP:CRITERIA.
 * Recognizability and naturalness: As shown in and, English-language reliable sources most often use the term "concubine"/"concubinage". Even this article at its current revision uses the term "concubine"/"concubinage" more than 90 times. Clearly the most natural term here is "concubine".
 * Precision: "concubinage" does meets the dictionary definition of the subject of this article, as explained in Talk:Sexual_slavery_in_Islam by Karaeng Matoaya.
 * Conciseness: "concubinage" is very concise - it is only one word, whereas "sexual slavery" is two words.
 * Consistency: when it comes to this subject, the closest religion to Islam is Judaism and that's covered at Concubinage.
 * VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 14:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * There is something bizarre at the very root of this discussion. As stated by an anonymous editor in this Talk Page, “sexual slavery and concubinage are not interchangeable terms so the issue of which term is more popular (therefore preferable for the article name) shouldn't arise in the first place”. But anyway, since it seems necessary to state even the obvious here…
 * Recognizability: The recognizability of “concubinage” for meaning “sexual slavery” is incomparable with the recognizability of “sexual slavery” for meaning “sexual slavery”
 * Naturalness: “concubinage” meaning “sexual slavery” is undoubtedly a very artificial usage of the term
 * Precision: “concubinage” is not particularly precise (for not saying appropriate) at describing “sexual slavery”
 * Conciseness: sure, “concubinage” is slightly shorter than “sexual slavery”; but “concub” would be shorter than “concubinage”; and “conc” would be shorter than “concub” – and so on using shorter and shorter words with less and less meaning; on the other hand “sexual slavery” is more concise than “concubinage with enslaved women” – which is what the sources allegedly invoked in favor of “concubinage” need to use at the end of the day
 * Consistency: “concubinage” for meaning “sexual slavery” is completely disconnected from all the other occurrences of the word on Wikipedia (see Concubinage, Concubinage in Canada and Concubinage in ancient Rome); even the Jewish concubine (pilegesh), although it has similar roots, is very different compared to the Islamic sexual slave. --Grufo (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * oppose there is a huge difference between a "concubine", and "sex slave". —usernamekiran (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be an argument for supporting the move? It is clear that the sources in this article use the term "concubine" and not "sex slave" (see ). So your argument would lead us to believe this article is currently misnamed and should be called "Concubinage" instead.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 13:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is obviously going to always be a controversial article with many attempts at POV particularly by giving undue weight. But like it or not the current title Sexual slavery on Islam is a good topic and is covered in some depth by this article (whether accurately or not is another issue). It might be possible to split some of the current content out to the previous title Concubinage in Islam but again that is another issue. Andrewa (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * are you saying "Concubinage in Islam" and "Sexual slavery in Islam" are two different topics? If so, would you agree that this article is mainly about "Concubinage" and not "Sexual slavery"? This is due to the fact that the sources used in the article talk about concubinage (see ).VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 19:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do appear to be different topics, although part of the problem is that the terms seem to be used for closely related topics in Islamic tradition (that's just going by the article), while in Western tradition they are used to describe two very different things. That's why the discussion on definitions has gone around in circles. No, I don't agree that the article is mainly about concubinage. I don't think this is just a matter of counting references... it's a very poorly structured article at present, by whatever name. Andrewa (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So would you suggest wikipedia having two different articles "Concubinage in Islam" and "Sexual slavery in Islam"?
 * Also, I don't follow your point about this article not being mainly about concubinage. How can it not be when most of the sources cited explicitly use the term "concubine" and "concubinage"? VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 20:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My best suggestion would be to create a new article at Concubinage in Islam, in theory a split from this article but really a new start from scratch using the best sourced material from this article relevant to that topic.
 * It is important to understand that the criteria for relevant sources are different for article titles and for other references. References can be in any language, but for article titles we are only interested in the English ones. Andrewa (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The only problem with a new page named “Concubinage in Islam” would be that since Islam forbids actual concubinage except with slaves there would be no difference with “sexual slavery” and the new page would be immediately merged back to this page. Rather, an interesting proposal for me would be to create an article called “Concubinage in Muslim countries” – where the word “concubinage” would be used with its current meaning – that tries to address the topic of unrecognized civil unions in Muslim countries from a more secular point of view. That article could be the perfect place where to report the cases of unions without marriage not involving sexual slavery that have existed throughout history in Muslim-majority countries. I am sure that by digging deep enough something will emerge. --Grufo (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Then there is no problem.
 * This is I imagine the position of modern moderate Muslims. But that doesn't make it the only position.
 * Historically, there have been other positions.
 * Currently. there are other positions.
 * To ignore these others would be undue weight, and subtle POV.
 * Concubinage in Muslim countries is indeed another good topic. I suggest it starts out as a section of Concubinage in Islam and see whether there is enough referenced material to then create a separate article to split that new article from that section, replacing the section with a main template and a short summary. Meantime it would be a great help in developing and structuring that new article. Good suggestion! Andrewa (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * “This is I imagine the position of modern moderate Muslims. But that doesn't make it the only position. Historically, there have been other positions.”:, I am not sure I understood completely. So you are saying that today concubinage with free women is forbidden in Islam, but if it has been allowed/tolerated anywhere in the past another article called “Concubinage in Islam” should talk about these cases of actual concubinage with free women? Or did I misunderstand completely your point? --Grufo (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not offering any opinion as to whether or not concubinage with free women is forbidden in Islam or any similar issue, and do not wish to. I don't think that's relevant to the article name. Both concubinage and slavery seem to have been practised, and this seems well documented, and they seem to be different things. Is any of that really in doubt? Andrewa (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

going back to your original point where you said Sexual slavery on Islam is a good topic. Do you have sources that talk about "sexual slavery" in the context of Islam? There are certainly sources that talk about "sexual slavery" being practiced by ISIS, but ISIS and Islam are totally different things. As I pointed out in, I couldn't find a single reliable source that said that Muhammad practiced "sexual slavery", although a few said he practiced concubinage. Since you said that "Sexual slavery in Islam" and "Concubinage in Islam" are two different topics, can you explain the difference?VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 22:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support the move. Bahar1397 (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be best if you gave some reasons along with your vote. 119.152.130.30 (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Problem is, the above quite clearly ignores how the term concubine/concubinage is used in academic sources on this topic in favour of your own definitions. The sources in this article quite clearly refer to this institution itself as concubinage and this fits the definition of a concubine being a woman "with inferior social and legal status". Slave concubinage is a subset of concubinage and the article can explain this. Why are your objections not found in the sources themselves, which have no qualms with the term concubinage? Other than that, I agree that another article with the same references would be pointless.


 * Overall, I agree that the article is about both sexual slavery and concubinage which are interrelated but the thing is that the article is supposed to be about how Islamic regulations transformed sexual slavery into (what Robinson terms) normative Islamic concubinage and that is what the article's sources focus on.


 * As per Kecia Ali:
 * "Household slavery was common. Slaveholding, in practice everywhere, included sexual use of enslaved women and sometimes men."
 * and
 * "One was Mariyya the Copt. A gift from the Byzantine governor of Alexandria, she reportedly bore Muhammad a son; he freed her. Whatever the factual accuracy of this tale, its presence attests to a shared presumption that one leader could send another an enslaved female for sexual use. "


 * "Like their earlier counterparts in Greece and Rome, jurists formulating Islamic law in the eighth to 10th centuries took slavery as a given. They formalized certain protections for slaves, including eventual freedom for women like Mariyya who bore children to their masters; such children were free and legitimate. "


 * Sexual slavery existed before Islam, normative Islamic concubinage as introduced by the Umayyads did not. The confusion arises from the article itself which doesn't make any distinctions and as Eperoton points out (wrongly) makes it look like
 * "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."
 * P.S I don't get Andrewa's point either.119.152.130.30 (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * “Islamic regulations transformed sexual slavery into (what Robinson terms) normative Islamic concubinage”
 * How did the Islamic “concubines” differ from what we would normally call sexual slaves? Why should Wikipedia treat Islamic sexual slavery as a simple extra-marital relationship (“concubinage”) and not as a “regulated sexual slavery” instead, like the slavery in ancient Rome for example, which was probably even more regulated than the Islamic one?
 * “The lead makes it seem like "Islam" was what caused sexual slavery to exist”
 * I don't think anyone in this discussion thinks that Islam introduced sexual slavery, which is an institution as old as humanity. In any case the article makes it quite clear.
 * --Grufo (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "How did the Islamic “concubines” differ from what we would normally call sexual slaves? Why should Wikipedia treat Islamic sexual slavery..."
 * Because, sources!....the important thing which opposers are contionuoulsly trying to sidestep... While I used the term as a concession to you, I do believe that the term sexual slavery is POV and also rather meaningless. It is rarely used in any of the reliable sources and as pointed out before it's definitions are mainly concerned with modern criminal activeity like forced prositution and sex trafficking. How is that suitable? Please provide sources connected to the topic for your definitions.


 * While you've spent a lot of time arguing against the term concubinage, you haven't really provided any evidence in favour of the term sexual slavery (other than a few tautologies).
 * “Because, sources!”: I do not understand. All the sources presented so far are very explicit in defining it as slavery, including the ones allegedly presented by the supporters of “Concubinage in Islam”. You just quoted Kecia Ali, who for describing what we are talking about used the words “sexual use of enslaved women and sometimes men”. So I ask you again, how is this not sexual slavery? Do you have any source that warns the reader against treating the this as sexual slavery? Rather, all the sources seen so far do the exact opposite: they warn the reader that we are talking about sexual slavery. Hence, please stop saying that the sources do not consider it as sexual slavery: 100% of the sources are very explicit in clarifying that it is slavery; while on the other hand many sources, especially the ones that deal with the present, do not use at all concubinage. And finally, please do answer my question once and for all: How is this not sexual slavery? --Grufo (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Kecia Ali was actually talking about pre-Islamic slavery. Is this article about that sort of slavery "including men"?. It's about the post-Islam emergence of a certain type of concubinage. The sources overwhelmingly support the term concubinage. Noone denied that there is an aspect of slavery here (defined as slave concubinage) but your claims that this can not be called as concubinage "proper", is odd. The sources prefer the term, while you struggle to find paraphrases of your preferred term. We have sources here about "concubines and consent" and "concubines and courtesan's". On the other hand the terms sexual slavery and sex slave are exceedingly rare. Why should we used an implied title instead of the one the sources themselves use? Note that the term sex slave and sex slavery is undisputedly degradeory as well.
 * I can't really answer your question because you haven't provided a single academic source that defines it. I said it is meaningless unless we're talking about modern sex trafficking and modern criminal law so I don't know what "sexual slavery" is or isn't. Where does the term come from? Keep in mind that the words "sexual" and "slavery" are different from the combined term "sexual slavery". Some of you made the same mistake in the google searches.
 * The two words put together need to have a proper definition that isn't being provided but even if we just take the two words together and assume it means sex with slaves, why should it be called or focussed on that? After all as HaEr48 (who has worked on these articles) points out sex was "one aspect of the multi-faceted relationship". The relationship was also about children as well as singing or dancing girls. It's like calling marriage a sexual partnership. So why should the article be called sexual slavery instead of concubinage which was the overarching institution? This would be consistent with the Chinese usage as well if you're concerned about consistency.
 * In any case the name dispute is actually rather trivial compared to some other issues with the structure and scope of the article.

119.152.130.30 (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the move in agreement with, and what some others have argued. There exists a concept of concubinage in primary Islamic sources and scholarship. Whether or not it constitutes "sexual slavery", on the other hand, remains highly subjective and is left at best to the interpretation of modern, independent scholars. Note that in an academic (and also religious) context, "interpretation" and "consensus" are two different things, and ought not to be conflated. There is evidently a scholarly consensus that Islamic texts discuss concubinage. That IMO is sufficient insofar as the general naming of the topic – and its overwhelming use among primary and secondary sources – is concerned, keeping in line with WP:COMMONNAME. But there is no consensus that the concubinage prescribed in these sources is conceptually the equivalent of modern sexual slavery. To substantiate this position, we still require strong scholarly evidence, consensus and extensive historiography, which currently does not outdo the preference for concubinage. In my opinion, the debate over concubinage vs. sexual slavery is best discussed within the article itself, with attribution to the various views. From an academic point of view, it will not be appropriate in the title. Cheers,  Mar4d  ( talk ) 06:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the move as the scholarly sources clearly show a preference for "sexual slavery". Concubinage is just a euphemism mostly used in outdated literature. The term "sexual slavery" is a broader term which allows inclusion of concubinage, which is only one form of Islamic sexual slavery. For instance, we can't have content on the forced marriages of female slaves to others (another form of sexual slavery allowed in Islam) under a title called concubinage - as a concubine is a woman for the master's exclusive use. Dr Silverstein (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * But it can. To the archives we go:
 * "Again, Concubinage doesn't imply that the concubine can't be sold to another man. For example, in ancient China a concubine could be married by her owner to another man for a price:
 * Yet wikipedia covers this under Concubinage, not under sexual slavery"
 * On the other hand we still do not have any sources referring to the latter as sexual slavery. Just continuous accusations of academics themselves (I assume) being euphemistic or apologetic. 119.152.130.30 (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * On the other hand we still do not have any sources referring to the latter as sexual slavery. Just continuous accusations of academics themselves (I assume) being euphemistic or apologetic. 119.152.130.30 (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions of "concubine" and "concubinage"
The claim is being made that "concubine" primarily means "lover" and that to use it otherwise is euphemistic. When this has been shown otherwise, there is the claim that "concubinage" now means something different from the noun it is derived from. Let's look at the full-size dictionaries listed in Comparison of English dictionaries:

American Heritage Dictionary


 * "concubine": 1) [Law] A woman who cohabits with a man without being legally married to him; 2) In certain societies, such as imperial China, a woman contracted to a man as a secondary wife, often having few legal rights and low social status.
 * "concubinage": 1) [Law] Cohabitation without legal marriage; 2) The state of being a concubine.

Chambers Dictionary


 * "concubine": 1) [Historical] a woman who lives with a man and has sexual intercourse with him, without being married to him; 2) in polygamous societies: a secondary wife.
 * "concubinage": 1) the state of a man and a woman living together but not married to each other; 2) the status of a concubine.

Collins English Dictionary


 * "concubine":
 * American: 1) [Law] a woman who cohabits with a man although not legally married to him; 2) in certain polygamous societies, a secondary wife, of inferior social and legal status
 * British: 1) [in polygamous societies] a secondary wife, usually of lower social rank
 * "concubinage": 1) cohabitation without legal marriage; 2) the state of living as a concubine

Oxford English Dictionary (used as a stand-in for all Oxford dictionaries)


 * "concubine": A woman who cohabits with a man without being his wife; a kept mistress. In reference to polygamous peoples, as the ancient Hebrews and the Muslims: A "secondary wife" whose position is recognized by law, but is inferior to that of a wife.
 * "concubinage": The cohabiting of a man and a woman who are not legally married; the practice of having a concubine; the state of being a concubine.

Merriam-Webster (used as a stand-in for the other Webster dictionaries I didn't check)


 * "concubine": A woman with whom a man cohabits without being married: such as a) one having a recognized social status in a household below that of a wife; b) a woman other than his wife with whom a married man has a continuing sexual relationship
 * "concubinage": cohabitation of persons not legally married; the state of being a concubine

I see no evidence whatsoever that 1) the meaning of "concubine" is incompatible with the Islamic institution; in fact, the OED, probably the most prestigious dictionary of the language in existence, explicitly singles out the Islamic practice, nor that 2) the meaning of "concubinage" is somehow fundamentally divorced from "concubine". There is no dictionary-based argument against "concubinage", and any claim that it is euphemistic is wholly unfounded.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 08:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Karaeng Matoaya the definitions of Concubinage that you gave clearly show that it's unsuitable name for the article. Using Concubinage comfortably omits a woman's consent / willingness in the relationship. While mentioning slavery clearly shows that the woman entered the contract unwillingly. That's why when ISIS took Yazidi women as war booty by justifying it under Islamic law, it was labelled as sexual slavery instead of concubinage. See |this & |this etc.
 * Imagine the uproar if the BBC labeled the forcibly enslaved Yazidi women as concubines in the above article. Therefore, "Sexual slavery in Islam" is the ideal name. 103.255.7.21 (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Sexual slavery" has modern connotations (especially modern international law) and is used almost solely in reference to modern incarnations by extremist group like ISIS of this otherwise extinct practice. So the "sexual slavery" title is WP:RECENTISM. The BBC also frequently refers to relevant women as "concubines" in a historical context (example), which is the proper context for the vast majority of this article (at least if it were following WP:UNDUE).--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Karaeng Matoaya by using the term "Concubinage" you are putting this Thai concubine (who although not married to the King was never his 'SLAVE' and enjoyed huge privilages during her stay in the court) in same category as innocent Yazidi and Jewish women of Banu Qurayza who were enslaved by Muslims against their will and used as sex objects. Replacing 'sex slave' by 'concubine' is very disingenuous way of downplaying this heinous practice. 111.119.177.29 (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Funny you mention the Jewish women of Muhammad's time, because here are 4 academic sources that call Rayhana as the concubine of Muhammad. VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 14:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @User:Vice regent that's exactly what I am trying to explain. Both Concubinage and Sexual slavery are valid names with very differing meanings and both have been practised by Muslims. Therefore, a name change isn't warranted. However, a separate article for concubinage in Islam or a section within this article is perfectly reasonable. Yet you and User:Karaeng Matoaya are not acknowledging this fundamental difference and trying to portray Sexual slavery as just another relatively uncommon name for Concubinage. 111.119.177.29 (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How is "sexual slavery" a valid name to describe the prescriptions of Qur'an and Muhammad when it is rarely used by reliable sources in that context? VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 16:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What exactly you mean by "rarely used by reliable sources in that context?" Sexual slavery is a very common term. Quran and Islamic law forbid sexual relationships outside marriage and concubinage by its very definition is an extra-marital relationship. The only persons with whom Muslims can have sex outside marriage are the slaves they own, making the title perfectly valid.111.119.177.29 (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you come up with 5-10 reliable sources that say the Qur'an prescribes "sexual slavery"? See and  for 35+ reliable sources that use the term "concubinage" instead.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 16:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do I need to come up with 10 sources for a well established fact?! Islamic law allows Muslim men to have sex with the female slaves they own (whom 'their right hand posses' ). As I already stated sexual slavery and concubinage are not interchangeable terms so the issue of which term is more popular (therefore preferable for the article name) shouldn't arise in the first place.111.119.177.25 (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The debate here is not whether the Qur'an allows men to have sex with female slaves, but whether reliable sources call it "sexual slavery" or "concubinage". The source you posted above actually says "the Prophet Muhammad, for example, kept a slave-concubine (Mariya the Copt)..." and "When a master takes his own female slave as a concubine...".
 * Are you suggesting creating a different article called "Concubinage in Islam"? If so, would you agree that the content relating to the Qur'an would go in "Concubinage in Islam" and not in "Sexual slavery in Islam"?VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 17:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You keep misinterpreting my claims. As I have already stated, concubinage and sexual slavery are different and both have been practiced by Muslims. Meanwhile Quran forbids Muslims from sex outside marriage except when it comes to the slaves they own. Therefore, 'sexual slavery in Islam' is the correct name for this article. A separate article or a section within this article on the practice of concubinage is welcomed. 111.119.177.25 (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

7 days
It's been 7 days now. Can an admin evaluate the arguments above without getting involved in the dispute. It would be useful to know where we stand. The votes themselves are split. Some of the above sections like 2,6,7,9 and 13 also provide background to the title dispute. 119.152.130.30 (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * offered to close the discussion, however, I think the discussion is still ongoing.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 22:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ISIL
You have just to the page a paragraph named ISIL, which has the following conclusion “While the group claimed religious sanction for their atrocities, ISIL's religious justifications were refuted by dozens of Islamic scholars”. How is this edit of yours useful to both the article and the current dispute? --Grufo (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you feel this content doesn't belong at this article? Can you explain why?VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 22:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe the ISIL paragraph can belong to the page: mentioning controversial facts related to a main topic – making it clear that they are controversial – is something that can be done on Wikipedia as long as it does not serve other purposes (for example that of unbalancing the page towards the present, especially considering that sexual slavery is an obsolescent Islamic institution). I do raise an argument instead about the fact that your edit is opportune in this particular moment while there is an ongoing discussion concerning several related things. Given that you have the presence of the South Asia paragraph in the page with the argument that according to you its connection to the Islamic law would not be evident enough, what is the purpose of inserting a paragraph about facts whose link to the Islamic law is openly contested? We should not edit a page concerning disputed facts while we are involved in a dispute, let alone edit it in a non-constructive way. I would suggest that you self-revert your edit mentioning in the edit summary the ongoing debate (I will not do it for you). --Grufo (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources you cited on South Asia are not WP:Reliable Sources, they are simply first hand accounts. The author has no competency to determine whether something is or is not in accordance with Islam. The source I presented is published in a peer-reviewed journal and quotes Islamic scholars - who are presumably experts in their field - making a determination of whether something is in accordance with Islam. I can't imagine how this would not be relevant.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 22:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * “The source I presented is published in a peer-reviewed journal and quotes Islamic scholars”: Nobody contested your sources. --Grufo (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * While ISIL hopefully does not accurately represent Islam, it is part of Islam in the same way that creationism and the Crusades are unfortunately parts of Christianity. And it raises an interesting question... while the intended fate of these girls was I think clearly sexual slavery, does anyone really suggest it was a form of concubinage? The relevance to the current discussions is obvious I think. Andrewa (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * While ISIL represents a tiny minority of Muslims, it likely represents a very large portion of Muslims who practice sexual slavery. And I definitely agree with your question.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 22:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is not about any particular era (it is only about Islam), and ISIL represents a very tiny portion of the Muslims that have practiced sexual slavery throughout history – since sexual slavery is an obsolescent Islamic institution. As I said, it can be mentioned, what should not be done is changing the balance of the article while we are still discussing. --Grufo (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Except you have a hard time finding many sources that use the term "sexual slavery" to refer to what was practiced by Muhammad. Yet I can easily find sources that say what he practiced was "concubinage". Your assertions are your WP:original research.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 01:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not true. For example Maria al-Qibtiyya, with whom Muhammad liked to please himself sexually (they later married), is usually referred as his “slave girl”, not his “concubine” – see for example – and was given to him “as a gift”. From what I can see, in sources that translate directly from Arabic the term “concubine” tends to disappear (since in Arabic the word “slave” is used); the word “concubine” tends instead to appear in original texts (articles, chronicles, etc.) produced in the West. --Grufo (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not a reliable source and in any case it doesn't call her "sexual slave", which is an actual term with legal definition (see Sexual_slavery).VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 11:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * “does anyone really suggest it was a form of concubinage?”: No, and I think that we are a bit past the debate about whether Wikipedia should call “concubinage” the enslavement of people for sexual pleasure – whether widespread as in the past or sectarian as today, whether involving Circassian girls kidnapped and sold centuries ago or involving Yazidi girls today. --Grufo (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, if it wasn't a form of concubinage, and was a form of sexual slavery, then they are different things, surely? We are only past the debate because you will not accept its inevitable conclusion. Andrewa (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * then they are different things, surely?
 * Sure concubinage and sexual slavery are two different things. Although a concubinage (meaning a stable, long-term non-marital relationship) can be practiced with a slave (but the phenomenon would fall within “sexual slavery”, not “concubinage”).
 * “We are only past the debate because you will not accept its inevitable conclusion”
 * I am not the only editor who opposed the usage of the term “concubinage” for the Islamic institution of the “slaves for pleasure”, we are talking about at least a dozen of editors including you (although you that you would not oppose a further page named “Concubinage in Islam”, but without specifying what it would talk about).
 * --Grufo (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with the insertion of content on sexual slavery by ISIL. However, peacock wording about the views of some religious scholars should be modified. "Refuted" should be changed to "rejected." Mcphurphy (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The source says "refuted".VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 11:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)