Talk:Islamic views on slavery

Revised paragraph on abolition in introductory section
I have revised the paragraph on abolition in the page's first section because it was deeply misleading. It claimed that the bulk of abolition in the Muslim world happened after World War 1, and gave the impression that much of it happened in the 1960s and 70s. But this is simply untrue, and the countries the passage cited (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman and Mauritania) were marginal and unrepresentative. The largest Muslim countries, which were also the dominant ones politically and culturally, mostly abolished slavery before WW1, with a few following suit in the 1920s. I have revised the passage accordingly, adding references to the key secondary works on abolition in the Muslim world. (NB: Saudi Arabia may seem like an important Muslim country today, but that's a recent development produced by its oil wealth, before the late 20th century it was not significant either in population size or in political and cultural influence).

I have also re-worded the final sentence, which gave the impression that slavery is still officially condoned in the African countries listed. This is misleading - slavery is illegal in all of those countries, and the people who persist in keeping slaves are breaking the law. The logic of the former wording is never applied to western countries: there are documented examples of slavery in contemporary Britain, but nobody claims that this somehow shows that Britain hasn't really abolished slavery. It is illegal activity.

Lastly, I have corrected the first sentence of the paragraph, which was incorrect and did not reflect the cited source. North Africa was not a *source* of slaves for the Muslim slave trade, it was a destination. In addition, "west Asia" is misleading, because the areas from which slaves were taken extended well into what is normally considered eastern Europe (Ukraine, Russia, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb212 (talk • contribs)

Lead material
@Iskandar323, I couldn't find any sentence other than in the lead that said:

Can you point them out for me?

Also, just as a friendly reminder, WP:Burden states that:

Kaalakaa (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I've clarified and trimmed it a bit. The mamluk sultanate is certainly mentioned, and is an exceptionally famous example of an Islamic slave-run empire. This is very run of the mill information: why would something on it not be in the lead summary? However, there is a broader point, which is that this article has a dual/mixed scope. Islamic views on something aren't the same thing as examples of the practice of something in nominally Islamic constituencies. This article probably needs to be split into the actual subject of 'Islamic views' and a separate page on 'Slavery in the Muslim world'. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2023
Please remove [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery#cite_note-equal-46:~:text=Quran%2039%3A95%20refers%20to%20master%20and%20slave%20with%20the%20same%20word. the sentence mentioning Quran 39:95], as there is no such verse. The 39. surah only has 75 verses. Fungus Generator (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Changed it to link to 39:29 as quote from the cited source reads "In one case, the Qur'an refers to master and slave with the same word, rajul (q 39:29)." Cannolis (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Quranic rules as "emancipatory" is an opinion...not fact
The section under "quran" that reads "all Quranic rules on slaves are emancipatory in that they improve the rights of slaves compared to what was already practiced in the 7th century." is an OPINION with one author cited. There are MANY other authors who argue the contrary; that NO rules on quranic slavery are at all emancipatory, specifically citing the slaves present at the time of the death of mohammed, including his female slave, Maryam the Copt. This text should either be changed to "some muslim apologists opine that all quranic rules..." or allow the contradicting view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:9E21:400:9C66:BE65:B6D8:596C (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)