Talk:History of concubinage in the Muslim world/Archive 8

Salma Saad thesis
The work by Salma Saad had been published by the University of Leeds in 1990. It has also been cited by other scholars. As such it meets WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

Moreover, in many places where Iskandar removed material citing Saad, there were other secondary sources cited too to back up the same material. Therefore, whole sale removal of material from Salma Saad is unjustified even if it is based on the dubious claim that Salma Saad's work is unreliable. Moreover, many other sources can be found for the same material. Mcphurphy (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * No, I only removed material that was solely cited to Saad. The source you appended declares itself to be an unsubmitted thesis. If you want to provide the submitted and approved thesis (which may in fact be quite a different version, as theses can be rejected and resubmitted) then you should find that version, or only use material substantiated by secondary sources referencing the accepted thesis. Given the range of academic sources on this subject it is completely and utterly unnecessary to touch or even go near an unsubmitted, unreliable and unpublished source. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Bullshit, this is a published piece of scholarship. The university of Leeds published it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ever Grounded (talk • contribs) 10:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Ever Grounded. This is a University-published thesis and has been cited by scholars. It clearly meets WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Mcphurphy (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this pdf the published thesis or merely the submitted thesis? Iskandar is right that after a thesis is submitted it undergoes revisions before it is ready to publish.VR talk 12:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand its already final version thesis as it appears on official repo of university site Shrike (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that but there are some things about this pdf that throw me off. The front page says "This thesis has never been submitted to this or any other University", which to me sounds like a first draft. The scanned pdf also contains things that are struck out by hand and changed in handwriting. That reinforces my impression that it may not be the final draft.VR talk 15:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As far I understand it standard disclaimer that work is not plagiarized. Could you give me a few examples "struck out by hand and changed in handwriting". Shrike (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * On the abstract page, the page number is struck out and rewritten by hand. On the Abbreviation page "Concordance et Indices de la Tradition Musulmane" is modified by hand, as is the name that follows "Muslim = ..." (its somewhat illegible). The table of contents has several modifications by hand and the page number for Transliteration is struck out and rewritten by hand. In chapter two in the table of contents, two entries are overwritten by hand to the point that they seem illegible (I think its says Muhrim and Muhallil, but I'm not sure).VR talk 16:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I still think that not final version will not appear on official  website and anyhow the changes are not to the content and IMO are not substantial. We can ask at WP:RSN to get some independent input. Shrike (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Umm ... that site is just a repository of theses. It tells us nothing about whether or not a thesis was accepted, in this form or any other. And clearly the version we are being presented with is not a polished version. It is essentially an unfinished document, covered from top to bottom in hand-scrawled edits. Page 65 is missing altogether. Not exactly the stuff of peer-reviewed legend. And who even is Salma Saad that we should be prioritising their thesis of unclear status over the published works of the dozens of peer-reviewed academics and widely published historians in this article. I get that devil's advocacy is a thing, and sometimes has it place, but talk about polishing a turd. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ever Grounded - Did you review and verify all the details you reverted here --> in 1 minute between your last edit to your user page --> and edit to talk page of the article --> ? I speculate you may have made some errors going through so much text in 60 seconds. Please review your edit again thoroughly and perhaps discuss the changes with @Iskandar323. The problem here is not with Saad's thesis, which I find an acceptable source if you use it reading all of the relevant section (pp.234ff) but generally with the fact that, despite impressive sourcing, a large amount of our article if you check, represents only a very thin chink of what is said on the relevant cited pages. You can see this in the lead. Mufti for example fro m pp.1-5 makes a neat distinction between traditionalist and modernist interpretations of Sharia law. In modernist interpretations slavery is un-Islamic. The editor just used a snippet on p.5 to cite the case of enslaving subjugated people, and, within the rest of the lead you have a fabricated orientalist 'ontology' of Islam as a sexual enslaver (of unbelievers). Well Saad's text alone (not to mention many other sources cited) nuances that significantly. The generalization doesn't stand because in Islamic law, from the hadith alone, As the lead has been concocted, and with the prior use of 'is' for an historical 'were/was'), you have jihadi predators enslaving for fucks whatever women falls into their hands, i.e. not Sharia, but the recent practices of ISIS and other militantly predatory mobs in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. No mention of all of the restrictions placed on concubinage for an enslaved woman, who had to be unmarried, or a virgin, or divorced or widowed.
 * PS - @Ever Grounded, do you have anything to add before I make the revert ? (Ever Grounded was reverted while I was typing this)
 * PS#2 - By the way. You are a new editor with 11 edits to your credit so I would like to welcome you to Wikipedia at the same time. GizzyCatBella  🍁  13:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The issue then is not one that lends itself to tit-and-tat revert battles, but of fixing a decidedly cherrypicked article by presenting the relevant historical evidence ignored in the linked available sources in all of their complexity, and doing so neutrally rather than, as in the general tendency in wiki articles on the Arab/Islamic world, to make a case against both.Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree things have been cherry picked and revert battles are unproductive. You're right that the historic practice of concubinage was widely accepted - but strictly within certain limits - whereas the modern day practice is widely rejected by Muslims. And so I think the first step is to decide the scope of the article so we don't conflate things that RS don't conflate. I think the scope should be "historic practice of concubinage in Muslim societies as discussed by relevant RS". What do you think? I want to discuss possible options then put this to RfC.VR talk 16:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well the article is a mess, and would require hard work to overhaul and put it on a sound footing. The lead is not worth a nob of goatshit as a summary of the content, but the real work would consist in reorganization (starting with pre-Islamic slavery/concubinage traditions (2) the Qur'an and Hadith, and once that is done, then (3) the legal traditions. Only when those three unsexy, unlurid historical realities have been done, could one deal with the rest with periodization and the different conventions of different Muslim societies. Much of the record for each period is just silly listing of cases. Look at the Abbasid caliphate. You'd never guess from that snippet of random tit(illating)bits that of the 36/37 odd (can't remember the exact figure) caliphs, only three were born outside of concubinage: the whole dynasty was ruled throughout by the offspring of slaves.
 * Is anyone prepared to undertake this. I can't for work commitment in RL, but if there are a few of you there willing to roll up your sleeves and reorganize this not as a scandal sheet but a cogent logically organized survey of the topic, I'd certainly spare what time I have to help.Nishidani (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A retitling along the lines you suggest 'Historic practice of concubinage in Muslim societies' sounds like an excellent idea. Islam is a synonym for terrorist, unfortunately, and in any case, Islamic always has a legalist ring, Muslim less so (in Auschwitz slang 'Muslim' meant anyone who had given up the ghost and was resigned to death.) Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Great! Lets see what others say. I say 'concubinage' because this article should not focus on other forms of sexual slavery, like bacha bazi, forced marriage, forced prostitution, child sexual abuse etc. The RS don't lump all these practices together (for Muslims), so neither should this article.VR talk 21:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * as we had this discussion, what do you think about having the scope of this article as 'Historic practice of concubinage in Muslim societies'? VR talk 21:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A similar renaming proposal implies two questions: should this article focus on one particular form of sexual slavery, and should it only deal with the past? The current article is not about the “Historic practice of concubinage in Muslim societies”, and thus asking to rename it as such is incorrect (also the title has been subject of intense disputes, and in general I am personally against using “concubinage” in a title for referring to sexual slavery). As I have explained in this previous discussion, my answer to both questions is no, and I think an article on sexual slavery and Islam that spans epochs and regions, although hard to accomplish, is a worthy challenge. --Grufo (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My answer to both questions is "yes" for a very simple reason: because historic concubinage is a WP:NOTABLE topic on which several RS can be found. Are there RS that try to cover all forms of sexual slavery practices by Muslims across both medieval and modern times? See Persecution by Muslims (AfD). Specific examples of persecution by Muslims are notable (Armenian genocide, Persecution of Bahais etc), but combining all these persecutions into one violates WP:NOTABILITY.VR talk 23:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said before, the scope of both articles needs to be clearly separated. Until that is done, it is premature to talk about renaming this one. If the broader topic of sexual slavery has coverage in reliable sources as does the narrower topic of concubinage, then I favor the broader topic. If the broad topic results in an article too long, they can be split into separate topics, as is the usual practice. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for the response and I agree that defining the scope is more important than any renaming. From my reading, sources seem focused on male-female concubinage and there's no evidence that they conflate it with other forms of sexual slavery. The absence of sources is usually a very good argument on wikipedia for rejecting a scope. Also, if we're going for a broader scope, then there's also the option of merging into History of slavery in the Muslim world.VR talk 14:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This one should be renamed because while it is widely recognized in scholarship that all three Abrahamic faiths condoned legally or by silence the sexual exploitation of slaves, we only have an article for Islam. Nothing like  Sexual slavery in Judaism (a short paragraph, totally ahistorical, exists at Jewish views on slavery, which should be retitled 'Slavery in Jewish/Judaic Tradition' since 'Jewish views' implies an ethnic outlook), Sexual slavery in Christianity (Christian views on slavery hushes it all up, or buries it in vague quotations of ostensible general principle from  primary sources). Some years ago, this was indeed the direct problem addressed in a book   edited by Bernadette Brooten, Beyond Slavery: Overcoming Its Religious and Sexual Legacies, Palgrave Macmillan 2010  ISBN 978-0-230-11389-3 p.3.
 * "Slavery as a legal institution has existed for most of recorded history and was allowed by Jewish, Christian, and Islamic sacred texts, traditions, and religious nlaw. The forms of slavery varied considerably but shared the underlying concepts of owning a human body. That concept has had a profound impact on Jewish, Christian,. and Islamic thinking about sexuality and about marriage between women and men,. At the same time, these religions have within them the mercy and compassion necessary to overcome slavery and its long-term effects.' p.3 etc."
 * Or as she summed it up in a more accessible interview at the time.
 * "We want people to take a hard look at the fact that for most of their history, Jews, Christians and Muslims tolerated slavery,” says Brooten. “It’s codified in the writings.” In Jewish law, “a man acquires a wife as one might acquire an enslaved laborer,” says Brooten, “The category is the same.” And this theme of ownership extends to Islam, she adds. “A man has authority over his wife, and authority over his enslaved laborers. In other words, there is a conceptual overlap.” “In classical Islamic law, a man is actually explicitly allowed to have sex with his slave women. In the classical Jewish and Christian texts, owners are not explicitly allowed to have sex with their slave women, but neither are there penalties on them for having done so,” she says. “In Christianity we have found some significant early church writers who show that they are aware that Christian men might be having sex with their slave women and they don’t like it and they preach against it. But when it comes to… Are they going to place a penalty on a man for having done this, they don’t do it.”"
 * The titling has a strong POV slanting that suggests Islam was anomalous to the humanity of the other two. So we have a Judeo-Christian systemic bias which is reading the Islamic part of a common tradition in terms of outrages committed by ISIS and Boko Haram recently, that are read back into the core of Islamic civilization while quietly ignoring the shared roots.
 * That this is witting seems evident from the simple fact that, when I noted that common legacy in the lead, drawing on books directly attesting to this cross-faith heritage, it was immediately removed, lock stock and barrel, despite the high quality, and thematic pertinence of three academic source.Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * we have do Pilegesh, which covers Biblical slave concubinage (Hagar, Bilhah, Zilpah etc). Interestingly the article uses the softer term "maidservant" even though RS agree they were slaves (eg). Also of interest is that Pilegesh does not cover Human trafficking in Israel, nor should it, because the two are totally separate topics. Yet these things are being conflated here, which is why a consensus on scope is so important.VR talk 14:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Here are 2 good reads:


 * Hildebrandt-Wypych, Dobrochna, and Wiseman, Alexander W.. Comparative Perspectives on School Textbooks: Analyzing Shifting Discourses on Nationhood, Citizenship, Gender, and Religion. Germany, Springer International Publishing, 2021. Chapter 3 silence of slavery in textbooks ~Laura Dull
 * Synopsis: Atrocities against women need to be accounted for and discussed and not silenced with some or the other excuse and not even with whataboutery. 'Women deserve justice' (read again)
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Women deserve justice" sounds like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Atrocities against women should be covered at Wartime sexual violence. Wartime sexual violence by Muslims is not a notable topic.VR talk 14:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Women deserve justice" sounds like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Atrocities against women should be covered at Wartime sexual violence. Wartime sexual violence by Muslims is not a notable topic.VR talk 14:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * To take credit one comes ahead saying our kind of slavery is different, when time comes for taking responsibility coming out of same difference the same people finger point elsewhere finding excuses presenting apologetic to censor is strange.


 * Secondly it is well known fact that there is systemic bias against women issues in Wikipedia and I don't feel apologetic to set it right. (And pl do mind the fact where included criticism in the content was over the board I have taken lead to set it right. I have taken lead for equality for Muslims I have taken lead for equality for muslim women I have taken lead for equality for non Muslim women and all in Wikipedia parameters)


 * Technicalities are being employed to sideline encyclopedic merit and silencing issues regarding atrocities on women is the main concern.


 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

New edits
There has been a spate in recent editing which is quite contentious. For instance, we are seeing removal of text about sexual enslavement during the Armenian genocide and other places under the claim that its "off-topic" but the same editor then goes on to add that material to other related  articles. There are multiple other issues with Iskander's new edits which I will elaborate on later. Mcphurphy (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Reverting someone first and then saying you'll "elaborate on later", is pretty disruptive. Especially since you reverted my edit too without any explanation.VR talk 21:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are familiar WP:SPLIT then you will know that an article of more than 100,000kB is ripe for size reduction (and if not, harsh editing down) - principally because articles of this size become borderline unreadable. All of the content I have dealt with is off-topic - the modern stuff not least because it follows a whole section on abolition, which explains the end of slavery in the Islamic world. Isolated instances of kidnapping, rape and sexual misconduct on Islamic pretenses in modern times do not undo an abolition that spans continents. You can also follow the discussion between myself and Vice Regent, which you chose to ignore, on a number of other reasons why these fairly niche modern examples are inappropriate in this broadly historical article . The content I have moved, I have moved, because it relates to specific conflicts not broader trends, and its most appropriate place is on the specific articles about those conflicts. The content I have simply deleted as off-topic includes: material on the partition of India and reports of sexual violence both committed by and against Muslims - in other words, general history - if this history is to be anywhere, it should clearly be on a page about the partition. Then we have Isis that is a fringe terrorist group that has been declared un-Islamic (informally ex-communicated in some cases) by Muslim leaders around the world. If you want to keep it, put it on the Isis page. The gross issues with using an unsubmitted thesis I have covered below. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The abolition stems not from within Islam itself, but was imposed on the Muslim world from the West. All traditional Islamic scholars trained in Islamic jurisprudence still uphold the validity of enslavement by a legitimate Islamic state. The only concept stopping them are the international treaties. The abolition idea stems from the idea that since Muslim countries have signed treaties with non-Muslim countries to not enslave; the non-Muslim citizens of non-Muslim countries cannot be enslaved. They apply a similar argument for non-Muslims who have been protected by the government in Muslim lands. In Islamic law non-Muslims in Muslim lands are not considered protected people unless they enter into a contract with the state and if they rebel against the Muslim state then any such contract is considered broken and the non-Muslims liable to enslavement like all unprotected non-Muslims. Which is why in the modern cases like Armenia it was held by Ottoman scholars that Armenian Christian women could be enslaved because Armenians had broken their contract with the Ottoman state. Similar applies in the other cases listed.
 * But nevertheless, all that said, we could compromise by renaming this article as Sexual slavery in the Islamic World so we can include everything related to sexual slavery in the Muslim world including the theologically sanctioned practices and the attempted revivals by the likes of ISIS and similar manifestations of old practices.Mcphurphy (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Orientalism consists in making an ontology of the other. Modern anthropology is uncomfortable with this generalizing over societies, particularly over civilizations with a long past and present. This is what you appear to be doing here. To cite just two examples.
 * 'Imposed on the Muslim world by the West'. I.e. where are the multiple RS for this patronizing view?
 * 'All traditional Islamic scholars trained in Islamic jurisprudence still uphold the validity of enslavement by a legitimate Islamic state.' That is a tautology, apart from being a ballistic generalization which implies you have a minute mastery over all Islamic scholars's opinions, whatever sectarian persuasion or school they follow(ed). It is a tautology because you are saying all traditionalist scholars uphold Islamic tradition. Duh.Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nishidani you say - "'Imposed on the Muslim world by the West'. I.e. where are the multiple RS for this patronizing view?"
 * Well here are just a few top notch RS which say that. I will add more in time.
 * Ali, Kecia (2016). Sexual Ethics and Islam : Feminist Reflections on Qur'an, Hadith, and Jurisprudence. Oneworld Publications p. 54.
 * William Gervase Clarence-Smith; W. G. Clarence-Smith (2006). Islam and the Abolition of Slavery. Oxford University Press. p. 11. Mcphurphy (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Nishidani's edits
1. Under the claim of "NPOV" Nishidani has decided to add text to the opening of the article to make out that sexual slavery is not unique to Islam but is practised in other cultures as well. Leaving aside that the specific mention of Mediterranean is incorrect because sexual slavery was practised all over the world, do we start an article like Marriage in Islam or Polygamy in Islam by talking about the universality of marriage and polygamy across global cultures? Then why do this for sexual slavery in Islam? The opening sentence has to be about Islam and sexual slavery since that is what the article is about. Mcphurphy (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Nishidani has decided to add text to the opening of the article to make out that sexual slavery is not unique to Islam but is practised in other cultures as well."
 * That is what several sources explicitly state. I gave the evidence. You erased it.
 * "the specific mention of Mediterranean is incorrect because sexual slavery was practised all over the world"
 * What has that got to do with the price of chips? 'Mediterranean' is in the source quoted. If one says, 'honour and shame' are important social values in 'Mediterranean' societies ( J. G. Peristiany, Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society,  University of Chicago Press, 1974  ISBN 978 -0-226-65714-1), the intention is not to imply  something unique to the former and thereby implicitly deny those binary concepts are practiced elsewhere. Grasping at straws.Nishidani (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

2. Nishidani has decided to give equal weight in the very beginning of the article to traditionalist interpretations and modernist interpretations of Islamic law despite the centuries of jurisprudence behind the former. I am not against including the revisionist modern interpretations. Indeed, we already had them in our article. But it should be written towards the end of the lead to reflect that the modernist interpretations defy the consensus of traditional Islamic scholarship and is a new interpretation of Islamic law without precedent in mainstream Islam. Mcphurphy (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Mā malakat aymānukum ('those whom your right had possesses') in the Qur'an and later juridic rulings refers to the twofold aspect of enslavement: the acceptance of it as a practice endorsed by tradition and (b) regard for the welfare of those reduced to slavery. Our text ignores this, and highlights predatorial screwing. Of course, like Christianity, Islam observed the exhortations to treat slaves with respect more in the breach than the observance.Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, it seems Nishidani has not even read the Mufti source which they have cited to support the distinction between traditionalists allowing sexual slavery and modernists disallowing it. Nowhere in this source does it say modernists don't allow sex with slaves and only traditionalists do. This makes out Nishidani's sentence of "Islamic law has traditionalist and modernist interpretations,[4] and the former allowed men to have sexual intercourse with their female slaves" to be a case of WP:SYNTH Mcphurphy (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you cannot again construe the prose of your interlocutor, then desist from arguing and stick to editwarring. I nowhere asserted that 'modernists don't allow sex with slaves and only traditionalists do.' Modernists generally ignore the tradition (as an embarrassment) as archaic and no longer part of modern societies.I read the source, rather than, like the editor who introduced it, cherrypicking and distorting one phrase from p.5. Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

3. The references to Islam encouraging manumission of slaves in the lead are also WP:UNDUE and sidetrack the focus of the article. While Islam certainly considers emancipating slaves to be a virtuous deed, it still allowed slavery it and made way for it. Mcphurphy (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is noting that Islam both endorsed slavery and, on the basis of Mohammad's own words, orchestrated principles of manumission, undue? All you have is a personal assertion. Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * used scholarly sources to give the article context. Your removal and above explanation sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.VR talk 23:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles must be based on what relevant reliable sources say. If the reliable source said "Mediterranean" cultures, then it supports Mediterranean cultures (and does not support statements about central-American cultures).  Since the founders of Islam had contact with Mediterranean cultures this is relevant - the founders of Islam did not have contact with central-American cultures, so the practice in central-America is not relevant. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I would propose to begin the article with “I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying”. If anyone protests I will say that a source said it (Oscar Wilde). A Wikipedia editor decides what to quote, not a source. Islam was not even born in the Mediterranean. --Grufo (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, Grufo, the Islamic Prophet Muhammad went to Syria many times. Within 30 years of Muhammad's death, Damascus was the capital of the Muslim world. There is an entire scholarly book that "shows that Christian and Muslim inhabitants of the Mediterranean shared a set of assumptions and practices that amounted to a common culture of slavery".VR talk 15:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I am sure the contacts were strong, but Mediterranean culture was not the root culture of Islam, and probably we would have a different religion if it had been – this last statement is not falsifiable, thus may not count. --Grufo (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about the root culture? And what is that anyway? Islam's formation is impossible to grasp without the Jewish/Christian background, just as Islamic law and culture is incomprehensible without the profound impact of Greek philosophy etc. Don't contradict sources by shifting the goalposts.Nishidani (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Opening an article about Islam with an introduction about slavery in the Mediterranean is the goalpost shift. I did not contradict sources – although, with a bit of time available, I might do that too, as I doubt there is anything typically Mediterranean in the sexual exploitation of slaves. If you want a proper introduction of that kind in the lead, it should speak about Arabian Peninsula and pre-Islamic Arabic culture; and it must not have whataboutistic purposes, it must simply lead to where sexual slavery in the scriptures might come from (and no, it does not come from Mediterranean culture). --Grufo (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Grufo. I read the reply above which was difficult to find because Nishidani broke my comment in order to do so. But what they have said does not answer my arguments. Placing a sentence at the very beginning of an article about Sexual slavery and Islam on Mediterranean culture is both undue and a deflection from the subject of the article. And it makes no sense because sexual slavery was also a part of many other ancient cultures, not just Mediterranean. What's with the attempt to make this article out to be about the Mediterranean? Mcphurphy (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This would be correct if you planned to only talk about the subject with respect to the Arabian Peninsula: since this article appears to clutch at the entire gamut of Muslim history and the Islamic World, the background of the entire Islamic world is appropriate. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The objection raised by both Mcphurphy and Grufo has been met with the this responsive edit, in compliance with our obligation to edit collaboratively.Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * (a)If both of you cannot grasp the difference between what a sentence states, and what a reader can imagine it might be implying, in their imaginations, then dialogue becomes impossible. You are both making inferences that complicate a simple source-based commonplace.
 * 'Sexual slavery in Islam' begins awkwardly in medias res, unlike all standard articles.
 * "Islamic law allows men to have sexual intercourse with their female slaves."
 * compare the incipits of the similar Jewish views on slavery
 * "Jewish views on slavery are varied both religiously and historically. Judaism's ancient and medieval religious texts contain numerous laws governing the ownership and treatment of slaves - -.The original Israelite slavery laws found in the Hebrew Bible bear some resemblance to the 18th-century BCE slavery laws of Hammurabi."
 * and Christian views on slavery
 * "Christian views on slavery are varied regionally, historically and spiritually. Slavery in various forms has been a part of the social environment for much of Christianity's history, spanning well over eighteen centuries. In the early years of Christianity, slavery was an established feature of the economy and society in the Roman Empire."
 * In both we have a generalization about variation over time (exactly corresponding to my point, rapidly erased, about 'traditionalist' vs 'modernist'.
 * In both we have a broader historical context. For Judaism, slavery under Hammurabi; for Christianity, slavery in the Roman Empire.
 * So, when I modulated the blunt lead sentence to put this on an equal footing with the style of the other two related articles, I was doing nothing abnormal or off my own bat.
 * "The sexual exploitation of slaves by their owners was a common practice in Mediterranean societies, and had persisted, with distinct legal differences, among the three Abrahamic religious, since antiquity.'"
 * The arguments above about WP:Undue - the most subjective weapon in POV pushing -don't hold water, also because as one can see, the adjustment makes this lead perfectly consonant with the examples from the leads of two related articles. The others, about imagined inferences, or tautologies, idem. I will restore the text.Nishidani (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion of consent in this article is confused
The claim that men could only have sex with his concubine if she consented is nonsensical. "Consent" with regard to sexual intercourse is a modern concept, and it's impossible for a slave to consent to something her master does to her. Even if a slave expressed consent, the power relationship would render it meaningless.

If, on the other hand, you wants to claim that "consent" here refers to a pre-modern Islamic concept, you need to identify what that concept is. There isn't one, and nor should we expect to find one, since it would contradict the basic definition of slavery, which is the right of one person to control another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb212 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Since you've drawn my attention to this talk page entry @Toddy1, I'd note that the content on and a number of other pointed subjects in the article comes almost exclusively from Kecia Ali, who is a specialist in Islamic gender studies. Two points here: one, while Kecia Ali is an entirely appropriate expert source, again, as mentioned by @Nishidani in relation to other themes, there is definitely some cherry-picking of Ali's rather nuanced analysis on this subject. Also, while Kecia Ali is an expert, if larger sections of the page are relying largely or solely on Ali, we need to be careful that there isn't WP:UNDUE emphasis on Ali's academic take. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. The problem is caused by Google-reading, where people do not read the books they cite, but merely read odd sentences or part-sentences that appear on a Google search. -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as Toddy1 said. As the bibliography impresses on us, there is a huge literature out there, and whenever I have checked it item by item, I see a large swathe of subtle and nuanced argument reduced to the 'juicy' parts. Historical anthropology should be our model. Many of our modern categories carry different implications back, anachronistically, into the past. 'Women for sexual use' implies some captured woman under lock and key, taken out for abuse and then shut back in a kind of improvised permanent brothel quarter in patriarchal houses, as 'sex slaves' per dozens of modern films on sexual trafficking. Of course, we must be on guard against blinking in embarrassment, or reversing the bias here by suppressing facts that embarrass modern values. So we need to define the title, ergo, scope of a very complex set of historical realities. Above all though, hard work - a careful focused reading of the sources in so far as we can access them. Nishidani (talk) 09:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)