Talk:Islamic views on slavery/Archive 4

The lead
I usually write for an imagined audience of bright high school students, or college freshmen. Such a reader searching for information on Islam and slavery will reasonably wonder if Islam forbids slavery, or allows it, or allows it in theory but forbids it in practice. I think we need to present up front that: Tom Harrison Talk 13:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Slavery in Islamic lands was different from slavery in the American south (because most of our readers are likely more familiar with American history than Turkish or Persian history)
 * Muhammad thought a lot about slavery, and made some fundamental changes in the institution
 * The Arab slave trade was not an 'Islamic' slave trade, but the subjects are related
 * Islam today does not prohibit slavery (unless it does, then we need citations), and
 * Slavery is illegal in every Muslim country (though tolerated in one or two places)
 * I think these are excellent and balanced points. Yes, good to see that you are anticipating people's questions with some logic. Actually, many of these exact questions/issues are addressed in the BBC link in the section above.
 * As for your recent re-instatement of the 19th century change of opinions, while i do think that recent attempts to exclude it simply because it hasn't got it's own section is mischievous POV pushing and fact hiding, your recent points here are much better in a lead.Merbabu 13:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * i concur with Merbabu, these points are all very good.  ITAQALLAH   15:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "The Arab slave trade was not an 'Islamic' slave trade." What do you mean, Tom? Arrow740 18:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as the Atlantic slave trade was not a 'Christian' operation, even though the slavers were Christians. Tom Harrison Talk 18:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the people doing the enslaving were Muslim. Arrow740 18:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note too that I said the subjects are related. It needs to be mentioned, but we have to be careful not to ascribe any evil act by a Muslim to the religion of Islam. Tom Harrison Talk 18:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This slavery was authorized and regulated by Islamic law all the way back to Muhammad. Your analogy with Christians fails. Arrow740 18:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "The Atlantic slave trade, started by the Portuguese, but soon dominated by the English, was the sale and exploitation of African slaves by Europeans that occurred in and around the Atlantic ocean from the 15th century to the 19th century." Of course that's just an online encyclopedia, but it seems to be born out by the American history references I have on hand. "My analogy fails?" Try again, and see if you can choose language more conducive to constructive collaboration. Tom Harrison Talk 19:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is called Islam and slavery. The slaves taken out of Africa to any destination were enslaved by Muslims. Islam recognizes slavery as part of the divine order and gives specific instances where enslavement is lawful, indeed "sanctioned by God as punishment for unbelief." There is no such parallel with Christianity. So when Muslims enslaved people, they were engaging in a practice that is part of their religion. When Christians engaged in slavery, they were not engaging in a practice that is part of their religion. Arrow740 19:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ""[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America". Jefferson Davis, "Inaugural Address as Provisional President of the Confederacy," Montgomery, AL, 1861-FEB-18, Confederate States of America, Congressional Journal, 1:64-66.
 * Sorry for the off-article fork here but just some comments on Christianity being viewed as sanctioning slavery. It was a fact of life as such for centuries operating through instituationalized governments and the abolotionists were the odd men out in their interpretations of the bible during their day. African slave trade is based on the Curse of Ham through Canaan, Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave'. " Canaanites were reported as Africans and the entire race and descendants were cursed into slavery. Slavery is sanctioned and regulated in the Pentateuch and the old testament. Exodus 21:20-21 "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money." Mentioned in the new testament as well a fact of life without criticism. Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him." Note: a lot of the times that servants & maids is used in the translations it is actually referring to slaves. Also the council of Gangra, Pope Gregory among others issuing canon laws affirming or regulating slavery, Thomas Aquinas himself advising slaves on proper behavior. Neither Christ nor Peter in his epistles said anything against slavery either and it was quite a mainstream way of life. Granted there were dissenters but slavery was the norm and they were the exeptions. The holy roman empire was a slave based economy, a model that was socially inherited by the Arabs.--Tigeroo 17:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Canaanites were African? I've never heard that one before. Lewis says that "Ham's descendents" were a particular tribe near ancient Israel. Arrow740 06:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not even fringe, I am sure you can easily look it up in greater detail; a quick google netted this as a college course material. While it may no longer be current the beleif was quite mainstream and a historical reality that shaped centuries of colonial slavery and racist attitude. The theological position underwent quite a transformation over time to lose slavery.--Tigeroo 05:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No doubt the slavers were doing something their religious leaders said was permitted, but that was the case of Christian slavers as well as Muslim. I imagine I could dig up a few quotes from ante bellum Christian preachers about God ordaining the status of the black slaves on the plantation. That does not mean growing sugar cane was a Christian activity. But maybe we are drifting off point. I would include in the lead a mention of and link to the Arab slave trade, mostly as it is now. Do you want to do something different? Tom Harrison Talk 19:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Bravo Tom Harrison! All of your points here are very much keeping in line with non-villification as well as non-de-villification (I'm sure there's a word for that... escapes me right now... I think it should be understood). 19:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whitewash? Tom Harrison Talk 19:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the word may be "exculpation". → As in false exculpation. 19:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that works. Tom Harrison Talk 19:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, if you think that slavery was anything near as integral to Christianity as it (was) to Islam, I'd like to see some evidence. Arrow740 19:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If I wanted to add that to Christianity and slavery I would provide it. What change do you want to make to this article's treatment of the Arab slave trade? Tom Harrison Talk 19:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I said, "The Arab slave trade was not an 'Islamic' slave trade." What do you mean, Tom?" You responded with your reasoning, "Just as the Atlantic slave trade was not a 'Christian' operation, even though the slavers were Christians." I have shown that your analogy is incorrect, so your reasoning for your initial statement "The Arab slave trade was not an 'Islamic' slave trade." is wrong. I strongly object to any such statement in the article, because it is at best misleading. In a nutshell, certain kinds of slavery are Islamic, though slavery is neither explicitly Christian nor explicitly un-Christian. Arrow740 20:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Granted that arguments by analogy are never the best, I think mine is accurate. I may be wrong, but until I am convinced otherwise, I maintain that the Arab slave trade was not something intrinsically 'Islamic.' You are right that the institutions of slavery in Muslim and Christin lands were distinctly different - male field workers vs. female concubines and eunuchs, for example. But, if neither of us is proposing a change to the page, I do not see the need to persue it. I will read what you have to say about it, but probably will not reply further in this thread. Tom Harrison Talk 20:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To answer "The Arab slave trade was not an 'Islamic' slave trade.": Because Islam never organize such slave trade. At the time Islam no longer belong to Arab people only, therefore it was their choice (the Arab) to organize such slavery trade and it did not related with Islam as religion. To make it clear, they did it not because Islamic obligation to do slavery, but simply because it (slavery trade) was their own act. Just because Islam has law about slavery, it doesn't mean that Islam encourage or give order to build such trade organization. They did it because it was their Arab Culture, majority people who did that put their identity as Arab first and latter, coincidentally, their believe as Muslim. C'mon, you read the article, capturing free man and sold them as the slave is against Islamic Law. There for in the term of sharia, they broke the law. They know that, that's why they conducted their operative in secretive organization (sometime their receive unlawful status depend on the ruler of the region) and produce justification for customer in the market. In a nutshell, certain kinds of slavery are not Islamic, it just happen in Islamic Civilization. In a nutshell again, that kind of slavery is Arabic, because it full with Arabic characteristic. I write only to persuade your point of view. But if you can not be open minded, than I also will not pursue this conversation. --210.48.222.7 (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To answer "So when Muslims enslaved people, they were engaging in a practice that is part of their religion". Once again, there is no obligation for Muslim to do slavery. There no such thing as an "authorized and regulated" slavery in Islamic teaching (except for war, but that's another topic) because there is no order to form Institutionalize slavery thing in Islamic teaching . The Islamic court do not initiate nor gave order for a Institutional body to engage in slavery, but the court observe the slavery practice and punish the unlawful act. "So when Muslims enslaved people, they were engaging in a practice that is part of their religion." seems like an absurd comment. For example, when Muslim eat, Muslim are not engaging in a practice that is part of Islamic teaching just because Muslim eat with Islamic rule. The practice is not the part of Islam Religion. We, human being, engage in that practice. Islam only demand Muslim to engage in that activity only and if only following certain law, but Islam never demand Muslim to do that practice in the first place. --210.48.222.7 (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Tariqsalam, 14 October 2010
Quran (47/4) says (People’s opposition has transgressed to the extent that a clash seems imminent.) Therefore when you face them in the battlefield, you too should kill them. And when their strength is broken and you have fully subdued them, the remaining should be taken into your custody as prisoners of war (8:67). Then (as the circumstances demand) set them free either as an act of grace* or after taking ransom (monetary reward or by exchange of your own prisoners ~ 38:39), till all possibilities of waging war are eliminated (and peace and order returns). (It is for this purpose that you are permitted to raise arms.)
 * Arabs used to enslave the men prisoners of war and the women were made concubines. The Quran closed the doors to slavery forever by this command.

Tariqsalam (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  22:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Source 56
Ok, this talk page is terrible, but relating to the topic itself: Source 56 is not a source... it's just not... look at it. The statement it is backing up is an important one: "As slaves are regarded as inferior in Islamic law, death at the hands of a free man does not require that the latter be killed in retaliation", and source 56 just says "Except according to Hanafis, who make a free man liable to retaliation in cases of murder". That, I'm fairly sure, is not the name of a book, person, film, documentary, etc. It's the second half of a sentence... 213.132.45.37 (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like that text should be in brackets with Hanafi linked to the appropriate article. I wouldn't know what to replace the citation with though. 109.77.29.14 (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Saladdin19, 1 February 2011
edit semi-protected

Original Article Text: "The Qur'an also recognizes concubinage. A master may make his female slave as his concubine and, if she is a Muslim, he can marry her. Abstinence however is said to be a better choice. "

Replacement: Whereas a master may marry a female slave, concubinage is strictly prohibited in Islam. However, the practice of concubinage among the elite (most notably with Harems) is well-known but outside the allowed practices of Islam (adultery).

Reasoning: Regardless, Qur'an 6:3 is irrelevant to this topic, as the surah does not address ownership of slaves (following the original citation link is sufficient to prove this point). In terms of concubinage: the Qur'an, and Islam, accepts nothing of the sort. Ayat 23:6, 33:50-52, and 70:30 (used for the concubinage reference) are clear in describing marriage to slaves, not sex with slaves. In fact, those ayat are governed by the laws set in Surah Nisa (Chapter "Women"), specifically 4:25 which states: " If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. " {http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/004.qmt.html#004.025} That is, if you are unable to pay the dowry for a (free) Muslim wife, you are allowed to choose a woman "whom your right hands possess" and which fulfill the specific guidelines for choosing a wife set forth here. Moreover, sexual relations outside wedlock (adultery) are strictly prohibited in Islam. {http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/024.qmt.html#024.030}

Saladdin19 (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅-- Obsidi ♠ n Soul  13:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The new version is not supported by the citations, and is contradicted later in the article. 33:50 clearly states "We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses". The claim that this is talking about who it is lawful to marry makes no sense. 23:5-6 and 70:29-30 make a similar distinction between wives and slaves, stating that it is not necessary to "abstain from sex" or "guard their chastity" with either of those two groups. Again, the claim that this refers to marriage, rather than sex, is nonsensical, because you cannot marry somebody who is already your wife. I see no reason why 24:30, which is a less targeted exhortation to modesty, would override the three other verses. 109.77.29.14 (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have reverted the requested changes I made earlier as this is clearly contentious. Please discuss if needed As I'm not familiar with the subject, I won't get involved, but I am willing to insert whatever the results of the discussion are. Thank you.-- Obsidi ♠ n Soul  18:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a note to the effect that current Islamic thought does not condone concubinage (or slavery, for that matter) would be appropriate, though I can't provide a reference to support that view right off the bat. It may also be more appropriate elsewhere in the article, I think it would seem a bit tangential to this part of it. 109.77.29.14 (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually there is already a "Modern interpretations" section. It does not specifically address concubinage, but would seem to be the appropriate place for claims such as those that you were asked to insert (if they can be supported). 109.77.29.14 (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though I can't word them myself, heh, being a completely uninvolved editor. If you or anyone else can put something together about that view, I will insert it. You'd need to be very specific about the text to be inserted though.-- Obsidi ♠ n Soul  19:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will see if I can dig anything up on that over the next few days. I should point out that Saladdin19 did have one valid point: the reference to 6:3 from the original text doesn't have anything to do with slavery or concubinage. 109.77.29.14 (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is a little biased
This article is a little biased presenting the attitude of Islam toward slavery as being better than it actually was.

First, there is too much of an emphasis on what the Qur'an says and the attitude Islam is supposed to have toward slavery IN THEORY. In practice, there was a lot more cruelty. Even if this cruelty was against the Qur'an, a truly objective article needs to be more revealing of what Muslims did in practice in regard to slaves.

Second, the choice of quotes and references tends to be quoting and referencing biased opinions. For example, "Brockopp writes: "Other cultures limit a master's right to harm a slave but few exhort masters to treat their slaves kindly, and the placement of slaves in the same category as other weak members of society who deserve protection is unknown outside the Qur'an. The unique contribution of the Qur'an, then, is to be found in its emphasis on the place of slaves in society and society's responsibility toward the slave, perhaps the most progressive legislation on slavery in its time."" This quote and reference is not objective and therefore should not be included in an objective article. Other cultures did treat their slaves kindly. They didn't exhort masters to treat their slaves kindly because they didn't have to exhort masters to treat their slaves kindly. There were cultures in which treating slaves kindly was the norm and therefore an exhortation to do so was unnecessary. It is biased for Brockopp to claim that the Qur'an is perhaps the most progressive legislation on slavery in it's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bejjinks (talk • contribs) 15:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Tamsier (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What you are asking for here you will never get. Although I totally agree with you, this entire Wiki project has been infiltrated by Islamo facists such as Halaqah and others whose desire is to conceal the facts of history and to decapitate anything that paints Islam in a negative light irrespective of the brutal acts done in the name of Islam and encouraged by the Quran itself which details how to deal with slaves, encourages slavery and performed by the Arabs and their agents.  To make matters worst, their are also couple of liberal do-gooders  on Wiki who fear being painted as anti-Islam or fear Islam period and would never rock the boat even when they know the true facts of history.  As far as I am concerned, they are worst than the Islamic facist that have infiltrated Wiki. When you speak the truth, they always quote you that old adage assume good faith.  Yes, assume good faith but a spade is a spade.
 * Please edit the article not the editor. the time spent complaining about who is who is time not spent editing in a constructive manner. Think about it. the best way to fix a NPOV is to discuss the issue and fix it, not run conspiracy theories about Muslims on wiki. You were warned about this by other "liberal" editors. But redirecting Arab slave trade to Islamic views on slavery is an issue which scores no points and has no gains. If you have issues with Islam which conflict with the policy of wikipedia take it to a forum, not this talk page. You have policy at your disposal, so just work within the rules.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Although I agree with the OP that that sentence doesn't seem to be very objective or concrete, the rant by Tamsier is unwarranted. If you don't like interacting with editors from other cultures and religions, I suggest joining Conservapedia instead. Wikipedia is global.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   15:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am surprised that to this day no one has created an article calling Muslims hypocrites for not following their faith properly. Slavery being one of the many many examples. Additionally, the article is about the "Islamic View on Slavery", that is the guidelines set by Islam. If we were to write about the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom", we wouldn't mention whether or not it was upheld all the time. A different article would have to be created for that.BrYounus (talk) 07:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Slavery in the Quran
In the section slavery in the Quran.

This part: "There are many common features between the institution of slavery in the Qur'an and that of neighboring cultures. However, the Qur'anic institution had some unique new features.[14] Bernard Lewis states that the Qur'anic legislation brought two major changes to ancient slavery which were to have far-reaching effects: presumption of freedom, and the ban on the enslavement of free persons except in strictly defined circumstances." It says that the Quran had a ban on the enslavement of free persons except in strictly defined circumstances. Actually this is not correct. The ban is on enslavement of free "muslims". The word persons should be changed to muslims. And then it can say something else about circumstances of enslavement of non muslims afterwards, if necessary.

it is deceptive to say the Quran banned slavery of free persons. That is not true. It only exempted free persons who are muslims, from being enslaved. The other non muslims who lived in muslim countries had to pay a freedom tax, to remain free, otherwise they too could be enslaved. Only muslims were exempt from slavery by muslims.

It presents slavery in Islam as happening less than it did. And that is not honest. It happened obviously a lot, and mostly to people defeated in battles. Which was many people. While the main populations of countries conquered, but who had not actually fought on the battle field were just forced to pay the freedom tax to remain free, or otherwise could also be enslaved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.231.247 (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously that is your personal opinion and I am sure you are not an authority because your presumptions are full of factual errors. If you have reliable sources that support your claims then enlighten us with their wisdom.173.74.22.141 (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You conveniently leave out that only those who could afford the Jizya had to pay it. If you're poor and broke, you were not expected to pay it.BrYounus (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A Master killing his slave
This matter was debated between scholars, and they did not settle on an opinion. But now they agree that if a master kills a slave he should be killed. Anyway you should present all the views. Abu Hanifa, Ibn Taymia, and Ibn Othiemeen agreed that a master should be killed for a slave. I have the topic in Arabic, but I can't find one in English. Here is the Arabic original. And a side note: I think the laws should be written referencing Muslim theologians not orientalists. Besides we are writing Islam's view on slavery not what the Muslims did. This article is practically the summary of Bernard Lewis's writing.--BelalSaid (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Singapore
Singapore was a British possession from 1824. I therefore doubt the accuracy of the statement that "In 1891 there was a regular trade in Chinese slaves by Muslim slaveowners, with girls and women used for concubinage"203.184.41.226 (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Subject Evaluation
This article is so fundamentally flawed. The majority of references are based on a couple of books (Lewis, Segal etc), where the authors are not considered to be experts in their fields and their information is not corroborated evidence of a primary source.

The opening statement states that Islam is anti-slavery. This is a statement that is NOT found on other unbiased Wikipedia pages. It is a very strange sentence to start this page, be it true or not.

The article does not mention the incident in Baltimore in 1631, where slave traders from the Islamic world forcibly enslaved hundreds of free villagers in Ireland.

Please edit this article so it is based on FACTS. If this offends people, then thats another matter. Wikipedia's reputation is severely affected by allowing articles of this substandard to be published — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.201.64 (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

A very through, rich & acurate research...Thanks for effort

Nasser

Potential references
Potential references |last = Davis |first = Robert C. |year = 2004 |title = Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500-1800 |publisher = Palgrave Macmillan |id = {{ISBN|978-1403945518}}
 * Antislavery Campaigner Wins Mauritanian Presidency, Published 2007-03-27 11:30 (KST)
 * Slavery 'still exists' in Mauritania, Published Date: March 22, 2007
 * Words of caution, Cameron Duodu, March 27, 2007 8:00 PM
 * Slavery Lives on in Mauritania, Aug. 28, 2001
 * {{cite book
 * Slavery Lives on in Mauritania, Aug. 28, 2001
 * {{cite book
 * {{cite book
 * {{cite book

Incorrectly cited existing reference (edit request)

 * Patrick Manning, author of Slavery and African Life, is Patrick Manning (professor), not this guy: Patrick Manning
 * Source: http://www.history.pitt.edu/faculty/manning-cv.php
 * Isaaccurtis (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Introduction
The introduction is written in a psychologically well developed breaching manner. This needs to be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.35.124.146 (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The Quran is categorically against slavery
All attempts to show that slavery is supported by the Quran are false, as will be shown in this argument. The following verse commanded Muslims who were still in possession of slaves (a relic of the pre-islamic era) to set them free: "And if any of your slaves ask you for a deed in writing (for emancipation) give them such a deed; If ye knew any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you…"[24:33] Not only are the believers required to set them free, but to send them off with provisions. This is supported by the documented historical evidence of the prophet and his companions who did not own slaves and were active in freeing slaves from bondage.

All the verses which have been used to support slavery via the Quran have been grossly mis-interpreted. Such as the following: 16.75: "Allah sets forth a parable: (consider) a slave, the property of another, (who) has no power over anything, and one whom We have granted from Ourselves a goodly sustenance so he spends from it secretly and openly; are the two alike? (All) praise is due to Allah!" This verse has been used to support a case for slavery, and yet this verse is actually saying that slavery is a pitiful and wretched state of being. It is not condoning inequality, but highlighting the reason why there should be none. G.A.Pervez interprets this verse thus: "The most appropriate example is given by Allah; there is a slave possessed by his master having no control over anything and a free man whom Allah has given the best of provisions which he gives out to others both secretly and openly according to his discretion. Are the two to be held equal? The course adopted by such a free man is worthy of Allah’s Hamd but those who look at things superficially do not understand this."

Prisoners of war are also not allowed to be taken into slavery, as is clear from the following verse: "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates…"[47:4] So the case on taking POWs into slavery is also closed, as far as the Quran is concerned. As a sidenote, this verse and all others which speak of war are limited to defensive wars, as no aggression is allowed for Muslims.

One of the most misinterpreted terms in the Quran is also used by those who try and support a case for slavery, that being "those whom your right hands possess". While an analysis of the Arabic and the context in which it is used in the Quran proves that "Ma Malakat aymanikum" (literal translation: "whom your oaths posess" wrongly translated as right hand possession) is a phrase used for the poor humans whom an oath has been pledged to be taken care of. These are not "slaves" at all. In fact, the level of care and attention that should be given to this group is the same as that given to one's parents, relatives, orphans etc. (Quran 4:36). "Ma malakat aymanikum" are therefore people in society who are weak and unable to provide for themselves. Corrupt interpretations via sources outside the Quran have turned this term into slaves, when all the evidence in the Quran points to the opposite. "During the period when the Quran was revealed, the slaves (captives), both men and women, were part of the Arab society. The Quran closed the door of slavery, and captive women who were part of the household, were either made a part of the respective families (were taken into wed-lock) or were gradually freed. The words whenever they occur in the Quran, mean 'those captive women who were present in those days.' Now the question of slave women does not arise."

In light of this evidence, this article should be completely revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vassal77 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Your interpretation of Quran[24:33] is clearly wrong because you do not see the context. It is about giving conditional consent to marriage of someones slaves and delivering a document for it. And your assertion that Muhammed didn't possess slaves is also clearly disputed by all Sira and Hadith literature, where he is described enslaving people in war, trading with them and accepted them as gifts. --STTill (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not the Hadiths which are in question,but the Quran. The hadiths are many and different muslim groups have different hadiths. So taking certain hadiths to represent all of islam is a mistake. the people who wrote the article seem to think salafism means all of islam, while in reality thereis more difference between muslim sects than between christian sects. Islam is not homogeneous.

Sexual Intercourse, Concubinage
1. Perhaps these two sub-sections should be merged as they seem pretty similar 2. I'm moving the "concubinage" section to directly follow the "sexual intercourse" section for now since they seem very heavily interconnected. 3. I'm moving several sentences from the opening paragraph of "concubinage" to "sexual intercourse" since they talk about sex with slaves and therefore seem more connected in terms of subject nature to the intercourse section. Daniel De Mol (talk) 09:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologetic tone
The article seems to be written in an almost apologetic tone, so as to sound favourable to Islam (or to depict Islamic view of slavery as something very beautiful/desirable) rather than with a neutral POV. Hence tagged the article with POV template. Needs to be edited by non-muslims to make it more neutral and un-apologetic. Srkris (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it is written with far more NPOV than [Jews_and_the_slave_trade]. And to be helpful please get specific so we can deal with specifics as opposed to sweeping statements about a lot of content. BTW I am a Muslim, are you suggesting we are incapable of NPOV? Next step is to reply here with specifics or the tag will have failed its rationale and we will have to take it down. --Inayity (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse with slaves
The article states "According to Muslim theologians..." men can have sexual intercourse with their slave women "regardless of whether or not the slave woman gave her consent" - with the only source cited the controversial site islamqa. This is a salafist site based in Saudi Arabia which is largely discredited by mainstream islam. The claim (that sex with slaves is permissible without consent) is overwhelmingly rejected by mainstream muslim scholars - and certainly attributing the claim to "muslim theologians" is outright dishonest.Gandalf7877 (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

To say the lead needs work is an understatement
The lead needs work. What has happened it it is failing to summarize the topics but in effect discussing them (at length). It is not easy to fix and I suggest people spend sometime on the lead.--Inayity (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bible Leviticus 25:44-46,NOT the Qur'an [9:60] that accepts the institution of slavery
Islam does Not only forbid taking or keeping slaves,but also by NOT freeing them is a SIN that defy Allah’s commandment

[9:60] {In fact, the A sadaqat /alms is meant for the needy and the poor, as well as for those appointed to collect and distribute it,to win hearts over (to Islam), to free slaves and those in debt, (to wage a struggle) for the sake of Allah, and to help the wayfarer. It is an obligation imposed by Allah(Fareedatn min Allah فريضة من الله ); and Allah is well aware, the Wisest}.

Thus freeing Slaves as well as removing poverty and debts from the Alms is not a matter of Choice or an option it is an Obligation imposed by Allah himself (Fareedatn min Allah فريضة من الله ) as i it is strongly been stated in verse 9:60, just like any other obligation duty imposed by Allah ( Fareedatn min Allah فريضة من الله ) be it, establishing prayer, fasting Ramadan , and making Hajj.The state Has the obligation to take Muslims Sadaqat/Alms to free slaves.

Quran [9:60] The State must Collect the "Zakat alms" to free the slaves Muslims and non Muslims,eradicate poverty,and free those who are in deb


 * If this was true, why was Muhammad himself a slave-owner? Didn't he understand the quran himself?

It seems to me that this article is totally wrong and white-washing Islam's view on slavery. Muhammed had slaves, had sex with slaves and encouraged the same in his men. Verse 33:50 (and others) condones and encourages slavery: 'We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.72.204 (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

while the Quran 9:60 prescribe to free slaves as a Command duty  ordained by Allah (Fareedatn min Allah فريضة من الله). The bible itself prescribed to take slave Leviticus 25:44-46 and accepts the institution of slavery "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." Leviticus 25:44-46

Happy haytham (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Muhammad was a slave-owner and Jesus wasn't. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.44.119 (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So what? You guys are engaging in religion hatred war. Beside, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) "WAS" slave owner, he freed all of his slave in the end. Also, How do you know for sure? You have no historical evidence/source at all regarding Prophet Isa live (Jesus, if you may)--210.48.222.7 (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What the bible has to say on the subject of slavery has no relevance to the subject of this article. 109.77.29.14 (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comparing Muhammad to Jesus is like comparing George Washington to Mickey Mouse, one is a real historical figure and the other is a figment of someone's immagination, a fiction. Having said that, history tells us that Muhammad did not own slaves but he recieved slaves as gifts or as prisoners of war and he then set them free. When he died he did not own any slaves, and was generally poor by any standard, having to pawn his armor in order provide for his household (even though he was the ruler of all of Arabia at the time). The writers of the story of Jesus, on the other hand, did not provide him with a full life and we have no idea of where he stands on anything other than some polemic about the kingdom of God being near. If anyone knows of what the authors had in mind for the Jesus character (like from a TV, radio or magazine interview with Paul, Mark, John, Luke or Matthew) regarding concrete issues, then please let us know.173.74.22.141 (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Not that I think it's relevant to this article but you should check out "historicity of Jesus" and "historicity of Muhammad" here on Wikipedia for more info. And, by the way, what does the Bible have to do with Islamic views on slavery? There's no reason why this talk section shouldn't be deleted.95.169.243.210 (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is fair to describe Mohammed as the figment of someone's imagination, or to compare him with Mickey Mouse!203.184.41.226 (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The definition/introduction is largely about the release of slaves. It would be more balanced to have started with an examination of the institution of slavery in Islam, not the release of slaves. Despite what some have said, Mohammed justified/supported the institution of slavery.  Slavery remained widespread in the Moslem world until the 1960's, and hasn't disappeared yet.203.184.41.226 (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 October 2013
Please change Bruschvig to Brunschvig. The name of the author is Brunschvig and it is spelled correctly in the footnote but not in the article itself. Please change "The Quran urges, kindness to the slave" to "The Quran urges kindness to the slave" by removing the unnecessary comma. ````

Lcauvin (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  04:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Missing Fact
An important Islamic view on slavery is left out in this article. It's that female slaves are not allowed to cover their breasts. This is a well known fact accepted in the Islamic Sharia law and argued only by a few. Actually argued only by Al-Albani. But no references are available in English, of course. English Islam is nothing like Islam believe me. I just want to clarify that I'm a non-religious ex-Muslim so I'm mainly trying to clarify some of the misleading points and missing facts in the article that I know are meant to be there by internet Islamists, because I would have done the same a few years ago honestly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.35.124.146 (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Addition: In northern Mali and Mauritania, I was told that abiid (people in West-Africa, descending from slaves, still kept as if slavery never ended) were not allowed to wear head scarfs or 'Islamic' turbani's. The same I heard about 'Africans' in Sudan, and about 'Bantu' in Somalia. The message from upper class African (often Sufi) Muslims always was: You are lower class, by wearing islamic dress you make yourself ridiculous, and you undeservedly claim equal citizenship, and that would go against the god given order in society. Anti slavery activists, both in Mauritania and Sudan told me, that taking Islamic dress was one silent way of the disenfranchised groups in those countries, to protest against their ongoing discrimination.Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Almost this entire article is referenced to Bernard Lewis
This article relies almost exclusively on the works Bernard Lewis, one of few Islamic historians to have sought evidence of Arab denigration of Africans. None of the more prominent names in Muslim history are cited, nor are the anthropologists who are experts on these cultures. The truth is many of Islam's great political leaders, artists, writers and poets were clearly identified as African. Al-Mustansir is probably the most well-known Fatimid Caliph. The Fatimids reached the zenith of their power during his reign in Egypt. He was the son of the Caliph al-Zahir and a Nubian concubine. His father and grandfather had been notorious for their human rights violations. His grandfather al-Hakim made laws forbidding women to leave their homes, killing women who resisted or even objected. His father al-Zahir shut 2,660 young women in a mosque, where they died of hunger. Scholars describe the Moor as originating in the Senegal River valley in Southern Mauritania as Almoravides, and gathering followers from many ethic groups before overwhelming the Iberian Peninsula. The Almoravides were a group of devout Muslims also responsible for the destabilization and eventual demise of the Kingdom of Ghana, in and around the same timeframe as the Iberian siege. Of the three Moorish kings killed in the battle of Alcazar in 1578, two were mulattoes and one, an unmixed "Negro", Mulai Mohammed “the Negro.” (Chenier L. Recherches Hist. sur les Maures, V 3, p. 328. 1787. Muley Moharnet qui fut surnomme’ le Negre parce qu’il ‘etait fils d’une Negresse).

A passage from the thirteenth century “Primera cronica general” (Wolf, 1990: Chapter 559 General Chronicles of Spain) describes the events of 711, what is understood to be the fall of Spain in that year: “...Their faces were black as pitch, the handsomest among them was black as a cooking pot, and their eyes blazed like...”

I am removing the Bernard Lewis passages until there is more emphasis on reliable historical accounts. Bernard Lewis is not a prominent historian nor is he an Anthropologist, and thus, he is not a reliable source.... I also note that Bernard Lewis references are strategically place in attempts to make Islam appear particularly hostile toward Africans; indeed, THERE ARE NO OTHER RERERENCES PROVIDED!

References:

Chenier L. Recherches Hist. sur les Maures, V 3, p. 328. 1787

Wolf, Kenneth Baxter 1990. Conquerors and Chronicles of Early Medieval Spain. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.179.142 (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Al Qaeda-leaning movements use abolition and emancipation as a successful recruiting tool. How to find sources?
In Somalia, Al-Shabaab had a disproportionate number of fans and recruits in 'lower class' Bantu (Somali Bantu) and Rahanweyn communinities. Because in Al Shabaab, the ideology was that in the original Islam, all people are equal before Allah. In effect, Al Shabaab, wherever they took power, they tried to protect the poor and darker skinned / more Bantu looking people, also women, against massive abuse, plunder, rape, eviction and illegal taxation by the Somali 'upper classes'. And they often treated 'lower class' Somali's as fully equal in all aspects, including politics. And they often demanded 'upper class' Somali's to do the same. (I heard numerous complaints and compliments about that.)

The same counts for the war in Northern Mali, where a large percentage of dark skinned, Tuareg (and Arab) speaking people were still living in (near) slavery conditions, being economically and politically totally disenfranchised. Here, the Islamist movement quickly grew out of the blue, because they recruited these lower classes often in their entirety (like the Ifora), promising them full and equal citicenship. Also here, the Islamist basic creed is that god created all equal, and that therefore the traditional Tuareg (and Moorisch and Arab) Sufi-attributed division of society in casts, is bad and should end immediately. In effect they forced 'noble' Tuareg and Arabs and Moors to accept the full emancipation (including all economic and political rights) of all the darker skinned people.

In Somalia, one of Shabaab's founders was Robow (Sheikh Mukhtar Robow), a Rahanweyne. In Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda's number three was Al Libii (Abdullah Said al Libi), a black skinned scolar from Libia. Also in Mali, the Islamists have black skinned top leaders.

Basically, Al-Qaeda related islamists propagate and practice abolition of slavery and slavery-like conditions, and use it as a powerful recruiting tool. They treat black skinned or Bantu or slave decedents people as fully equal citizens, also having them in power in the top ranks.

That is how they could grow so quickly in Somalia and Mali and all those other countries where a caste system with racial undertones keeps large percentage of Muslims disenfranchised and on the brink of starvation.

This also explains why in Saudi-Arabia, some Salafists openly started to re-defend some forms of slavery: because the Al-Qaeda-leaning ideologists had started to preach against the Saudi caste and class system, drawing large support from the low classes, in effect 'stealing subjects' from upper class families. Under current Saudi law, these upper class families cannot do much about it. So they reclaim Islamic law to justify their cling to (near/)slavery.

So basically, most branches of current Islam feel ashamed but keep silent, deny, condone or defend (near)slavery, and other branches (Al Qaeda linked islamists, maybe also other branches) practice abolition and use forced equality as a successful recruiting tool. This is what I picked up, working in Somalia, Sudan and Mali, and now working with refugees in Netherlands. But I can't find English sources for it.

Do we want it in the article? Then how do we find sources?

Pieter.Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It sounds to me like something that should be in the article, but only if we can find sources. And if you, with your knowledge of the field, can't find sources, it is likely to be difficult. Maproom (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Islam Was The Fjrst Religon who freed the slaves so stop lying please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.207.31 (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Consent required for intercourse?
Even IF it was theorically allowed to have slave concumbines at a time and to have intercourse with them,a non-biased quranic source or hadith common to sunni and shia islam would be mandatory to conclude that islam as a whole spported rape. this article of wikipedia is of poor quality, because it is not sourced and basically just makes accusations based in a single salafist source (islamqa). all the biased sources of the article (such as islamqa) should be immediatly removedl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.227.120 (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Please note the title of the article. There is of course a range of views within Islam, including those of the salafists who contribute to islamqa. I suggest that those views should be mentioned, while making it clear that they are not widely accepted within Islam. Maproom (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The article from this website is interesting because it does not focus on opinions but instead make citations from hadith and other muslim sources. the citations point against allowing rape. there are inclusive sources pointing that beings who "those your right possesses" also have god-given rights as per islam. http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/no_rape_of_female_slaves.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.132.194 (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Provenance of slaves in Pre-Islamic Arabia
In the article it is mentioned: ''The majority of slaves within Arabia were of Ethiopian origin, through whose sale merchants grew rich. '', but there's no source and citation to justify those statements. In fact, it doesn't seems to be the case. Here's a quote from the book Race and Slavery in the Middle East: An Historical Enquiry by Bernard Lewis: '''The normal fate of captives in antiquity was enslavement, and Ethiopians appear together with Persians, Greeks, and others among the foreign slave population of seventh-century Arabia. The proportion of black slaves is unknown; but from lists of the slaves and freedmen of the Prophet and of some of his Companions" it would seem that they formed a minority.''' If the proportion of black slaves is unknown, or even seemed to be a minority, then I wonder what justify the article statement about Ethiopian slaves forming the majority of slaves at that time.

The source also mentions elsewhere: The slave population of the Islamic world was recruited from many lands, In the earliest days slaves came principally from the newly conquered countries--from the Fertile Crescent and Egypt, from, Iran and North Africa, from Centra) Asia; India, and Spain. So I see no justification for maintaining the statement: 'The majority of slaves within Arabia were of Ethiopian origin, through whose sale merchants grew rich.' without proper citation from reliable sources to justify it. DrLewisphd (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2014
where are the sources and who wrote this?

174.95.208.169 (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

To answer your question - the sources are clearly stated in the article - all 148 of them. Arjayay (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

What this article is about: Is Slavery and related sex abuse is lawful in Islam or not
The article is still not well written. Full of cherry picking about how good early muslims were good to their slaves. ISIS is also cherry picking on the other side. There is no different views within Islam. Quran and Sunna are clear. It is lawful. There is no power that can change the legislation other than outright lies and fallacies. ISIS is doing this following the Prophet. The Prophet was inviting his companion overtly for the gain of sex slaves, especially proposing to Al-Jadd bin Qays if was interested in women, inviting him to the battle of Tabouk.--Connection (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why dont you just let the scholars and RS determine that. And avoid so much personal opinion. Everything is clear when uninformed. But not so clear when you actually study the topic. I would hope that this page would balance these views with reference from RS.--Inayity (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You are way out of line. It is lame, of bad taste, and typical of Islamic apologetics, to bring qualifications into the discussion. As a Muslim, you should know the true story of Al-Jadd bin Qays, not the created story created later. The English-speaking reader may refer for example to Joseph Shafi's, p. 93-4. May be you see Qoran and Hadith are not RS? This is only a cas celebre, brought here to set the tone of the article. Islam has a clear and declared Agenda. You didn't add anything to the discussion. You ventured your reply without knowing anything. What do you know of my published research? Please learn to judge the facts brought therein. To "actually study the topic", you need to learn logic fallacies and how they are used to mis-represent the truth. For example, off-topic arguments... like qualifications. I strongly advise you to study the topic, using the correct, primary, uncensored, RS.--Connection (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

What is this page about? Is it about ISIS selling girls or about Islamic Views on slavery?
ISIS is hardly some authoritative Islamic body. If they have a position on slavery, then state their rationale for slavery, we do not need to hear too much about they took this girl to this market and sold them for 20 dinar, that does not seem to fit into the theme of this page. What they did belongs on their page, WHY they are doing it belongs on this page BUT (and this is key) only if it falls into an Islamic justification for slavery! Cuz the section is getting bigger and bigger and I am yet to see where it is going. And while it might be hard to separate, not everyone with Islam in their name is an Islamic perspective. --Inayity (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You may challenge the authority of ISIS, but they represent an Islamic point of view that is significant because it is affecting the lives of thousands of women. That they are actually putting this interpretation into practice, and the number of women affected, is relevant because it helps the reader understand that disagreements over Islamic law in this area have real-world consequences and to gauge the impact of those consequences.  This is not simply an academic question of scriptural interpretation, and readers need to know that. EastTN (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

So, how is ISIS's supposed slavery related to Islamic views on slavery? - Ascetic Rosé   00:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * ISIS justifies slavery based on Islamic law. We may or may not like it, and we may or may not believe they are correctly interpreting the Quran and other sources of Islamic law.  Regardless, ISIS has expressed an explicitly Islamic view on slavery.  (Given that both ISIS and the U.N. call it "slavery," it no longer seems necessary to qualify it as "supposed" slavery.)


 * Let's also look at the context of the discussion. How can we justify including under "Current status" what "organized criminal gangs" in Saudi Arabia are doing, and not include ISIS?  How can we justify including under "Islamist opinions" a Boka Haram leader claiming the authority to enslave captives and not include the same claim made by ISIS?  Is it really the place of the Wikipedia community to decide that Boka Haram is more "Islamic" than ISIS? Or to decide that when Saudi Arabia is lax in combating human trafficking it's related to Islamic views on slavery, but when ISIS comes right out and says that sharia allows them can enslave Yazidi women it's not related?


 * Or let's just look at the main section heading - "Slavery in the contemporary Muslim world". What part of this do we think doesn't fit?  That it's not "slavery"?  ISIS, the U.N. and the press reports all disagree.  That it's not "contemporary"?  It's happening right now.  That it's not in the "Muslim world"?  This is an Islamist group operating in Syria and Iraq. It might be more comfortable to ignore extreme Islamist views in articles like this, but it would also be wrong. EastTN (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You are actually conflating two different things for reasons best known to you. You are mixing what Islam is and what some people do in the name of Islam. The dividing line between them is pretty clear to those who generally study such things. When we talk about any religion's view on any specific issue, we mean what rulings/canonical doctrines the scriptures and authoritative books of that religion pronounce, how the jurists and scholars of that religion explain them, and how the mainstream followers practice them in their mundane life, and not what some separate people do using the name of that religion. This can be exemplified in various ways. Anders Behring Breivik attacked and killed many innocent people in 2011 Norway attacks showing religious causes. Terry Jones, a Christian pastor planned to burn 200 Qurans at his church showing religious cause. But I don't see these events being included in Christianity and Islam as an example of Christian view on Islam. Why? Clearly, we can not say that killing people of other religion and burning their scripture are Christian doctrines just because some of them have done so. There are many such incidents involving all the major religions which does not necessarily stand for the respective religion's view. We can write pages after pages on them.


 * Is ISIS/ISIL any authoritative or representative body for Islam? Are they comprised of Islamic scholars and/or mainstream common Muslims? Where have they originated from? We even can't be sure if they are true Muslims when judged from Islamic theological viewpoint. That being said. what ISIS is doing belong to their page. You are at liberty to include as much as possible there. You said ISIS justifies slavery based on Islamic law. It is ISIS's concern, not Islam's.


 * As for "organized criminal gangs" in Saudi Arabia and Boka Haram, I have not included them. So how can I account for that? Over-enthusiastic editors like you have done this. It is also not clear how the single-sentence para regarding Boka Haram is related to the purpose of this article. As for It might be more comfortable to ignore extreme Islamist views..., I can say Islamic views are Islamic views; it is up to us whether we see them as extreme or moderate. Canonical Islamic views will always be eligible to be included at appropriate places. Once again, it has little to do with ISIS or the like. - Ascetic Rosé   16:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Your examples don't apply here. In both cases (Anders Behring Breivik and Terry Jones) you are talking about the idiosyncratic views of single individuals.  ISIS represents an Islamist political movement that currently controls significant portions of Syria and Iraq.


 * Your core argument seems to be that ISIS does not represent "true Muslims" and thus their interpretation of sharia does not represent an "Islamic view" for purposes of this article. They claim to be Muslim, and the media report on them as jihadis.  It is not our role as Wikipedia editors to independently decide that they do not represent "[c]anonical Islamic views."  If you have reliable sources that say ISIS is not Islamic, then it would certainly be appropriate to include that rebuttal.  Otherwise, if it's appropriate that the article includes the views of the Muslim Brotherhood, Jamaat-e-Islami and Hizb ut-Tahrir - and I believe that it is - then it is also appropriate to include the views of ISIS.


 * The question we face as editors is very simple. This is an article on "Islamic views on slavery."  The only reasons to exclude the material would be that it isn't really "slavery" or it doesn't represent an "Islamic view."  The first isn't in doubt, and the second isn't our call to make.  EastTN (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Once again, what ISIS does belongs to their page, not here. Hence, I've removed that out-of-place text regarding to their activities. They are beyond the purpose of this article. However, their claim about slavery has been kept, as it is included as a claim. Just as English Defence League, Anders Behring Breivik and Terry Jones are idiosyncratic, and despite assuming Christian identity, are unlikely to be operating within the permitted boundary of Christianity, it can't be ensured that ISIS and the like are actually conforming the canonical Islamic rulings in their activities, and are operating within Islamic boundary. This is quite evident now as you have included a critical view of ISIS from within the Muslim world.


 * ISIS is more of a political issue and group than of a religious one, (and you are aware of it). That's why, many Muslim countries are joining the battle against them.


 * As for the second isn't our call to make, sometimes it is definitely our call. We are not robots. It is the Wikipedia editors who write articles and decide which piece of information to include and which piece to exclude. That's why we have so many policies to guide our writing and to guide our movement. - Ascetic Rosé   00:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Look, these analogies you keep trying to draw simply aren't applicable. Anders Behring Breivik and Terry Jones are both single individuals.  If there were any reliable sources proving that they represented large, organized Christian movements, then they would in fact be relevant for articles discussing Christian views on Islam.  ISIS is not a single individual or a single mosque.  It's a large Islamic movement controlling more territory than some nations.  The English Defence League is even less relevant.  It doesn't promote itself as a Christian movement.


 * Opposition by other Muslims does not mean that ISIS falls outside the bounds of Islam. It was not that long ago that Protestant Christians (including such notable figures as  Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, and John Knox) saw the Pope as the Antichrist.  That doesn't mean that an encyclopedia written at the time could exclude the views of the Roman Catholic Church as "not truly Christian."


 * We are not robots, but we still don't get to decide whether ISIS is "Islamic" enough. What we do get to do is follow the sources.  The sources tell us that ISIS claims to be Islamic, they cite sharia as the justification for their actions, and the media are reporting that they are an Islamist group. If you and I don't like that, we can look for other reliable sources that say something else (which you'll note that I've done, and already incorporated into the article).  But we can't simply say "no, that's wrong" or ignore the sources because we disagree. EastTN (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Please look, just as we do not use sources, rather use reliable sources to support our statements, similarly to demonstrate a religion's view on any issue in any encyclopedic article, we can't import just an organization, rather it should be an authoritative body. Probably you will be agree with me that ISIS is not an authoritative body of Islam. That's the thing I'm trying to imply. Yes, Opposition by other Muslims does not mean that ISIS falls outside the bounds of Islam. Similarly, claims by ISIS to base their activities on Islamic foundation does not promote it (at least for the present) to the level of acceptance where we can't question their activities.


 * Look, I'm not questioning the sources. I'm even not saying not to mention the ISIS events, but only that not to include them here as I strongly believe this falls beyond the purpose of this article for reasons mentioned above. They have their page to deal with these.


 * Yes, we still don't get to decide whether ISIS is "Islamic" enough. This is obviously true when you will deal with these things in ISIS's page. But this does not remain true when we are in an article which is to tell us Islamic view on an issue. Otherwise, we risk misleading the readers.


 * You still somehow have managed to incorporate ISIS's claim in Islamist opinions section. I like to thank you for bringing a critical viewpoint about ISIS from within the Muslim arena. But pushing then their long saga seems to be too much to me. I'm about to finish my points here. Hope, this will suffice. Thanks for participating in the discussion. - Ascetic Rosé   04:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * We may just not agree. I believe you're trying to draw a distinction that's simply not correct.  If we were to apply your line of reasoning to Christianity, then the views of Catholics for Choice should not be included on the page on Christian views on contraception because they are not, in fact, an authoritative body within the Catholic Church (or within any other church, as far as I'm aware).  Their views are included, and I believe rightly so, because they represent the actual views of a significant number Catholics in the U.S.  The group is significant, even though it has no canonical authority within the formal structure of the church.  The article goes on to provide information on what U.S. Catholics actually do.  Arguably the views of Catholics for Choice are more significant than the official position, because they reflect the actual practice of modern Catholics.


 * Religions are not as neat and compartmentalized as your argument assumes. There are multiple groups that claim formal authority, there are groups outside the formal organizational structures that have great informal authority, and there are the actual beliefs and practices of adherents.  It is important to clearly distinguish between each of these.  But when the average reader comes to this article, they will not only be asking "what is the official scholarly position on slavery" but also "what do Muslims believe about slavery," "how do those beliefs vary" and "how do they affect what Muslims do."  The same is true about readers going to the article on Christian beliefs about contraception.  That's why that article gives the official position of the Catholic Church, but also gives the dissenting view and information on what Catholics in the pews actually believe and do.  This article should do no less. EastTN (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 7 December 2014
Hello. Hopefully I'm using the template right. I'd like to request that a citation (and perhaps the sentence that references it) be removed. I do not have a Wikipedia account, so apparently I can't edit this page. The citation is from the "Zakat" article in Encyclopedia of Taxation and Tax Policy. I read the article on Zakat from the referenced book, and the citation that it supports is not in the text. Thank you. 182.253.154.21 (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Dan

❌ Google books show different extracts at different times, and to people in different places, so it may not appear in the version you see, but may well have appeared in the version the editor who added it saw. In such cases we assume good faith especially as the quote appears in several other sources such as here and here - Arjayay (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for split of article
To resolve the dispute above, it has been suggested that current article be split into a new History of Slavery in the Muslim World and the current Islamic views on slavery. I propose that the History of slavery under Muslim rule and #Slavery in the contemporary Muslim world sections be put in the new History of Slavery in the Muslim World article, leaving the first two section (i.e. the rest of the article) in current article. Information on the slavery activities of Daesh and Boko Haram would be in the new article with the very brief mention of Daesh's defense of slavery and petition by Islamic scholars against them  in the current article. (Have sent two messages to editor I have been disputing with, User:AsceticRose, encouraging him/her to explain their case on the talk page here and here. Just sent a new message here)

Make votes or comments on the suggestion below.

Poll

 * SUPPORT - for reasons explained above. Simple solution to contradiction between article's title and articles sections, that also follows the organization of other articles. (Article's title suggests its about views not actions but sections talk about slavery not just views on slavery. Editors have complained and deleted when contemporary slavery is mentioned and this should resolve that problem.)  --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: Unless someone objects, am not planning to do a formal RfC I talked about earlier as only three editors including myself have participated since the "update" (User:AsceticRose has not) and there is essentially no dispute as of yet. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT - unfortunately, I have little to add after what has been stated above but I do concur with the suggested plan. It's better than the current setup and I can't envision any opposition. Plus, as I mentioned myself above, creating more articles and expanding the encylopedia is generally a good thing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Neutral - I don't see/mean that the present dispute is about "views" and not "actions". I am opposing the inclusion of ISIS and similar saga – be it their views or actions. But yes, there can e a split as proposed because the article has grown long. Besides, putting the views and actions in separate articles will be nice.


 * But I have one question: after creating the History of Slavery in the Muslim World articles, will the views of ISIS and Boko Haram be still present in the present article? If so, it does not resolve the present dispute in the slightest. (sorry for delayed response. I'm not very active now on Wikipedia) - Ascetic Rosé   05:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You mean the one paragraph Jihadist_views subsection? The one with four sentences on ISIS and Boko Haram's views (and not their actions) on slavery, and two sentences about opposition to their views? Why yes they will, because as explained repeatedly above, they are views of notable self-professed Muslims on slavery, based (in the view holder's eyes) on Islam. In the History of Slavery in the Muslim World there will be mention on what they've done,i.e. their taking of slaves, selling them etc. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Article split
Here is the new article: History of Slavery in the Muslim World. Still needs to be trimmed and worked with. -- BoogaLouie (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Based on the pervious AFD discussion about Ma malakat aymanukum, I propose to merge this article in Islamic views on slavery. As it seems, the proposal was supported by. Mhhossein (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with merging. "Ma malakat aymanukum" is not a common expression.That article has a lot of quotations from primary sources such as Quran and Hadith. If we omit them, then it becomes a stub.-- Seyyed(t-c) 04:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Seyyed that the term is not a common expression - not even in Orientalist literature - and that the article itself could mostly be deleted since it consists of primary source quotes from religious scripture. But the reality is that if anybody does that, they'll be accused of just being a Muslim editor whitewashing what some Orientalist-leaning editors term "exposing the truth" about Islam; many of them have said things like this quite openly in previous discussions on similar articles.
 * Additionally, only a few people supported merger; most just said keep, and one of the active participants in the discussion said the Ma Malakat Aymanukum article should be improved before deciding if it should be merged or not. Aside from tagging it for citation, the article has actually become worse since that discussion in terms of policy violations, but those violations are likely to be defended by some editors with the same phrase: we're not being objective about Islam. The irony is overwhelming.
 * So what can be done realitically? I'm skeptical of a merger; it will likely be taken as an offense and garner a bad reaction. Wouldn't it be better to take a scrutinizing eye to that article first, go line by line, bring up each issue on the talk page before editing, and wait for community response? It will take a much longer time but might ultimately yield better results. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed quotations from the primary sources. Now, we have an article which is about 20 k. We can invite those who are active there to come here and participate in the discussion.-- Seyyed(t-c) 02:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright...once you remove the primary sources, the article itself is small. There are quite a few references left, but they relate to slavery in general and not that specific term. That's the main point: they aren't about the specific term. I support a merge as well, but we'll have to see how the discussion goes. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why I opened a discussion for deleting this article. Mhhossein (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Instead of deleting this article, the "Ma malakat aymanukum" article should be integrated within this one. It's obvious that this article contains the broader issue, and everything on that page is just a sub-category of stuff here. There's not even enough content on that page. And most content that would be placed there would be better served here anyway. To avoid over-lap that page should be merged into this one. c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  19:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"Jihadists" (section in dispute)
In 2014, Jihadist groups in the Middle East (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) and Northern Nigeria (Boko Haram) have not only justified the taking of slaves in war but actually enslaved women and girls. Abubakar Shekau, the leader of the Nigerian extremist group Boko Haram said in an interview, "I shall capture people and make them slaves". Shekau has justified his actions stating, "[w]hat we are doing is an order from Allah, and all that we are doing is in the Book of Allah that we follow". Of the 2014 Chibok kidnapping of over 200 schoolgirls, he stated "Allah instructed me to sell them: they are his properties. I will sell them in the market by Allah.".

In the digital magazine Dabiq, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant claimed religious justification for enslaving Yazidi women whom they consider to be from a heretical sect. ISIL claimed that the Yazidi are idol worshipers and their enslavement part of the old shariah practice of spoils of war. The Economist reports that ISIS has taken "as many as 2,000 women and children" captive, selling and distributing them as sexual slaves, and in April 2015, a United Nations special envoy visiting Iraq was given a copy of an Islamic State list of prices for captured women and children. (Prices on the list varied from $165 for slaves 1–9 years old, to $41 for women 41–50 years old.)

ISIL appealed to apocalyptic beliefs and "claimed justification by a Hadith that they interpret as portraying the revival of slavery as a precursor to the end of the world." In late September 2014, 126 Islamic scholars from around the Muslim world signed an open letter to the Islamic State's leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, rejecting his group's interpretations of the Qur'an and hadith to justify its actions. The letter accuses the group of instigating fitna—sedition—by instituting slavery under its rule in contravention of the anti-slavery consensus of the Islamic scholarly community.

Dispute
I have rvted the deletion of the Jihadist section by AsceticRose. Boko Haram and ISIS may be fringe but their stated motivation is to follow the Sunna dn they should have a place in this article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

AsceticRose has rvted again with the edit summary: "yes, ISIS has a view. That's why it should be added to ISIS page, not in Islamic view page". This makes no sense. pre-Islamic Arabia has a page, the Quran has a page, Islamic jurisprudence has a page, etc.. They all still have sections in this article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi BoogaLouie. This issue was previously discussed in detail above. The reasons were presented there.


 * If Boko Haram and ISIS may be fringe themselves, there stated motivation should be more fringe. Organizations like Boko Haram and ISIS have their own doctrines and should be incorporated in the corresponding articles. Stating their affairs in this article under the heading "Slavery in the contemporary Muslim world" implies that what they are doing is according to core Islamic injunctions or their actions constitute true Islamic spirit both of which may not be true. In that case, it will be original research and the misleading. As you yourself highlighted Boko Haram and ISIS, discuss these on Boko Haram and ISIS pages, not on Islamic page.


 * Yes, the Quran has a page. But Quran is discussed here because what Quran says is Islam. Islamic jurisprudence has a page. But it is discussed here because Islamic jurisprudence is what Islam is. But your Boko Haram and ISIS are not. Thanks. - Ascetic Rosé   18:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Stating their affairs in this article under the heading "Slavery in the contemporary Muslim world" implies that what they are doing is according to core Islamic injunctions or their actions constitute true Islamic spirit both of which may not be true
 * No, there is no such implication. The implication is that ISIS and Boko Haram are self-professed Muslim groups. They have both large swaths of territory under their control. They defend their actions as following Islamic law. They undoubtedly only have only minority support in the Muslim world (I should have said "minority", not "fringe"), but they are part of the contemporary Muslim world. That is why they are part of that section.
 * Regarding the Quran, Islamic jurisprudence, etc. being in the article because they are "what Islam is". Islamist opinions and Salafi and traditionalist juridical support for slavery both have sections in the article. Are Islamists and Salafis what "constitute true Islamic spirit", or "what Islam is", but not Jihadi Salafi or jihadi Islamists? I put it to you that this is not for you to decide. Cheers. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, there was such implication. You even worded the introducing sentence of that section in a way to overtly imply this which was actually an original research. You yourself admitted that ISIS and Boko Haram are self-professed Muslim groups which means that their being true Muslim groups are not accepted by others. That's why they are self-professed. You further admitted that They undoubtedly only have only minority support in the Muslim world which clearly make them unworthy of being discussed in this article. This is further consolidated when we see that such organizations' actions run against the Islamic injunctions.


 * With regard to your point that they are part of the contemporary Muslim world, I think it is an issue largely debatable. For now, as such organizations are highly controversial and do not represent/constitute any legal/unanimously accepted Islamic body, their mention in the article only distorts the actual Islamic view on slavery. - Ascetic Rosé   13:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You even worded the introducing sentence of that section in a way to overtly imply this which was actually an original research.
 * What original research?
 * You yourself admitted that ISIS and Boko Haram are self-professed Muslim groups which means that their being true Muslim groups are not accepted by others.


 * Not true. "Self-professed" means self-professed, not "not accepted by others". Being a "self-professed Muslim" is important because it is at least part of how we define someone as Muslim.
 * You further admitted that They undoubtedly only have only minority support in the Muslim world which clearly make them unworthy of being discussed in this article.
 * How does disagreement among Muslims as to who is a good Muslim make a group "clearly ... unworthy of being discussed in this article"?  Do all Muslims accept Islamists and Salafis?  If not, why do Islamist opinions and  Salafi and traditionalist juridical support for slavery both have sections in the article? As I asked you before: Are Islamists and Salafis what "constitute true Islamic spirit", or "what Islam is", but not Jihadi Salafi or jihadi Islamists? I put it to you that this is not for you to decide.


 * As I also said before ISIS and Boko Haram both have large swaths of territory under their control, ISIS has millions of people under its control. They both defend their actions as following Islamic law. ISIS in particular has had thousand of Muslims come from other countries to join it, and jihadists in other countries declared allegiance to it. It has loudly defended the taking and the selling of slaves as truly Islamic. This certainly makes them notable for the article.
 * You may sincerely believe that there is one true Islamic creed and all other deviant forms should not be allowed in this article but wikipedia has to go by WP:RS. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, this was discussed in detail earlier - and there was no consensus to delete this sourced material. The Islamic community is not monolithic, and there are varying views on slavery. The views of ISIL and Boko Haram may be profoundly mistaken - as I firmly believe them to be - but given the current world situation they are also more notable than either mine or (unless you are a world leader or prominent cleric) yours. EastTN (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, there was no consensus to delete. However, as far as I saw, BoogaLouie gave the section such a twist as to making it incongruous enough to be kept here.


 * There is no dispute that Islamic community is monolithic, often having varying views on many subjects. The mistake is when we verge on to place the illegal (illegal in the sense that they are not recognized as any representing/true religious bodies) bodies like Boko Haram and ISIS in the same line of legal/representing bodies like a Muslim community (say Shia or Sunni for example) or a Muslim country (say Saudi Arabia for example) or a Muslim academic scholar. It is bizarre enough to me that the opinions of so called leaders of some extremist groups are being juxtaposed with other Muslim academic scholars under the section name Islamist opinions giving rise the misleading impression that what these politically motivated extremist groups are doing has something to do with what Islam actually says. This is highly misleading because it may be that these so-called religious extremist groups are not religious/Islamic at all – they are just using the religious dogmas and names as an excuse to justify their whole bunch of actions. - Ascetic Rosé   17:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no desire to twist or misrepresent the views of ISIL, Boko Haram or any other group. I do believe that the views of those groups are, for the purposes of Wikipedia, notable. Having said that, it may well make sense to put their views in a separate section to distinguish them from those of more moderate Islamists. I'm at a loss to what such a section would be called, however.  Would perhaps "Jihadist Views" work?  I'll drop that in so we can see how folks like it. EastTN (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * AsceticRose please explain what is "such a twist as to making it incongruous enough"? That ISIS was not only saying but doing? That it was selling slaves? We are not talking about a section on its selling slaves, just one sentence about that fact. And if it was the "twist" that was the problem why did you delete the whole section?
 * As for whether its legal or illegal it has ISIS seems to have some scholars supporting its views (wikipedia will not allow the address of the list to be posted but it is http://justpaste(period)it/IS_Scholars ), and as I keep mentioning, has millions of people under its control, thousand of Muslims coming from other countries to join it, and jihadists in other countries declared allegiance to it. This is not an article on "legal" Muslim views, but notable Muslim views.
 * Please reply to EastTN's suggestion. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @EastTN: I didn't say that you were misrepresenting the views of ISIL, Boko Haram or any other group. The section somehow grew like that. You rather tried to balance it. It is nice that you separated the views of two different classes of people. However, by doing this, we come out from one problem but fall into another. If we have a section on Jihadist views, and discuss them separately, we're giving them undue weight, per WP:DUE, because it has already been said what are the problems of describing Boko Haram and ISIS’ activities in this article. Such accounts are fine in the corresponding articles. There is even a bigger issue. Jihad is actually an Islamic theological issue. It has an well-defined Islamic theological meaning. But due to the generalized use by the western media often for propaganda, and the rise of some Islamic extremist groups for various reasons, the word has become the most misunderstood one. If they are jihadis, what are they fighting for? For Islam? How is Islam benefited by them? What Islamic authority do they hold? Is there any Islamic authoritative body who has approved of their fighting?


 * To make things simple and less controversial, I've highlighted the Muslim community's reaction in response to such groups' activities. In this way, we present the both, and in sync with the purpose of the article. - Ascetic Rosé   04:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * For the reasons I've stated several times, I do not believe that including a section on the views of ISIL and Boko Haram gives undue weight to them. I would argue that those views are quite notable. That's especially true considering the relatively short length of the section compared to the overall size of the article. On the other hand, I do agree that it's appropriate to include the views expressed by others in the Muslim community in reaction. I would also be open to discussing what term other than "Jihadist" might be appropriate to describe these groups, although I confess that I am at a loss to imagine what such a term might be that would not also be pejorative (e.g., "extremist"). EastTN (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I do think that the views of such extremist groups should not be included in this article. If we want to know the Islamic view on any issue, we refer to Islamic jurists or renowned academic scholars. Groups like Boko Haram and ISIS don't fall in any of the categories. Rather, the article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant says The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant...is a Salafi jihadist extremist militant group and self-proclaimed Islamic state and Muslim leaders around the world have condemned ISIL's ideology and actions, arguing that the group has strayed from the path of true Islam and that its actions do not reflect the religion's true teachings or virtues. The group's adoption of the name "Islamic State" and idea of a caliphate have been widely criticised, with the United Nations, various governments, and mainstream Muslim groups rejecting both. The parent article does not mention it to be any Islamic authority/group.


 * To make things clear, I myself want people to know what these groups are doing. That is important for proper evaluation. But that does not belong here.. I see my questions above have not been answered.


 * Nevertheless, for those who are eager, I've put the views and actions of these groups in the note section, and highlighted the Muslim scholars' views, in the mainspace, in response to these groups’ actions. Thus, readers will know what is the Islamic position is in this case. If this does not solve the dispute, removing them will be the only option left. This is probably my last comment on this issue unless I can manage time. - Ascetic Rosé   05:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * We refer to reliable Islamic jurists and renowned academic scholars in questions of mainstream Islamic theology, but those sources do not have a "patent" on Islam that require us to leave out other views. We don't try to censor the Crusades or the Inquisition from Christian history either just because mainstream Christians may not feel that those episodes are representative of supposed "true" Christianity. The significance of groups like IS/ISIL and Boko Haram is indisputable, and it is indisputable that they use the Quran to justify their actions and attract supporters. It is a problem common to all religious scripture that it can and almost invariably will be used this way, and there is no reason why we should attempt to conceal it from the reader that this is also happening in the case of Islam, and that it is having a huge, negative impact on millions of people's lives.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, "those sources do not have a patent", and so is true to ISIL and Boko Haram. The question here is not that of patent or who should be included, but what should be included and in which way. Similarly, censor is not the right word to e applied to my edit. And nobody is trying to conceal anything. Rather, I've tried to give due weight to where it should be given. In saying that In response to the Nigerian extremist group Boko Haram's Quranic justification for kidnapping and enslaving people, and ISIL's religious justification for enslaving Yazidi women as spoils of war as claimed in their digital magazine Dabiq..., people clearly know what ISIL and similar groups are doing. So how come I'm trying to conceal? My version gives less weight to ISIL and Boko Haram and give proper weight to the reaction coming from the mainstream Muslim society because it should be in this way. How can you prove that groups like ISIL and Boko Haram are such whose views on Islamic issues can be included as the mainstream views?


 * Also, your version introduces a section named "Jihadists' view". How do you justify calling them "Jihadists"? - Ascetic  Rosé   15:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Update on dispute on ISIS and jihadist section
The story so far: I added a couple of sentences to the Jihadists subsection on a ISIS price list for slaves on 9 August. Acetic Rose deleted it saying: "The article is about Islamic view on slavery, not ISIL saga." I rvted the delete, he deleted back and I rvted again moving it to a different sentence. Acetic Rose then deleted not only my edit but the whole Jihadists subsection (which had been in the article since February) saying "his discussions are beyond the purview of this article; can be added at corresponding articles; it has been discussed earlier".

This went back and forth until EastTN came in and restored a stripped down version of the old Jihadist section (saying: "Going back to text from before the current dispute. Whether we like or agree with them or not, these are current opinions expressed by Islamists.'") He eliminated anything about what the jihadists had done as opposed to verbal expressions of their views on slavery (e.g. Of the 2014 Chibok kidnapping of over 200 schoolgirls .... The Economist reports that ISIS has taken "as many as 2,000 women and children" captive, selling and distributing them as sexual slaves ... and in April 2015, a United Nations special envoy visiting Iraq was given a copy of an Islamic State list of prices for captured women and children. (Prices on the list varied from $165 for slaves 1–9 years old, to $41 for women 41–50 years old.)

This is how things stand now. Is this justified on the grounds that the article is about "views" and not "actions"? Note the article includes a long section on the History of slavery under Muslim rule, i.e. about slavery itself and not opinions on it. And note the section where the dispute takes place is called Slavery in the contemporary Muslim world not Views on slavery in the contemporary Muslim World. When this article was created, prior to ISIS there were "views" on slavery in the contemporary Muslim world but not slavery itself. Now there is slavery and the argument that the article should include only views not actions (i.e. only views not actions for the contemporary Muslim world), seems weak.

I propose a Request for Comment on either:
 * 1) including what has been done by jihadists in connection with slavery as relevant to their views on slavery. To this end a  short description of contemporary slavery (more or less what EastTN stripped out) would be added to the article;
 * 2) Alternatively renaming the article something like Islam and slavery and allowing information on contemporary slavery in the article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Replies

 * I don't know if a formal RfC is needed, though I'm not opposed to one. I do believe that it's appropriate to include older Islamist views. Stable text doing that has been in the article for a very long time. I do not believe that text has proven to be especially controversial. I also believe it is appropriate to include the views of ISIL and Boko Haram. This is what seems to have spurred serious disagreement. It seems to me that main arguments against inclusion have been:


 * ISIL and Boko Haram do not represent "true" or "official" Islam: This strikes me as a variation of the No true Scotsman fallacy. Whether or not we think they are Islamic, they certainly do. As for notability, ISIL is effectively running its own country at this point.


 * This article is about ideology rather than behavior: Yes, and I believe the focus of the text for this article should be on ISIL and Boko Haram's stated support for slavery, and the reasons they give for it. It seems relevant that they are putting these views into practice, but there's no need for an extended discussion of how they're doing that.


 * It gives disproportionate emphasis to a minority view: The views of these groups seems to me to be clearly notable. A quick Google search would support notability. ISIL is, as I mentioned above, effectively running a country. The views of these two groups are, even as I type, turning the lives of potentially thousands of young women into a living hell. Not including them would, in my mind, be bizarre.


 * Boko Haram and ISIL should be covered separately: This seems fine to me. They are ostensibly Islamist, so my instinct is to put them in the Islamist section. But AsceticRosé argues against that, and I do see value in distinguishing their views from those of more moderate Islamists. The question is how to describe them. For now, I've used the term "Jihadist".


 * I don't think the coverage needs to be overly lengthy. I certainly don't think it should constitute to bulk of the article, and I don't think we need a list of the instances of slavery. But I do think it's appropriate to explore their stated beliefs and ideology regarding slavery. Any discussion of actions that falls in the section on ideology is be limited to what's necessary to clarify these groups' beliefs.


 * BoogaLouie mentions a section that I hadn't been considering, "History of slavery under Muslim rule," which does seem to cover historical practices in the Islamic world. It might actually make sense to pull that section out into a separate article. That would allow this article to be focused much more directly on the beliefs, and the other article could be focused on practices. In that case, I believe it would be appropriate to include the practices of Boko Haram and ISIL in the other article. EastTN (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I was looking this over after the discussion was brought to my attention and initially thought of splitting the article before I saw it mentioned above. The rate at which articles are created on Wikipedia has greatly slowed down in the past few years so adding content, expanding existing articles in a more focused way and writing new articles is always a good thing. I suppose the question here, then, is whether a split is appropriate or not. BoogaLouie, would you consent to one article for views, one article for actions, and then expanding both with a narrower scope? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a case to be made for dividing the article by history/contemporary rather than views/actions but I'll go along with whichever of the two the majority agree on. Either is better than the existing state. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * One reason a views/actions split might make more sense is because we already have at least two "action" articles on slavery in the Islamic world. Those are Arab slave trade and Slavery in the Ottoman Empire. It's easy to imaging a summary article on "History of Slavery in the Muslim World" (or some such title) being a parent article to the other two. This article could then be limited to views, making it much cleaner to discuss what goes in and what goes out. EastTN (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm for it. Precedent means a lot in WP. Let me try to flesh out your idea below. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest dispute over mention of jihadist slavery
1 September edit by AsceticRose trims off most of the subsection Jihadist views (posted below) with the edit summary: "Similarly, no consensus to include the; still I've put them in Notes."

old version ("Jihadist views")
Abubakar Shekau, the leader of Boko Haram, a Nigerian extremist group, said in an interview "I shall capture people and make them slaves" when claiming responsibility for the 2014 Chibok kidnapping. Shekau has justified his actions by appealing to the Quran saying "[w]hat we are doing is an order from Allah, and all that we are doing is in the Book of Allah that we follow". In the digital magazine Dabiq, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant claimed religious justification for enslaving Yazidi women whom they consider to be from a heretical sect. ISIL claimed that the Yazidi are idol worshipers and their enslavement part of the old shariah practice of spoils of war,     and has produced a pamphlet of questions and answers on slavery in an attempt "to justify its conduct through sharia law." ISIL appealed to apocalyptic beliefs and "claimed justification by a Hadith that they interpret as portraying the revival of slavery as a precursor to the end of the world." In late September 2014, 126 Islamic scholars from around the Muslim world signed an open letter to the Islamic State's leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, rejecting his group's interpretations of the Qur'an and hadith to justify its actions. The letter accuses the group of instigating fitna—sedition—by instituting slavery under its rule in contravention of the anti-slavery consensus of the Islamic scholarly community.

new version (no subsection)
This leaves a couple of sentences about the reaction from the letter by the 126 Muslim scholars (if you look in the notes you will find where Ascetic put jihadi justificiation), so the article now reads:  In response to the Nigerian extremist group Boko Haram's Quranic justification for kidnapping and enslaving people, and ISIL's religious justification for enslaving Yazidi women as spoils of war as claimed in their digital magazine Dabiq,     the 126 Islamic scholars from around the Muslim world, in late September 2014,  signed an open letter to the Islamic State's leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, rejecting his group's interpretations of the Qur'an and hadith to justify its actions. The letter accuses the group of instigating fitna – sedition – by instituting slavery under its rule in contravention of the anti-slavery consensus of the Islamic scholarly community. (References from quoted old and new versions)

Problem
, I put it to you in your effort to censor notable Muslim views you don't want in wikipedia, you have made a mess of the end of the article. How do you respond? --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * doesn't say word one about what that "justification" was (except in the notes)
 * despite the fact that the only "views" described are from the anti-ISIS letter, it now it is confusing located in Islamist views since Jihadi views subsection title is deleted.


 * Dear, my version does not elaborate what that "justification" was because we are not here to describe ISIL story, but the Islamic views. Elaboration on that will give it undue weight. You are free to elaborate that on ISIL and Boko Haram pages.
 * Can you explain why describing the anti-ISIS letter in Islamist views is confusing? And if you insist on the name Jihadi views, do you really know what Jihad actually mean? I've raised these issues above but do not see them properly answered except some "should be included" logic. - Ascetic Rosé   15:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * [Note: changed, i.e. corrected, the "old version" to include mention of the reply to ISIS by scholars which I should have included earlier]
 * , if, in a wikipedia article, you are going to allude to a "justification" made by someone, you explain what that justification was. It doesn't matter if the person or group doing the justifying are bad/wrong/reprehensible. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable issues based on reliable sources. ISIL is notable and the sources used are reliable.
 * Your editing of the anti-ISIS letter in Islamist views is confusing because the anti-ISIS letter is not an Islamist view. It is an anti-ISIS view.
 * We are reading about what Qutb, Maududi, and Nabhani have to say about slavery, and then, out of context, appears a reply by some scholars to two groups (Boko Haram and ISIS) that haven't been discussed or introduced.
 * Those groups are widely described as "jihadi" or "jihadist" because they believe they are waging jihad. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * (Replying to your original post which you dramatically changed. You should not delete you previous post, rather add new ones) Not being here to decide the true meaning of jihad, Islam, or anything else is one thing, and developing an article using these terminologies without knowing their proper meaning is another thing. For example, an editor, who clearly knows what a Black hole is, will write the article accordingly, and then will provide sources so that others know that what s/he is writing is true. This is how a good and reliable encyclopedia is constructed. On the other hand, an editor, who lacks any knowledge on Black hole and simply relies on some sources to gather information, will be going to create a very bad article on it because s/he does not understand the issue. This is exactly what you are trying to do here. If you can't decide the true meaning of jihad, how can you term a group jihadist? Because of limited understanding of any subject, people like you often distort articles and hamper the good atmosphere of Wikipedia.


 * Yes, there is a short explanation of the word "justification". It says …Boko Haram's Quranic justification for… . Exclusion of elaborate explanation has been explained above.


 * If you understand that the letter is not pro-Islamic but anti-ISIS, you should also understand that what ISIS is doing is not pro-Islamic but pro-ISIS. The sources are saying ISIL and Boko Haram are doing this and that. But the sources are not saying what they are doing is Islamic, nor do the sources have the authority to decide that. Thus, you are clearly making original research which is not permitted. Consequently, you have to stop having excuses of reliable sources. Source is not the only consideration in constructing an encyclopedic article. There are a lot of other extrinsic and intrinsic factors.


 * For a single discussion you have unnecessarily created so many sections above (like Jihadists (section in dispute), Dispute, Update on dispute on ISIS and jihadist section, Replies, Latest dispute over mention of jihadist slavery, old version ("Jihadist views"), new version (no subsection), Problem) which could have easily been discussed only under a single section. Thus you have made it difficult for others to follow and get hold of it. - Ascetic Rosé   01:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Have not replied earlier because was not notified by the ping which I would hope that you would use in the future . I don't think your explanation makes much sense. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not self proclaimed know-ers of a topic's "proper meaning", as has been explained before. I created sections to make the argument easier to follow. I will either try to do a RfC or 3rd opinion when I have time. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Islamic views on slavery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060417083811/http://www.soas.ac.uk:80/staff/staffinfo.cfm?contactid=36 to http://www.soas.ac.uk/staff/staffinfo.cfm?contactid=36

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

islam allows slavery in "certain limited circumstances" should be "condones slavery for 5 out of 7 human beings."
The tone of the first paragraph seeks to minimize the practice of slavery. Specifically when it states "only non-Muslims" can be slaves in "certain limited circumstances" it's smoothing over the reality that "Islam is supportive of enslaving all non-believers." That's roughly 5,000,000,000 people who can be enslaved by this "religion" and thus hardly reflective of 'special circumstances.'

In Islamic law, the topic of slavery is covered at great length.[1] The Quran (the holy book) and the hadith (the sayings of Muhammad) see slavery as an acceptable practice and is condoned. Anyone who is not Muslim can be enslaved per this religion. exceptional condition that can be entered into under certain limited circumstances.[2] Only children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners of war could become slaves, never a freeborn Muslim.[3] They also consider manumission of a slave to be one of many meritorious deeds available for the expiation of sins.[4] According to Sharia, slaves are considered human beings and possessed some rights on the basis of their humanity. In addition, a Muslim slave is equal to a Muslim freeman in religious issues and superior to the free non-Muslim.[5]

The wording should strike the more accurate tone I've submitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mburgermeister (talk • contribs) 15:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Islamic views on slavery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721220312/http://www.lastprophet.info/en/content/view/111/14/1/17/ to http://www.lastprophet.info/en/content/view/111/14/1/17/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad's traditions Main article: Muhammad and slavery
Hello I am very suprised that you put as "a source" to "prove that Muhamemd freed slaves" The Islamic Foundation. Of course, they are muslim apologists and any old lie is good to promote the religion. All you have to do is read the Quran to see what Muhammed's views on slavery were. The Quran tells us clearly that Muhammed had sex slaves taken as booty (with the Arabic expression "what your right hand possesses"), 33:50, 33:52 and muslim men can have four wives and all the sex slaves they want, 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6. Even the hadiths tell us that Muhammed took part in taking women as sex slaves. They give us a glipse on how Muhammed took part in the enslavement of women for sex (that is why ISIS take yazidi and christian women as sex slaves as well). One example is Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432 : ...(Muhammed was asked): ‘O Allah’s Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about "coitus interruptus' (or taking the penis out before ejaculation so as to avoid getting the women pregnant and be able get a better price for sale after)?? These are facts, The Islamic Foundation, iq not a reliable source. I prefer telling the truth than just being politically correct and spreading lies. Thank you. L. Rodriguez20:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)78.249.242.165 (talk)

Muhammad's traditions Main article: Muhammad and slavery
Hello I am very suprised that you put as "a source" to "prove that Muhamemd freed slaves" The Islamic Foundation. Of course, they are religious apologists and any old lie is good to promote religion. All you have to do is read the Quran to see what Muhammed's views on slavery were. The Quran tells us clearly that Muhammed had sex slaves taken as booty (with the Arabic expression "what your right hand possesses"), 33:50, 33:52 and muslim men can have four wives and all the sex slaves they want, 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6. Even the hadiths give us a glipse on how Muhammed took part in the enslavement of women for sex (that is why ISIS take yazidi and christian women as sex slaves as well). One example is: Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432 : ...(Muhammed was asked): ‘O Allah’s Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about "coitus interruptus' (or taking the penis out before ejaculation so as to avoid getting the women pregnant and be able get a better price for sale after)??....... These are facts, The Islamic Foundation not a reliable source. I prefer telling the truth than just being politically correct and spreading lies. Thank you. L. RodriguezLorenzoo.Rodriguez (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Islamic views on slavery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160531155248/http://ebooks.i360.pk/2016/04/28/slavery-historic-perspective-islamic-reforms-by-dr-hafiz-safwan-muhammad-chohan/ to http://ebooks.i360.pk/2016/04/28/slavery-historic-perspective-islamic-reforms-by-dr-hafiz-safwan-muhammad-chohan/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal
The merge has been proposed over a year ago, but there has been no discussion yet. I think the merge makes sense. Ma malakat aymanukum is an expression for slaves used in the Quran, and I don't see a difference between the scope of the two articles. I'm also not aware of any source that discusses this expression except while discussing Islamic views on slavery. If the discussion of slavery in the Quran grows too long after the merge, then the section should be spun off into an article called Slavery in the Quran. Eperoton (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I would argue that there's a fundamental difference between the scope of the two articles. This article covers the broader topic of how slavery is viewed and thought about in the Islamic world. The article on Ma malakat aymanukum deals with a specific concept from the Quran, and how it specifically relates to other concepts in the Quaran and in the life and teaching of Muhammad. This is a subset of the broader discussion of Islamic views on slavery. EastTN (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've checked some standard academic references (Encyclopedia of Islam, Encyclopedia of the Quran, and Bernard Lewis' Race and Slavery in the Middle East). The phrase ma malakat aymanukum isn't a distinctive concept, but the most frequent of the seven expressions used in the Quran to refer to slaves. If the article is about that specific expression, I could find exactly two other assertions about it in the standard references and the sources cited in the article (aside from the Quranic WP:QUOTEFARM): 1) Brockopp's statement: "Furthermore, the Qur'an considers slaves to be possessions, as made clear by the phrase ma malakat aymanukum and the use of the term mamluk." and 2) The use of an alternative grammatical reading of the phrase by Indian scholars as part of their argument for abolition. Everything else is more generally about slavery in various contexts. This isn't enough for a stand-alone article. On the other hand, if the article is about the concept of slavery in the Quran, or hadith, or some other specific domain, it could have been moved to an appropriate title: Slavery in the Quran, Muhammad and slavery, or something else that doesn't arbitrarily restrict it to a particular Arabic phrase. However, please take a closer look at that article. It skips all over the place, from pre-Islamic times to classical jurisprudence to ISIS. How is that not an under-developed WP:CFORK of this article and History of slavery in the Muslim world? Eperoton (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * you're absolutely correct to note that like many Wikipedia articles, the current version of Ma malakat aymanukum is messy and more than a bit unfocused.


 * But when I look at Islamic views on slavery and Ma malakat aymanukum I do see a difference in scope that makes sense to me. To be fair, this was clearer with older versions of Ma malakat aymanukum such as this one. It is an important legal term,and it makes sense to me to have an article that focuses on what it means, how it's used in the Quran, and its traditional use in Islamic law. That's a narrower topic than slavery in the Islamic world, or Islamic views of slavery. It's not unusual to have articles on specific legal terms or phrases from scripture such as Mortmain, Render unto Caesar, Alpha and Omega, Turning the other cheek, He who does not work, neither shall he eat and Cestui que. Some are more developed than others, and some focus more on the specific phrase and others on the broader concept involved. But as these examples show, creating an article on a particular phrase from the Quran isn't something weird or unique.


 * As for the lack of focus in the current version, renaming it could very well help. One thing to we need to think about is how readers are likely to come to the article. The phrase itself is notable.  I just did a Google search on "Ma malakat aymanukum" in quotation marks and got "About 12,000 results (0.29 seconds)". You and I may know that it's one of several technical terms for slaves in the Quran, but many people won't. I believe that's how I first came to the article - I'd seen the phrase somewhere, and looked it up in Wikipedia to see what it meant.


 * It would also help to either delete the material on ISIS, or to rewrite it so the text focuses on how ISIS has harked back to this Quranic phrase to justify their actions. (I believe I've seen it in their material, but I could be mis-remembering. If they don't use the term, then it has no business here.) The list of "Ma malakat aymanukum of Muhammad's companions" feels like trivia to me - I would probably suggest either dropping it or combining it with the material on " Muhammad's treatment of captives" to form a separate section on the historical context. I'm sure there's a lot more that could be done to improve the article - but I do think it makes sense to have a stand-alone article, separate from the broader one on Islamic views on slavery. EastTN (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, so it sounds like you're advocating turning it into an article about the specific term. That's fine with me in principle, though with the notability concerns I already mentioned above. I see no evidence that the phrase is an important legal term, or a legal term at all. Both Encyclopedia of Islam and Encyclopedia of the Quran note that Quranic lexical choices in referring to slaves differ significantly from classical Arabic, where the most common terms are `abd (used in the Quran mainly in the sense slave/servant/worshipper of God) and raqiq (not used in the Quran). I've just checked the article on slavery in the Kuwait encyclopedia of fiqh, which is a standard modern reference for classical jusrisprudence in Arabic, and it uses those two terms in the discussion, with the phrase ma malakat aymanukum occuring only in Quranic quotes. I'll check whether or not ISIS used it in the pamphlet, but the rest of that article except the two points I mentioned above is WP:COATRACK generated by picking out arbitrary bits about slavery and using that expression there for no apparent reason. We can have a section about the broader context there, but it should be just a short general summary with a main link to this article. Eperoton (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that's what I'm advocating. There are a couple of moving pieces here.  I'll defer to your research on whether the phrase "ma malakat aymanukum" has a technical meaning in Islamic law.  Separate and apart from that, it's a notable phrase simply based on the number of Google hits you get on it.  Whether or not it's a technical term, it clearly comes up frequently in discussions of slavery, the Quran and Islamic law.  So from that standpoint, I think it makes sense to have an article on it.


 * The topic of how the Muhammad and Quran treat slavery is also important, separate and apart from the broader topic of slavery in Islam (of which it's a subset). Right now the article is a bit of a mash-up of these two topics ("ma malakat aymanukum" and Muhammad/Quran on slavery).  They're closely related, so I'm indifferent as to whether they go together or should be split.


 * As an aside, I don't know that I explicitly said it, but I also agree that the list of all the verses in the Quran that use the phrase should go - it's just too much. EastTN (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I decided to be a little bold with some of these changes, and I'm glad that we're in sync. I've separated out the material related to the expression from material about slavery in general. I agree that we need some broader context about at least slavery in the Quranic discourse in that article, but deciding what that context should be will need more thought. Eperoton (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islamic views on slavery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.translatedquran.com/meaning.asp?pagetitle=AL+-+MUMINOON&sno=23&tno=1324
 * Added tag to http://www.arabianews.org/english/article.cfm?qid=132&sid=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140925193528/http://lettertobaghdadi.com/index.php to http://lettertobaghdadi.com/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced Quranic paraphases
Sorry, your edit summary ("Verses are explained by secondary sources") makes no sense. You have provided no secondary citations for these largely interpretive paraphrases of the Quran. RSs need to be cited to support those specific paraphrases and their significance, and these should be integrated into the existing text rather than presented as a disjointed bullet list. Eperoton (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Can I add the verses of Quran or Hadith which are explained in the text separately if yoiu think that disjointed bullet list is not good.Smatrah (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If a RS discusses a Quranic passage, we may help the reader consult the primary source in several ways: by using the Quran-usc template, which points to a website with multiple English translations; by quoting it in a ref; or by using a blockquote in the text itself. This depends in part on how much insight the original provides vs. encumbering the text. A good rule of thumb is to see whether the cited source quotes the passage or simply references it.
 * However, your latest addition does not meet any of these conditions. The sourced sentence after which you've added the verses already includes Quran-usc links in a ref, and the verses it references aren't the ones which you've quoted. I'll remove these block quotes and add Quran-usc links for the relevant verses to the part of the section where the cited sources refer to them. Eperoton (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Eperton kindly explain that a bullet list of primary sources without secondary source cannot be used on talk page of religion and sexuality. Because you are senior editor. They may understand. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatrah (talk • contribs) 07:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I've commented there, but I don't understand your latest edit summary in this article. It's the exact opposite of what I wrote above. If something is unclear or if you have concerns, we can continue the discussion. Eperoton (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Islamic views on slavery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927011121/http://www.baztab.com/news/55797.php to http://www.baztab.com/news/55797.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141018222114/http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/569402/20141013/islamic-state-dabiq-magazine-isis-slavery.htm to http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/569402/20141013/islamic-state-dabiq-magazine-isis-slavery.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140527211742/http://abdurrahman.org/innovation/thequtbisuroori_d.pdf to http://abdurrahman.org/innovation/thequtbisuroori_d.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725220038/http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm to http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

"Muhammad's traditions" could be renamed and expanded
Rather than naming the section "Muhammad's traditions", shouldn't it be "Muhammad's slave ownership"? Then, instead of the first sentence, too narrowly crafted, being "The most notable of Muhammad's slaves were", if possible, there should be an overview statement of the number of slaves known to be owned by Muhammad himself, and other broader perspective matters regarding his slave ownership: the range of their age, the number of males vs. females, their races, how he came to own them, etc. After that overview material, then what is now the entire section could conclude the expanded section, with "The most notable of Muhammad's slaves were..." Thoughts? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The section certainly needs to be expanded. I'm not sure about your specific proposal, though. What sources present those details as having particular significance for Islamic views on slavery? I'll prioritize rounding up some academic sources and expanding this section. As I recall, they present a thematic discussion of slavery in hadith rather than an inventory of Muhammad's slaves. Eperoton (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this Eperoton. That's all great. Hoping you can round up those sources. As to how those particulars would be relevant to Islamic views on slavery, of course we'd be updating the current section which is titled, "Muhammad's traditions", but further, it seems self evident that Muhammad's views on slavery would be paramount to the subject of the article's title. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Sexual promiscuity and sexually transmisable diseases.
Marriage, sexual exclusivity, has through the ages been the number one attempt at inhibiting the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, to limit these diseases purely onto one family or group. In some regions, with fast positive effect, in others, where the overal reasoning behind exclusivity was ignored due very low educational standards, without much success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.37.159.123 (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead changes
I've reverted your changes to the first two paragraphs of the lead as they changed the wording generally found in modern RSs which speak separately of views found in the Quran and hadith, rather than simply speaking of Muhammad. Reuben's book originally came out in the early 1930s and can't be taken as representative of views of "contemporary historians". Gordon's perspective is worth summarizing, which I've done in the relevant section. For the statement about slavery being an exception socio-economically, we can't declare it to be irrelevant when a RS on slavery considers it to be relevant. There's perhaps a broader issue of content in this article that is not about "views" and more properly belongs in History of slavery in the Muslim world. Eperoton (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @ Eperoton Reading the article gives a sense that the article is more about the justification of slavery in Islam rather than Islamic views on slavery even from an unbiased perspective. That's why I removed the statement about rebellions like Zanj being an exception socioeconomically. Also I don't know if directly speaking of Muhammad rather than Quran and Hadith sould be avoided.

The main thing is the lead tries its best not to reach the main conclusion which is the fact that Islam recognises slavery as an institution. Anyways I support these changes. regards.Balolay (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . I don't think the lead avoids that conclusion, since it states the Quran and hadith "assumed the existence of slavery as part of society". I've tweaked some wording just now to reflect another encyclopedia I checked the other day. In general, the lead is spotty on a number of other points and I'm planning to rewrite it based on several standard references. There are two contexts in which Islamic acceptance of slavery is treated in RSs. One in its original context, which sources generally treat as unremarkable in itself and consistent with the history of Judaism and Christianity. The other is in the context of modern interpretations by Muslim thinkers who sought religious justification for abolition and an increasingly small minority who have resisted this reinterpretation. Modern Islamic views are not reflected in the lead at all, and the history of abolitionism is not treated well even in the body (there's a whole book on it at Oxford University Press by Clarence-Smith). I put it on my to do list. Eperoton (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit request
Islamic law does not require master to get consent of slave before sex. Please read this article and add this information. 14.203.129.249 (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Islamic views on slavery
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Islamic views on slavery's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Gordon1989": From List of critics of Islam: </li> <li>From Criticism of Muhammad: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion of sourced content
Hi,, since you chose to only edit war and didn't explain why you removed that content, could you explain here? Also Independent voices section is not reliable and show me where the source support your assertion. It says that one Muslim scholar said that and that all other Muslim scholars disagreed with her.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Please elaborate what do you exactly mean by independent voices? And even if you have problem with the sources can you explain which of my content is non-factual? I just reworded the lead without adding any POV. Balolay (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Also can you further elaborate what sourced content I have deleted. Rewording the material which retaining the original sources doesn't amount to deletion.Balolay (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as my understanding goes Balolay reorganized the introduction which reflected the reality of this topic more closely while retaining the important points. The intro was previously bloated with some irrelevant material focusing too much on "humanising" the Islamic understanding of slavery while sidelining the basic fact that that Islamic scripture indeed justifies slavery. I hope my input was of value. Regards RandiGashti (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Randigashti for supporting me. Please share your views on Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring too. Balolay (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not here to support anyone. Just wanted to share my honest opinion. However, I do think your version of the article is most close to being neutral but further improvements can be made. Regards. RandiGashti (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's pathetic, Balolay. Using a sockpuppet to support you?-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see a rationale was the changes in the lead, so I'm restoring the lead to its long-standing version. please discuss your concerns here point by point before reinstating. The first paragraph accurately reflected modern academic sources. You've replaced that with content with citations to sources that are outdated (Levy, a book from the early 1930s), treat the manner tangentially (Gordon), or not reliable at all (a blog post). Treating the corpus of hadith at face value as a historical record of Muhammad's sayings is not representative of how current academic sources discuss it. I agree that slave concubinage should be mentioned in the lead, but that should be done based on a RS. Eperoton (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so there is a more general problem with the lead. Half of it deals with historical practice rather than views and belongs to History of slavery in the Muslim world rather than here. We need to replace the middle of the lead with a discussion of the various aspects of jurisprudence, including slave concubinage. I'll try to do that in the next couple of days. Eperoton (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits
This recent edit is problematic for a number of reasons. It describes Muhammad as a slave-owner, even though he freed all his slaves. Therefore that's a misrepresentation. The same source that claims that Muhammad did not intend to abolish slavery also notes that Muslims believe he wanted the gradual abolition of slavery. In any case it is the opinion of one person and can't be presented as fact. There is also some unexplained removal of facts like this: Why was this removed?VR talk  15:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It turns out these edits were done by Naranirma who is a sockpuppet of Balolay above. I've reverted the edits.VR talk  19:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2020
It is widely known that before Islam people were enslaved through kidnapping and abduction, wars, and debts. Islam rejected all of these means with the exclusion of the enslavement of war prisoners and slave trade.

However, the page tend to oversee that dimension, extent, and gravity of slave trade that flourished during the golden Islamic time. Slave trade was the cornerstone in building the Islamic Empire. I am trying to edit to shed the light on those practices. DrNureFarid (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Under subsection Traditional Islamic jurisprudence/Principles add new paragraph; It is important to highlight that beside the highlighted forms of lawful enslavement, trading in slaves is an accepted Islamic principal that Muhammad practiced. Egon Flaig described Islamic slave trade as 'the largest and longest-lasting slave-system in world history.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrNureFarid (talk • contribs) 18:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems like you're interpreting a WP:PRIMARY which is WP:OR. And Flaig's views have been criticized by other academics.VR talk  21:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

<i>Concerns well noted. I reviewed the criticism to Egon Flaig and it didn't touch on his work on the Islamic slave trade, but the errors in his approach are sufficient to ignore his conclusion, hence I removed my reference to his work. However, slave trade by Muslims was indeed supported by the religious text and views that enabled it. The grand Imam of alAzhar lobbied against the abolition laws in Egypt in 1895. Even modern Islamic scholar do not question trading in slaves, they question how the enslavement took place, an important difference that should ne clarified. Indeed, slave trade was a much bigger problem compared to slave enslavement. Indeed, slavery as institution remained for more than 1,300 years for strong reasons. </i> Please consider the following reviewed edits: Under subsection Traditional Islamic jurisprudence/Principles add new paragraph; It is important to highlight that beside the indicated forms of lawful enslavement, trading in slaves is an accepted Islamic principal that Muhammad practiced. This is supported by known Islamic jurisprudence (Madhhab). The Maliki jurisprudence defined the rules governing trading in slaves as in Altahawy. Ibn Qudamah (1147-1223 ad), an important figure in the Hanbali jurisprudence, described in his book, al-Moghny, the issues relevant to disputing slave ownership between slave owners, and Islamic ways to handle slave trade during hardship like a bankruptcy of slave owner(s). Patrick Manning noted that Islam's recognition and codification of slavery seems to have done more to protect and expand slavery than the reverse it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrNureFarid (talk • contribs) 20:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All of those are again primary sources, except the last one. Can you give the page number from Manning's book?VR talk  22:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You response seem to be quite arbiterary; you've indicated; "All of those are again primary sources, except the last one. Can you give the page number from Manning's book?" Answer: Manning, pg 28 For the used references: Reference # 4: Brief on Scholars' Differences, not a primary. This is one of the Maliki sources. It is a reputable Fiqh source which present the Islamic 'understanding' of the holy texts such as the once presented in reference 1 and 3. There is no foundation to claim that Fiqh is a WP:PRIMARY or WP:OR. Reference # 5: Almoghny, Ibn-Qudameh is one of the top sources for Hanbali Fiqh. Again, Fiqh represent top Islamic scholars understanding of the holy text. Hence, it is not a primary. There is no foundation to claim that Fiqh is a WP:PRIMARY or WP:OR. Reference #5: Manning, I presented his opinion on the matter. This is a modern view on the known Islamic Fiqh. There is no foundation to claim that Mannin modern review is a WP:PRIMARY or WP:OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrNureFarid (talk • contribs) 19:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It's been a month or so since any more comments have been made in this discussion, so I'm setting it to answered, as there doesn't appear to be any consensus to make this change. <b style="background:#304747;color:#BED6D6"> Seagull123 </b><b style="color:#304747"> Φ </b> 15:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2020
1) The claim recently added that "While in other systems of slavery, such as for example that of Ancient Rome, a slave could always buy their freedom by financial means, Islamic law allows slaves to get their freedom only under certain circumstances." seems to be unsourced and not found in the source given. . It should be removed.

2) The sentence recently added in the "Slavery in the Quran section" stating "However, it has been pointed out that a poignant paradox...colonial powers, although some Muslim thinkers argued strongly for abolition." is not related to the discussion of the Quran at all. It should be shifted or perhaps removed, considering a discussion about this is already included in other subsections. Subsections exist for a reason. 39.37.163.88 (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * added Yet the source says
 * Can Grufo explain this discrepancy? If not, this will be yet another example of Grufo inserting WP:OR into articles.VR talk  09:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is an ongoing discussion on my talk page about alleged copyright infringement for quoting the BBC page – what a paradox, I will have to defend my edit there and show that I didn't copy too much, while here I will have to defend my edit by showing that I copied enough… Anyway, until that is settled there is no reason to discuss about an edit that is no longer present in the page. --Grufo (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not really a paradox. Copyright or not the BBC article does not support the comparative claims made in any way, either directly via quotation or indirectly via proper attribution and in ones own words. In any case the matter is indeed settled for now. 39.37.135.0 (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I integrated the material into the article.VR talk  01:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Setting this to answered as it appears as though this edit request has now been completed. <b style="background:#304747;color:#BED6D6"> Seagull123 </b><b style="color:#304747"> Φ </b> 15:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Eperoton please stop reversing edits on spurious grounds
This is the second page where Eperoton has been reversing my edits while falsely claiming that they are unsourced or, in this case, unexplained. I explained my removal of the statement about Wahhabis rejecting abolition until the 1980s when I first made it, I have explained it again when I re-made the edit just now. Yes, there is a citation for the claim, but the citation is wrong. The article by Brunschvig makes a brief and unsubstantiated claim that the "Wahhabis of Arabia... up to the present day (i.e. 1986) have vigorously maintained their downright antagonism towards abolition." Brunschvig provides no evidence for this claim, and it contradicts the fact that Saudi Arabia abolished slavery in 1962. Saudi Arabia's entire political system is based on Wahhabism (to be precise, an alliance between the Sa'ud royal family and the Wahhabi ulema, in which the latter support the Sa'ud's legitimacy in return for exclusive control of the religious and legal institutions of the country), and the legal system follows the Wahhabi interpretation of Islamic law. The Wahhabi authorities approved the abolition of slavery in 1962. The only other country where Wahhabism is the form of Islam recognized by the government is Qatar, and slavery was abolished there in 1952. So, while there are individual Wahhabi scholars who have argued against abolition, it is simply false to claim that the Wahhabis as a group rejected it. The dominant elements of the Wahhabi ulema, and the only ulema whose opinions have been followed in an actual legal system, approved abolition since 1962. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb212 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Minor mistake: Number of Sura Al-Maarij
At the start of the section on sexual intercourse, the article says that Al-Maarij is the 17th sura when really it is the 70th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:1640:E9C:8D0:8894:376A:FAD9 (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2021
In section on pre-Islamic slavery, after "Islam also prohibits the use of female slaves for prostitution which was common in pre-Islamic history.[30]" add : However the lending of female slaves to friends for sex was common practice well into the mid-20th century as marriage is not necessary prior to sex with a slave. Confirming source and will add in a few days. DukeRuby (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC) DukeRuby (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You should find a source first and then make the edit request. For now, I think this request should be declined.VR talk 07:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind that this article is separate from History of slavery in the Muslim world. This article is more about ideas and views, not practices.VR talk 07:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Cite error
There is an undefined refname in the lede. It was introduced in this edit, but never defined. As the refname is Gordon1989 I'm guessing it meant to reference Murray Gordon's 1989 book "Slavery in the Arab World", mentioned elsewhere in the article.

The following:  

should be replaced with:  

This would link to the reference:  

Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Only another 3 days till I'm autoconfirmed, and there won't be so many of these. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021
Two sentences in the lead read as, "Early Islamic dogma forbade enslavement of free members of Islamic society, including non-Muslims (dhimmis), and set out to regulate and improve the conditions of human bondage. The sharīʿah (divine law) regarded as legal slaves only those non-Muslims who were imprisoned or bought beyond the borders of Islamic rule, or the sons and daughters of slaves already in captivity". Please change the, "divine law" in brackets to, Islamic law and change the first sentence to, "Early Islamic dogma forbade enslavement of free members of Islamic society, including non-Muslim free members (dhimmis), and set out to regulate and improve the conditions of human bondage" and the second sentence to, "The sharīʿah (Islamic law) regarded as legal slaves only those non-Muslims who were imprisoned or bought beyond the borders of Islamic rule, or the sons and daughters of slaves already in captivity" with links for dhimmis, Sharia and Kafir. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.91.105 (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I put a link to Islamic law, and the link to dhimmis is already there. The link to kafir is not applicable.VR talk 16:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In the Dhimmi article, it says it is a, "term for non-Muslims living in an Islamic state with legal protection.", but here it says non-Muslim=Dhimmi which is wrong. In the Dhimmi article, the term non-Muslim is linked to the Kafir article correctly. Please explain the term dhimmi in this article correctly and for the very first time the term non-Muslim is used, link it to the Kafir article. I suggest you change the first sentence of the two I asked to change to, "Early Islamic dogma forbade enslavement of free members of Islamic society, including non-Muslims paying for legal protection (dhimmis), and set out to regulate and improve the conditions of human bondage" Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.91.105 (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: there's no reason to include this in the current article, as its not relevant. If readers want to know more about dhimmis they can go to that article and learn more.VR talk 18:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is misleading to put the term dhimmi, even if it is in brackets, just after the term non-Muslim - it implies that non-Muslim=Dhimmi which is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.91.105 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Under the, "Ma_malakat_aymanukum" section, it says, "The term also implies that slaves as "possessions"" - please change that to, "The term also implies that slaves are "possessions". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.91.105 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Already done. Changing request back to answered per ; you must get a consensus for your changes before using the edit semi-protected template. --Ferien (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Closing request while under discussion, per template instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021 (2)
Under the, "Ma_malakat_aymanukum" section, it says, "The term also implies that slaves as "possessions"" - please change that to, "The term also implies that slaves are "possessions".
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done It was pointed out that this was done already in the above section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Gordon Murray and Western Bias
It is funny that the only opinion on Muhammad's view to Islam is one scholar (a non-Muslim at that). So much so that in a search of Google this one person's opinion stands above all others. There is not one single mention of the 1000s of Muslims who totally reject Murrays position. One single Orientalist scholar defines Muhammad's position and his motives for this entire section. And now let us look at an overview of the sources, almost all Western Lovejoy, Brockopp, Bernard Lewis (a Zionist), and Murray. This is not reflective of any sort of diversity. I guess this is okay. Hausa warrior (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The article is missing crucial and interesting information.
This article seriously lacks the description of richness of Prophet Muhammad's slaves. Skipping their names is an attribution bias against their existence. They lived with the Prophet and they worked for the Prophet, hence their status in Islam is high due to their direct association with the Prophet. (Additional reference: List of slave/non-slave associates of the Prophet, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sahabah )

Here's a quote from Zad al-Ma'ad, pp. 114-116

"These are the names of Muhammad's male slaves: Yakan Abu Sharh, Aflah, 'Ubayd, Dhakwan, Tahman, Mirwan, Hunayn, Sanad, Fadala Yamamin, Anjasha al-Hadi, Mad'am, Karkara, Abu Rafi', Thawban, Ab Kabsha, Salih, Rabah, Yara Nubyan, Fadila, Waqid, Mabur, Abu Waqid, Kasam, Abu 'Ayb, Abu Muwayhiba, Zayd Ibn Haritha, and also a black slave called Mahran, who was re-named (by Muhammad) Safina (`ship'). Muhammad's Maid Slaves "are Salma Um Rafi', Maymuna daughter of Abu Asib, Maymuna daughter of Sa'd, Khadra, Radwa, Razina, Um Damira, Rayhana, Mary the Coptic, in addition to two other maid-slaves, one of them given to him as a present by his cousin, Zaynab, and the other one captured in a war." Gauddasa (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2023
The article contains this "However, while there was no legal distinction between white European and black African slaves, in some Muslim societies they were employed in different roles: for example, in the Ottoman Empire white slaves served as soldiers and government officials, while black slaves served as eunuchs in the palace and the harems of elite families.[7]" This contradicts the fact that There was a Kapi Agha or "Chief White Eunuch" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapi_Agha and there were Black Ottoman soldiers in all Eras of the Ottoman Empire when Ottomans controlled the regions major slave markets in North Africa. AccuracyMinder (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

95% of references are from period after 2001
For nanotechnology it would have been fine if 95% of the referenced material was written in last 20 years, but for a 1400 year old religion, this doesn't appear normal that 95% of the material referenced in Wikipedia article was written after 2001. (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gauddasa: This is a good thing: it means that the article is only based on the most recent and up-to-date scholarship. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In Islam the most authentic and foundational sources of information are the Quran and the Hadiths and the most authoritative interpretations are those written by early Islamic scholars (those before say 1500 CE). So Islamic religious scholars (Muftis and Aalims) consider older references more authoritative while the modern scholars in non-Islamic university settings would prefer recent scholarship. I believe Wikipedia should represent both academic approaches as they differ strikingly, but it is ok, this will not happen unless the Muftis and Aalims participate in contributing to the Wikipedia articles themselves. Thanks for the reply. Gauddasa (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims in recent editing
This recent edit introduced the extraordinary claim that the Prophet Muhammad was a slave owner, presumably sourced to Gordon or Levy. It is unclear which as no direct quotes or exact page numbers have been provided, but this is exactly the sort of thing that falls under WP:ECREE and which will need to be very well supported indeed before we countenance insertion. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This is not exceptional. Slavery was common in the Arabian penninsula. More sources: https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml#:~:text=The%20Prophet%20Muhammad%20did%20not,the%20virtue%20of%20freeing%20slaves. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

"Early Islamic dogma forbade enslavement of free members of Islamic society"
When someone is born into captivity because their parents are slaves, that is enslaving someone. This shouldn't be whitewashed. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)