Talk:Slavery and religion

Brazil
JMGM (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Slavery, religion and Africa
The Islam section of this article is relevant to some of the Horn of Africa space articles we have worked on, such as the Somali, Shirazi people, Amhara people and Oromo people articles. Would you please take a look at the changes and sources, when you have time. Should we mention examples of regional slavery and Islam, link it to the articles such as these? Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Why did you revert my change to bring the text closer to the source here and where does Lewis state that the Quran "provides guidelines on freeing slaves who convert to Islam"? Eperoton (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, why did you remove this bit of perspective from Lewis ? Eperoton (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, what's your objection to "The corpus of hadith contains a large store of reports..." as the summary of EI2: "Tradition delights in asserting that the slave's lot was among the latest preoccupations of the Prophet. It has quite a large store of sayings and anecdotes, attributed to the Prophet or to his Companions, enjoining real kindness towards this inferior social class." Eperoton (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Eperton: I am glad that you find my edit a big improvement to a section of this article. In all the numerous RS I have read so far, all mention manumission in the context of slaves who had converted to Islam. I have yet to see any that states that Islam encouraged a Muslim to free non-Muslim slaves, something I would welcome with a reliable source. I will take another look at the rest above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * We can't just talk about "Islam". We need to distinguish the Quran, hadith, and Islamic law of different forms. Both Lewis and our text refers to the Quran here. I'm not aware of this distinction being made in the Quran, and I don't see this reference in Lewis. Your last couple of additions also seem to interpolate statements about Islamic law into text about the Quran and hadith. Please check your sources and separate out this material if that's the case. By the way, could you point to the place in The Legal Understanding you're basing the statement about "hereditary phenomenon" on? Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, these qualifications of statements about the Quran are still OR. Neither Lewis nor Brunschvig citations support them, so it would be inappropriate to attribute those statements to them even if another RS did. As it happens, Shahrur also pointedly avoids this qualification on the page you cited; this is your own generalization from the Quranic quote. For the 'abd gloss, this is synth of statements from two different sections. There's a reason why Brunschvig doesn't use it as a generic term here. Per Brockopp, in the Quran "Seven separate terms refer to slaves, the most common of which is the phrase “that which your⁄their right hands own”".


 * I'll leave other issues for another day. In the meantime, please use the talk page. Things will go more smoothly if we communicate here rather than through edit summaries. You seem to have ignored my objection to using the phrase "in Islam" instead of more specific qualifiers. Besides, it should be obvious that all the statements in this section will be about Islam unless stated otherwise. Eperoton (talk) 04:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Eperoton: Have you read the sources? I am afraid you are doing too much OR and WP:TE. I have already embedded quotes. I ask you do the same and quit making strange accusations. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for providing quotes, but the statements with refs 99 and 109 at the end are about the Quran. Neither one of the quotes you've put in the ref for Lewis are about the Quran. They discuss rules of fiqh. Despite my repeated warnings, you don't seem to appreciate that the Quran, the hadith, and jurisprudence are different bodies of text. You've again scrambled material so as to mix up statements referring to them, which I separated out last night. The Lewis second quotation you gave isn't even about guidelines on freeing slaves. It's about determining the status of marriage partners whose ancestors had been slaves.

In their statements about the Quran and freeing of slaves, the cited and standard references are consistent in their usage:


 * But over and over again, from beginning to end of the Preaching, it makes the emancipation of slaves a meritorious act: a work of charity (ii, 177; xc,13), to which the legal alms may be devoted (ix,60), or a deed of expiation for certain felonies (unintentional homicide: iv, 92, where "a believing slave" is specified; perjury: v, 89; Iviii, 3); [Brunschvig p. 25]
 * The freeing of slaves is recommended both for the expiation of sins (IV:92; V:92; LVIII:3) and as an act of simple benevolence (11:177; XXIV:33; XC:13) [Lewis p. 5]
 * Several of these verses mandate the freeing of slaves as expiation for sin or crimes and they also establish the emancipation of a slave as a meritorious and pious act, entitling the emancipator to favorable treatment in the next life. [Freamon in The Legal Understanding, p. 51]
 * Masters are encouraged to be kind to slaves (q 4:36), manumit them and even marry them off [...] For example, q 90:12-18, perhaps the earliest quranic statement on slaves, addresses the master and emphasizes a religious motivation for manumission: “What will make you understand the steep path? Releasing a slave ( fakku raqabatin) [...]" [Brockopp EoQ, Vol 5 p. 57]
 * Schahrur's repeated use of the unqualified phrase "freeing of a slave" on the page you cited.

Now, we may follow Brunschvig and note in a footnote that the verse relating to manslaughter specifies "a believing slave", or simply put that quote in the ref, but your direct use of that verse to justify making a generalization that deviates from the generalization made in the RSs is OR, pure and simple.

In terms of spiritual worth, Brunschvig's phrasing is supported by another standard reference:


 * Spiritually, the slave has the same value as the free man [Brunschvig p. 25]
 * At a spiritual level, the slave was possessed of the same value as a freeman. Gordon, Murray. Slavery in the Arab World (p. 35). New Amsterdam Books. Kindle Edition.

However, here the situation is less clearcut and Lewis, for instance, uses a different formulation:
 * the believing slave is now the brother of the freeman in Islam and before God, and the superior of the free pagan or idolator (11:221). [Lewis p. 5]

An NPOV approach should reflect both these perspectives.

As for, the glossing of `abd, I've already explained above that your addition violates WP:SYNTH by combining material from two different sections to imply a conclusion not stated in the source. Brunschvig isn't using this gloss in this context, and neither do other sources -- that's your original contribution.

I have objections to several other places in your text, but I'll leave these for future installments. Eperoton (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Eperoton: First of all, there is no need for you to pretend that only you understand the sources, the literature on Quran, Hadith, etc. It is strange you are missing Brunschvig's article is titled 'Abd, and is about 'Abd. There is no OR or Synth as you allege. Your edits show you misunderstand our content policies. Yes, I am fine with you adding or clarifying whatever, but please do embed quotes, as it will help avoid disputes and inadvertent OR by you. On rest, you are free to hold whatever personal opinions / prejudices / wisdoms you wish, but we must stick to what the reliable sources are stating. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * EI2 uses common Arabic/Persian/etc terms as article titles. In this case, it's simply a term chosen by the editors for an article that would be titled "Slavery" in another encyclopedia. There are detailed discussion of various Quranic terms for Slavery in EoQ, Freamon's chapter, and Lewis. Freamon, in particular, discusses different Quranic contexts in which the different terms for slavery tend to be used. None of these sources use abd as a generic gloss when they discuss the Quran. I would be happy to email you copies of these sources if you don't have access to them in full. In fact, I assumed you did, since you seem to have access to everything, and that's why I didn't quote the sources before. I'll do that from now on. Eperoton (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The "it's simply a term chosen by the editors for an article that would be titled (...)" is your personal wisdom/view. Allow me to ignore it, as I have ignored several of your similar comments above. We can neither reinterpret nor draw a new conclusion that the source does not itself make. That is OR. Slavery in Islam (Quran / Hadith / fiqh / etc) is a complicated subject with many POVs, and we must strive for NPOV. Yes, I welcome your contributions, please do embed quotes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You're free to ignore it or take a broader look at EI2 article titles, or read the article to test your assumption that it is about the term abd rather than the phenomenon of slavery. From the policy standpoint, the matter is more straightforward than that: none of the cited sources use this gloss in this context, and hence neither should we. Eperoton (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Eperoton: I have read the article. The source clearly states: 'Abd is the ordinary word for "slave" in Arabic of all periods (the usual plural in this sense is ʿabīd, although the Ḳurʾān has ʿibād : xxiv, 32), more particularly for "male slave", "female slave" being ama (pl. imāʾ ). Both words are of old Semitic stock; Biblical Hebrew uses them in the same meaning."  etc. We need to faithfully summarize what the source is stating, even if you disagree with the source. If you find other RS, which states something different, we can add that in too, per NPOV policy. You may want to read the article more carefully and our policies again. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to stating that "Abd is the ordinary word, etc". However, combining material from two different sections to imply a conclusion (that the Quran uses abd rather than one of the other seven terms for slave in the relevant passages) which is not stated by the source is a classic case of WP:SYNTH. This is based on an assumption that a statement about Arabic lexicon in general can be applied specifically to the Qur'an, which is not correct. See, for example, Brockopp: "There is strong evidence to suggest that the Qurān regards slaves and slavery differently from both classical and modern Islamic texts. First, the vocabulary is distinct. [...] Likewise, abd (along with its plurals ibād and abīd) is used over 100 times to mean “servant” (q.v.) or “worshipper” in the Qurān (see servant; worship); in each occasion when it is used to refer to male slaves, a linguistic marker is appended, contrasting abd to a free person (al-hurr in q 2:178) or a female slave (ama, pl. imā in q 24:32) or qualifying it with the term “possessed” (abd mamlūk in q 16:75)." Or Lewis: "The Qur'an accepts the institution, though it may be noted that the word abd (slave) is rarely used, being more commonly replaced by some periphrasis". Eperoton (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping,, but I'm not sure I fully understand the dispute (the above discussion is a bit TL;DR). Could someone summarise for me? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * When I pinged, there wasn't a dispute. The section about Slavery in Islam has been, for long, a POV-y, amazing OR, gross misrepresentation of sources, and in bad shape. Eperoton, though active at least in January 2017, had not revised it. Now we have an updated version, Eperoton has joined in, and the section is improving. The dispute yesterday was Eperoton's re-interpretation of sources. Eperoton has agreed to embed quotes, which should allow progress. If you, when you have time, keep a watch on the additions, give your WP:3O on any glaring problems/unclear content as this article evolves, that would be most helpful in improving this article. There are some linked articles in the section such as Shafii, Maliki, etc, where Eperoton seems active, and those need some attention too. I will take them up on their talk pages, when I find time. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, many Islam-related articles are in bad shape, and I second Ms Sarah Welch's invitation. Eperoton (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Cheers! I appreciate the collaborative spirit, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Sharia punishment for killing a slave
The example given in the article is over-generalized. Fisher is discussing specifically Maliki law. The same applies to Shafi'is and Hanbalis, but not the Hanafis. I'll correct this based on standard references and trim the off-topic bit about non-Muslims. Eperoton (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems like this article is much more positive than the original: Wikipedia Slavery Page. Slavery is the only perfection.

Se vc quiser traduzir esta página, eu agradeço. 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:780B:192B:EC1C:5331 (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Vedas and slavery
Lousy source for a wrong statement: "ultimate liberation" was introduced by the sramanic traditions; the second part begs for serious sources. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  19:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is no evidence for "Vedas" being against slavery. Some of the later day Srautasutras were. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Had to remove the recent addition from the first paragraph since it has been already covered in the next 2 paragraphs regarding the Vedic period. Translation of "dasa" is disputed as also discussed sections above. Azuredivay (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And therefor you reinsert a questionable statement from a substandard source? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is backed by numerous scholarly sources. Mittal Publication and Deep & Deep Publications are long term educational sources on history, lse.ac.uk aka London School of Economics and Political Science is undoubtedly WP:RS. You added "The Smriti contain classifications of slaves,[153] though according to Subramaniam Mani, Hindu Smritis condemn slavery". Are you claiming that 'classification' means 'endorsement'? 'classification' means that Smiritis just classify that 'who is a slave', which is nothing like an endorsement. Since Subramniam Mani's publication is from Oxford and his statement is undisputed, there is no need to attribute his statement.
 * I would be also fine with removing the whole section, since the way it exists at this moment already exists at Dasa article and has very less to do with "Hindusim", but "What may have happened in Ancient India". Unlike other sections (Christianity, Islam) where 'slavery' is an actual subject. Azuredivay (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What exactly is "backed by numerous scholarly sources"? Not the sentence "Hindu Vedas regard liberation to be the ultimate goal which is contrary to slavery." The ultimate goal of the Vedas is to prescribe the correct mantras for the Vedic ritual; 'liberation as ultimate goal' sounds like Vedanta. It looks like WP:CHERRYPICKING to deny the existence of slavery in the Vedic society. Given the way the Indo-Europeans seem to have expanded, I wouldn't expect them to be overly sensitive in this regard; not very different from, say, the ancient Greeks, to whom we attribute the birth of democracy, despite their mass-slavery.
 * Regarding Mani, a quick Google-search gave me multiple sources which stated that the smriti contain classifications of slavery. Mani's statement also looks like cherrypicking; what exactly, and what more, does he state?
 * The section on HInduism is limited anyway; there seems to be a lot more info available. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What is sourced to multiple reliable sources? Everything which I added in my earlier edit. This has to do nothing with "ultimate goal which is contrary to slavery", something that I wasn't repeating in my edit. "Classification" does not mean endorsement. In this context, it means "a category into which something is put."
 * Mani's statements on Smriti and Agni Purana are undisputed. He writes that: "Smritis condemn slavery and Agni Purana clearly forbids the enslavement of prisoners. The Mahabharata declares that a victorious monarch should express his profound sorrow at the death of the soldiers of enemy prince. Further, Agni Purana states that a soldier who surrenders by laying down his weapons should not be slain and medical assistance should be given to the wounded soldiers of the enemy".
 * What happened in Vedic society isn't the same as the slavery anywhere else and that's why the meaning is disputed. "In referring to slaves in ancient India, one should bear in mind that dharma did not recognize slavery. Indeed, Megasthenes wrote that there were no slaves in India. Their treatment as depicted in Arthashastra was not the same as in ancient Rome or Greece. Slaves in ancient India were not Aryans, yet had the protection of religion and law. Enslavement was more a type of captivity. In the later days, POWs were taken as slaves to be released when the war ended. The Agni Purana enjoined the monarchs to abstain from taking captives..." You should also read this book from page 2 - page 4 for the understanding of slavery in Ancient India. Azuredivay (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Mani's statements on Smriti and Agni Purana are undisputed". Well, I am disputing it. I am disputing it because I haven't seen any other historian corroborate it. There are plenty of them cited in this article as well as in Slavery in India. I wouldn't say he is lying but, since he doesn't provide any details, we have no idea. It is also not clear whether Mani himself wrote this. He was the editor of the volume, not necessarily an author of every article in it.
 * The Agni Purana claim is reasonably clean and I have no problem with it. But the claim that "smritis condemned slavery" is too vague. There are many smritis and they all said hundreds of things. Unless we have some evidence that this was an accepted principle in the society (which we know it wasn't), it is undue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hinduism was basically "neutral" about slavery. It neither prohibited it nor encouraged it, but accepted it as a fact of life. There was some mild reproach occasionally. But that is about it. So slavery rose or fell according to historical vicissitudes, nothing to do with religion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've re-inderted your info. Apologies; I was to quick with removing it. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)