Talk:Slavery and religion/Archive 1

Non neutral
The tone dramatically changes once we reach the 'Islam' section. The levels of condensation directed at Muslims contrasts sharply with the mostly nuetral discussion of Jews and Christians (by that I mean no derogatory comments or remarks made against their religon in general or the practitioners of it). For instance I don't see any 'Christain apologists' however there is more than one mention of an anti-slavery Islmaic point of view being labeled as 'apologist'. This needs one of the 'non-nuetral disclaimers' at the top of the page. It seems the author is trying to prove a point of view (ie- that Abrahamic Religons DO Condone Slavery) instead of discussing the topic intellectually.

Also, WHY AINT EXPERTS being ASKED? Such as Christian Bishops & Cardinals? Or Muslim Shaykhs and Scholars?

Here are some pages to REFER to, that are QUESTIONS answered by SHAYKHS

"Sex with slaves and women's rights" - http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/questions/QA00002047.aspx

"Is Slavery Allowed in Islam?" - http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/questions/QA00000674.aspx

"Slavery: How is it that Islam, a religion inspired by God for the good of humanity, allows slavery?" - http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/questions/QA00000711.aspx


 * You demonstrate what some people do to change or suppress history. The fact is muslims had a lot of slaves (25 million +) and had them for a long time (1400 years).  Wikipedia isn't about protecting one's image but is about presenting facts.  By the way, other religions were/are involved in slavery and should be mentioned along with the expansion of all sections.  (Anonymous User) 17 June 2006
 * Those links are really usful. Anonymous is right we are here to present the facts with as much historical accuracy and lack of bias as humanly possible. Expect a totally disputed tag if the critisism of islam is noticed.Hypnosadist 09:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Next topic
This section does not have a neutral point of view and is slanted to present the history of Jewish and Christian religions in a bad light. It is correct that Christianity has not always condemned slavery, and any statement that it has is incorrect. To state that Christianity has sanctioned or condoned slavery as an obvious fact, without context, is not neutral. Robert McClenon


 * Hello Robert,
 * I don't think you can get more neutral than this. I gave quotes from the Bible to back my statement. If you think what I wrote is only part of the picture, obviously you know of Biblical verses that prohibit slavery. Can you please quote them so we all can learn something new? The fact that you dislike the idea that Paul, Peter and even Jehovah supported slavery does not mean my article is not neutral. Often people have such a great love for their beleifs that they tend not to see what is beneath their nose. Your claim that my article is not neutral is your personal point of view but it is a point of view that you can't prove. Can you please quote one verse from the Bible that says slavery is wrong?

One needs more than quotes
Where is the exegesis? It is not neutral in and of itself just to quote some scripture. It also needs to be interpreted. When one is interpreting one also needs to tell according to which principles. To state that Noah - under divine authority - established slavery and in turn to take that to mean that God would sort of like slavery is not a literal reading of the text. It is a highly biased interpretation, violating the following principles:
 * 1) Distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive text. If someone did something it's not to be seen as God's will until some other text clearly says so. This is especially true in Genesis where the author is trying to make a point on how God choses and blesses the ill-deserving.
 * 2) Distinguish between what is described as God's perfect will and what He is doing with regret. The bulk of the OT texts can be described like the following: "Bad actions will have bad consequences, so please, please do not do them!" Noah speaking a curse
 * 3) Identify the correct genre. A curse is not a governmental decree. Even if Noah curses one of his sons into slavery, that does not mean that he "institutionalises" it. Actually it clearly implicates that slavery must already have been around before the flood, for the curse to make sense.

My next point. Where is the hermeneutics? Having identified a texts original meaning is the first step. The next step is to identify its meaning for the reader. Passages from the OT have always been interpreted by the christians, already within the New Testament, in the light of the alleged fulfillment of prophecy in Christ. All texts therefore have an interpretative history which can not be neglected.

A passage in the OT must be read in the light of Christian interpretative history if it is quoted as an example of what christians once believed. Which is the question at hand in an Encyclopedia. Wheher such a belief is good or bad, or whether it actually makes sense, can be nothing but POV.

Likewise all good hermenutics must take into account exactly what question did the original text try to answer and how that question guides the applicability of a certain text today. No text in the NT tries to answer our specific question, namely what should one think of slavery per se. The texts try to answer questions more like "how should one behave in a hostile world where slavery is an established fact?" This is actually very clear if you read the paying close attention to words like "because", "so that", etc.

Another hermeneutical aspect is whether a text should be considered a temporary measure or if it reflects an eternal value. The christian viewpoint has always been that there are lots of stuff in the OT that is not eternal.
 * It might be fulfilled in Christ (like the sacrificial system)
 * It might be hygenic rules (like the prohibition to eat certain food)
 * It might be rules intended for the Israelitic nation under God only. (Some fringes of Christianity have held the belief that the society in which they live should be transformed into such a nation "under God" as well, but this was not the original (pre-Constantin) view, nor is it the majority view today.)
 * Etc.

This is nothing but normal hermeneutics, used all of the time in most questions. To ignore it is highly POV!

My third point. Having used sound exegesis and hermeneutics, one arrives at the third stage: dogmatics and ethics. When one is doing systematic theology, which is what one is doing when is tryng to answer what the christian (or some other religious) view is towards slavery, one needs to look not only at passages in the scripture, but it's general values and other themes that touch upon our subject as well.

If you look at church history this (the general "geist") actually is what has guided most christians through the ages. When christianity arrived for good in my country (Sweden) in the 11th century, it was the driving force to abolish slavery, as indeed it was throughout most of Europe.

What americans need to understand is that history did not start in 1776. Slavery had ceased in most parts of the "christian" world long before your civil war. Even though slavery can have been considered to continue in the form of feudalism, "slavery light", feudalism was not the brainchild of theologians but an inevitable consequence of the need for chivalry. The total abolishment of slavery therefore could not be accomplished except through thorough societal change. (Which makes st Paul's or st Peter's stance all the more understandable. Now this is apologetics, but I am not proposing it be put into an article!) itpastorn 10:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the above editor's special pleading (for example, he removes the point that certain passage sanctions slavery, and makes the true but irrelevant point that slavery is seen as being a dreadful state for the enslaved; plenty of endorsers of slavery have agreed. In the same way, those who support capital punishment don't think that sentencing someone to death is anything but a dreadful punishment). --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 13:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Exegetics is not "special pleading"
"I've reverted... special pleading", says Mel Etitis. So simple to disregard more than ten paragraphs where I talk about the disciplines of exegetics and hermenutics. What has been reverted? To prove the point that I am wrong, please state what exegetical and hermeneutical principles you follow in order to substantiate the following: "In this way slavery appears to be not only sanctioned but institutionalized by Noah." What one should make from the fact that the institution is not addressed is another step, namely in constructing a christian ethic. I am discussing exegetics.
 * An interpretation of a narrative text about Noah. Narrative texts, especially in the Genesis, do not claim that the actions of the people automatically should be considered as God's will. on the contrary. Even if Noah "institutionalised" slavery (very much disputed) that can in no way be taken as an indication that this was a good thing to do. One needs corroborating texts to make such a claim. Remove this hermenutical principle and the Bible says absolutely everything.
 * "The apostle Paul never explicitly addressess the issue of slavery as an institution." Please provide a text where st Paul addresses the institution of slavery, where his topic is if slavery should be abolished in society or not. My claim was that he addressess the topic of how a special group of people should conduct themselves in a society where slavery is everywhere. This is no "special pleading" but a simple fact.
 * "In his context however, this principle did not lead to any agitation for the abolishment of slavery per se." is reverted to "Yet, Paul never takes this to the stage of calling for the abolition of slavery." The word yet speaks volumes and is in itself definately more POV than my phrase. My phrase is nothing but a very simple stating of facts. It does not condone st Paul, nor explain why he chose his topic. It simply says he did not argue that slavery as an institution should be dropped (just as he never argues the opposite either).
 * "Present-day Christians argue ... And that early christianity did not have a poltical voice, but was often trying to survive in the face of hostility and persecution. They would also argue that as soon as christianity became a more dominant factor in society it mostly have stood for the abolishment of slavery, as is evidenced when it overtook belief in the Æsir gods." In this paragraph we address the issue of how present day christians look at the passages in Scripture and what guiding principles they follow when the claim that Christianity is anti-slavery. That is the topic. To deny the very voicing of these arguments in such a context is offensive. Should it be considered OK if a christian went to the article on ateism and simply removed the arguments that ateists have? Of course not.

Before anyone reverts once again, I would appreciate some exegetics and some hermeneutics!

Mel Etitis also makes the following claim that I make "the true but irrelevant point that slavery is seen as being a dreadful state for the enslaved" (emphasis added). Nonsense. The topic at hand is how did the biblical authors regard slavery. When something in the bible is considered a curse that is not simply another way of saying that someone had an unpleasant experience. It speaks volumes about how God regards something.

Noah cursed on of his sons. That is in no way a comparable act with issuing a law. When the people of Israel disobey God, they face the possibility of being taken as slaves by other people. That is a consequence of not fulfilling the Covenant with God, something God especially pleads with the people that they should in every way avoid. itpastorn 16:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) I don't do "exegetics" and "hermeneutics", I read and think; I'm sorry if that's not fancy enough.
 * It is not a matter of being fancy. It is a matter of telling us according to what principles one thinks. What guiding principles? What steps of logic? How do you weigh a particular word?


 * 1) Most of the above evades (albeit at great length) the points that I made. For example, itpastorn deleted the true comment that Paul didn't criticise slavery, replacing it with the evasive point that Paul didn't talk about slavery.  Well, yes, not talking about is not criticising, but it neatly evades the point that someone in a society to which slavery is central should criticise it if they disapprove of it, especially when they're concerned to discuss morality. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 18:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mel Etitis's reasoning with one exception. He is doing exegesis if he is reading and thinking about how to interpret a scripture.  He may not be following any particular school of exegesis or hermeneutics.  In a pluralistic society, he is not required to follow any particular school.  Robert McClenon 21:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I was, I admit, reacting to what I saw as unnecessary sesquipedalianism. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * But for the Wikipedia to be NPOV one must at the very least tell which school one should follow or what line of reasoning one has. Mel Etitis simply reverts but does not say how he arrived at his conclusion. Please explain why his "school" is better than mine? Because as it is right now, his school is being allowed to dictate what the article should say. At the very least both interpretations should be presented - in a pluralistic society. Right now he is no more pluralist than I am.--itpastorn 10:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Once again, what you and I believe that st Paul should discuss is one matter, but the first step must be to acknowledge correctly what he did discuss. From there we can move on to the question of how he did chose his topics. We can find a multide of ethical and dogmatical questions that st Paul did not discuss per se. What was st Pauls guiding principle when he wrote his letters? What was the guiding principle of the people who collected some of these letters into what we today call the NT? From silence one can argue anything!

--itpastorn 10:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

When prominent people say nothing about prominent evils, one is entitled to say that they failed to criticise those evils. I don't know their reasons, though I can theorise &mdash; but to call it a failure to criticise is perfectly NPoV. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "When prominent people say nothing about prominent evils, one is entitled to say that they failed to criticise those evils." If you had access to everything Paul said and wrote this would be true. We do not. We have some of his letters, originally written to a specific audience addressing specific questions. On those points all scholars agree. The words I suggested said exactly what we can see in the text - that he does not address the institution of slavery per se. To call this a "failure" is an interpretation and needs to be substantiated. Otherwise it is simply an argument from silence, i.e. no argument at all.--itpastorn 19:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Noah did not institutionalize slavery
I am opening up this section in order to facilitate a discussion about one of the issues at hand.

The last revert by Mel Etitis has been done without him justifying his actions on the talk page. How can a curse be interpreted as a governmental decree? Study the topic of curses (and blessings) in the Bible, the OT, and the Pentateuch and you will very easily see that they are something else.

On what grounds can one say that this particular action by Noah reflects the will of God? The author never says so. On the contrary, he very often, especially in Genesis, portraits the people as very ill-deserving of the blessings God gives.

Arguments please! itpastorn 10:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Arguments please
itpastorn writes: Arguments please! Yes. He and Mel Etitis were in a revert war. Can they both please summarize what points they are trying to make?

I am inclined to agree with Mel Etitis that he was within reason in deleting a specific interpretation, not on the grounds that it was "special pleading", but on the grounds that it is original research, one editor's exegesis. If itpastorn wishes to provide an exegesis and a hermeneutic, he should cite the scholar who has published this exegesis. Robert McClenon 11:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Does this principle not apply to us both? What scholar says that Noah did institutionalize slavery? Shouldn't such a quote be just as required?--itpastorn 13:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Confrontational text moved
"However I invite those who disagree with the above to quote at least one verse from the Bible that prohibits or even discourages slavery."

This statement is not neutral, but invites discussion. It is my understanding, and I may be completely wrong, that the NPOV concept is that the encyclopedia itself should identify non-neutral points of view rather than inviting the presentation of other points of view. I think that is an entirely reasonable statement to make on this discussion page. Robert McClenon

We're discussing what is what isn't neutral. He's telling you that if you have something that proves it is not neutral, you should discuss it on this page. Xunflash 20:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but.... There is a rule that I have seen but am not about to look up that says that Wikipedia editors should avoid making first-person statements on an article page. In this case, the proper place for first-person statements was the talk page. The fact that there was discussion on the talk page is apparent from the NPOV banner. Similarly, if an article has a banner disputing its accuracy, that is itself an indication to go to the talk page. Robert McClenon 20:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Modern day slavery exist EVERYWHERE in the modern world, regardless of religion
It is a human trait, that in every enclosed group of people, a certain minute segment seems to rise above the rest, and takes hold of the vast majority of all available resources to that community. The rest of society, becomes a 'slave' to the whims of these people, who have manipulated themselves into positions of supreme power, over them.

Take any modern country and you will notice a disturbing pattern: About 5% of the elite of the population, usually controls over 80% of the country's wealth. The rest of the 95% of the population, is left to fight over the remaining 20% or less, of the resources that are still free for the taking. And they do so like cats & dogs, fight over chunks of food.

Have you ever noticed the traffic jams of endless seas of cars in bumper to bumper morning hour rush to their cages called offices and places of work? These people work their butts all their lives, enriching the handful of private individuals who own their work. The salary structures are such, that a worker HAS to continue working ALL his life, in order to support his life, his wife and his family and life style. If he quits for even a month, his finances go completely haywire and he sees himself free-falling into the abyss of economic doom.

So, despite the various rants in this article against the three Abrahamic religions, the fact is that slavery, unfortunately, is encoded in the human DNA. And thus, will NEVER go away, and CAN'T EVER go away, no matter what your religion is or isn't. Pale blue dot July 6, 2005 05:45 (UTC)


 * That statement about the various in this article is itself a rant. Since this is a talk page, ranting is permitted.  Robert McClenon 19:32, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article seems a bit strange. I think what happened was that certain people were attacking certain religions about the followers of said religions owning slaves.  So someone felt it was necessary to combine all three religions and show that all three condoned owning slaves at different points in time and that they don't now.  While I agree with this fact, I still do not see the comparison of modern-day slavery with slavery as written in the various holy texts as relevant.  The world was a very different place when many of these religions were founded and what may seem abhorrent to us now was not then.  So even if Jews, Christians, and Muslims traded in slaves (which they all did) that does not mean their religions actually forced them or encouraged them to enslave people.  I think we can all agree that in reality slavery has little or nothing to do with religion.


 * The only time people associate slavery with religion is when they particularly despise a certain religion and want to connect it with slavery as it existed in the past few centuries to make it seem a maleficient religion. I have seen atheists who have bashed Christianity and Judaism for encouraging slavery and I have seen Christian polemical writers bash Islam for encouraging slavery.  In either case, the motive was crystal clear, to spew vitriol against a certain religion.  In many cases the person doing the "spewing" is a hypocrite  Heraclius 6 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)


 * Well it DID happen. The fact that all three religions (and certainly non-religious texts too) have passages condoning slavery reflects the time when they were written. (if you subscribe to Marxist theory, slavery is a nesscessary stage of cultural and economical developement, and we wouldn't be here if it wasn't for slavery).It doesn't make them "malefficient" (i learned a new word today!). Fortunately all three religions have progressed beyond slavery, and big congrats to them. But it doesn't mean the relationship between religion and slavery (in ancient times) shouldn't be examined and discussed. It would be like teaching history students that slavery didn't exist in America. We learn from our past, and just because some people use history as hypocritical hate propaganda doesn't we should totally ignore it. Xunflash 20:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Pinning down the problem
I think this is largely a question of tone. Points that have factual basis, are being put in an unneccessarily judgmental way. Specifically:

''Today, the followers of the three Abrahamic religions are against slavery. They also claim that their religions have always been against slavery. [1], [2] However, this claim does not seem to be supported by the scriptures of these religions. In fact the reverse seems to be true. The holy books of the three major Abrahamic religions sanction and legitimize slavery.'' It's unfair to say that these books "sanction and legitimize slavery" -- that's a question of interpretation. Today, they would not be read by the vast majority of people as doing so. Centuries ago, the same words were read that way. The whole structure of this paragraph -- "everyone THINKS these religions were ALWAYS good, but they WEREN'T!" -- is leading towards a conclusion. It would suffice to point out that there are references in the holy books of these religions that condone or legitimize slavery.

Then, the claim about Peter "clearly endorsing" is ok by me, because, well, he does; the quote proves it. However, the fourth paragraph of "Slavery in the New Testament" is all speculation/conclusion and should go. The sentence "The above verses prove this apologetic statement is unsubstantiated" should also go, obviously. As, similarly should the references to "Muslim apologists." The sentence about a "bitter joke" also has a totally inappropriate tone.

''Religion can bring forth the best in us. Alas, it also can bring the worst.'' - Obviously opinion and should go also.

So, I think there is a good job here of describing the attitudes towards slavery in these three holy books, but let the facts speak for themselves and don't suffocate us with sharp wording and your own conclusions. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 02:36 (UTC)


 * This article appears to be an essay not an encyclopedia topic. What merits the discussion of "Slavery in abrahamic religion" as a separate article? I am tempted to put this up for VfD.     9 July 2005 17:59 (UTC)


 * This article was originally a section in a larger article on slavery. When I tried to edit the section to reduce what I saw as its non-neutrality (anti-religious slant), it was then moved into a separate article.  I would agree either with deleting it or moving it back into slavery.  Robert McClenon 19:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Whilst Islam did not 100% legally abolish slavery, wouldn't it be appropriate to cite verse 177 in Sura 2 which allows slaves to demand their own freedom and ENCOURAGES the Muslims to give them the money to buy their own freedom? The part about Islam improving condition for slaves 'being a bitter joke' sounds alot like Islamophobic propaganda to me, although it is true that in practice, slavery was quite evident throughout Islamic history. As for the Prophet Muhammad, whilst he did have slaves for some time, and did sell his enemies into slavery, he eventually encouraged widespread freeing of the slaves in conjunction with the afforementioned Koranic verse. I think the reference to Muhammad making a fortune from enslaving people is exaggerated.

It's called "Slavery in abrahamic religion" because there are other articles titled "Slavery in (blank)" (i.e. north america, medieval europe, list goes on an on), though a better title would've been Slavery in Abrahamic Religions during Biblical Times, since it discusses slavery as a widespread practice during the time that wasn't explicitly condemned by abrahamic religion. Someone should expand the bottom section, on how abrahamic religion had a positive effect on the removal of slavery since then to be fair. Xunflash 20:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Did anyone in the Roman Empire condemn slavery?
I have a question. Is there any reliable record that anyone in the Roman Empire, with the possible exception of the leaders of the three wars of slave rebellion, advocated the abolition of the institution of slavery? Did any philosophers, poets, or political or social reformers recommend the end of the institution of slavery? If the answer is no, as I think it is, then why should Paul be criticized for not proposing something that no one else had done?

I think that anyone who favored the abolition of slavery, which was the primary form of economically productive labor in the Roman Empire, would have been viewed at best as a rabble-rouser and more likely as a Spartacus. Robert McClenon 14:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Top of my head, I think Slavery is questioned by some philosophers - Epicurius and the Cynics. But since they were often viewed as anti-social anyway they serve to strengthen your point. Most philosophers advised responsible ownership. Interestingly, I don't think Sparticus condemned slavery. Indeed, few slaves did. It appears the aspiration of slaves was not for the abolition in the abstract, but for personal freedom - wealth - and the ownership of their own slaves. (But this is from memory, so I could be wrong. - I've got a few books on the subject to I'll check it out when I've a moment. --Doc (?) 14:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you mean Diogenes and the Cynics? I think that Epicurus, like other philosophers, would have urged humane treatment of slaves.


 * If I recall correctly, Diogenes also opposed the ownership of property. Today he would probably be called an 'anarchocommunist' (or simply anti-social).


 * In any case, I think we are in agreement that anyone who had favored the abolition of slavery would have been viewed as a trouble-maker. Robert McClenon 22:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Epicurus admitted slaves to his school, The Garden &mdash; but as that was some 300 years before Paul, it's not clear that it's relevant here.
 * Zeno (the Stoic) seems to have argued against slavery, and in general stoicism was opposed; as stoicism was very influential among Roman intellectuals, that might be a line worth pursuing. I believe that at least one of them, Seneca, was anti-slavery.
 * Jewish philosophers were often anti-slavery (Philo of Alexandria was certainly one of them).
 * It may be that anyone who was against slavery was viewed as a trouble-maker (though I don't know of any evidence for that), but that certainly didn't mean that they were suppressed, or even dissuaded from expressing their views. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Splitting of this article?
The following is a quote from a Wikipedia guideline:


 * In most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a controversial section without leaving an adequate summary. Consider other organizational principles for splitting the article. Be sure that both the title and content of the broken-out article reflect a neutral point of view.

Perhaps, since the remainder of the article was not considered controversial, and since a summary was not left, the splitting of this article was incorrect. Robert McClenon 01:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I certainly have concerns about the POV reasons for the split, but I do think Christianity and slavery is a legitimate subject for an article. Given this was a hot debate historically in the UK, and a contributing factor in the US Civil War. It is also a regular objection to the use of the Bible in modern ethics. This article has growth potential - although it needs much more on the historic views of the religions and how they have interpreted their texts through the ages - instead of just a record of the contents of Biblical texts (and thus an argument about how editors interpret them - which is rather irrelevant). I'm not too sure whether lumping 'Abrahamic religions' together is helpful - but then my knowledge is limmited to Christianity. --Doc (?) 08:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with that. The relationship between Christianity and slavery is sufficiently tangled historically that it is worthy of its own article. I am willing to let Muslims decide whether a stand-alone article on slavery and Islam is in order.

In addition to the fact (noted) that Christian views on slavery were a contributing factor in the US Civil War, the question of slavery was a long-term influence on many religious denominations in the United States. The Methodist and Presbyterian churches split into a Northern and a Southern denomination over the issue, because the Northern majority in the general conference authorized the excommunication of slaveowners. They did not reunite until the twentieth century. The Baptist denomination remains divided to this day. The Protestant Episcopal Church avoided a schism because it had a Southern majority (being the historical church of the planter class). Robert McClenon 11:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Move this article - a proposal
I've just discovered that there is already an article Islam and slavery (there is also a Slavery and Islam currently on VfD as a POV fork. I am thus suggesting that the Islamic material here should be merged there. Could we then move the rest of the material to a Christianity and slavery article as I've pointed out above I think the topic merits an article (unless there is already one out there?). My only problem is what to do with the Hebrew Bible/OT material - does it merit it's own Judaism and slavery page?? This page could then be a fork to all three religions. Any thoughts?? --Doc (?) 12:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

An outsider's comment
This is the first time I've seen this article and I have to say that while the article seems factually correct, it certainly to me presents the facts in a non-neutral way. I have to agree with Dcarrano in saying it is a matter of tone. Is anyone working on improving the article? --K. 14:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for adding the introductory text. It helps.


 * By the way, my concerns really always had to do with tone (point of view), not with accuracy. Robert McClenon 21:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah I can see that now. So what should the article focus on? From my POV it seems that Abrahamic religions have a problem in that slavery is now more or less universally condemned, yet their scriptures don't always condemn it. That POV needs to be put across, but obviously the other side has to as well-- if I understand correctly, that it was specific to the time and not meant to be carried on til today. Comments? --K. 00:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Having a look at the Slavery article, I don't see why there should be an article on slavery in Abrahamic religions and not others. I think the article should be renamed to something along the lines of Slavery and religion, and cover what other religions say and have done with regard to slavery. --K. 09:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm ignorant about the other religions - but there has been a longterm debate within Christianity on this issue. An article could cover Biblical material and subsequent interpretations, 18th-19th Cent abolitionism in the UK, and religious debate arround the US civil war. All this would easily justify one stand-alone article. --Doc (?) 11:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point. I didn't think there was enough information to warrant separate articles, but from your comments I can see would be. --K. 11:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Aftermath
Thank you to K. for adding the introductory paragraph. I have now replaced the NPOV banner with a request for cleanup. Robert McClenon 15:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Responding to RfC: Material has potential for a good article, but as it stands it does not cut it. It needs a thorough cleanup and NPOV'ng. Until that happen the article deserves an NPOV warning. It will be good as proposed above to move the article to Slavery and religion. --ZappaZ [[Image:Yin_yang.svg|12px]] 04:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Moving POV material to talk page
As there is still a lot of POV material as mentioned by ZappaZ above, I'm going to move POV material to the talk page to be worked on. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 09:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Material moved from main article. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 10:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Slavery and religion today
In all fairness, it must be noted that most believers of these religions today neither advocate nor condone slavery in any way. On the contrary they are a major force behind anti-slavery movements and many of them are valiantly fighting to eliminate this evil. A couple of examples of these courageous souls are: Mohamed Adam Yahya, Chairman and Spokesman of Damanga Coalition for Freedom and Democracy (DCFD) and Maria Sliwa whose faith in Christianity has moved her to help people half a world away.

What needs to be done
Looking at this page after a break, I see a couple of things:


 * There needs to be a Slavery and religion or Religion and slavery article.
 * The article focuses on scripture, but the article is about religion. If the title is religion, the sections should be Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Otherwise, the article should be renamed "Slavery in Abrahamic scripture(s)".
 * The section on the New Testament needs so much work I don't want to pull it out as there'll be nothing left. I think it should have a NPOV tag.

Thoughts? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 12:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * For those interested, please look at Christian views of slavery and Slavery in antiquity; both of which go into the Bible, Abrahamic religion and slavery. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 03:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge the NT (cleaned up) and later Chritianity sections with Christian views of slavery and leave this as an article on religions. Organise by religion with a link to the sep Christian article - other religions can also be split off if they grow too large. I fact I'd rename this 'religion and slavery' - as I see no particular merit in singling out 'Abrahamic' --Doc (?) 09:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Good suggestions. Anyone object to renaming this article to Religion and slavery? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Be bold --Doc (?) 09:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, no, don't be bold &mdash; significant page moves always have to be discussed with other editors. I'd go along with this one, though. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Mel, your caution is correct - my comment was inappropriate. But this suggestion has been here for a while and no-one has posted a 'nay', so I think that speaks for itself. --Doc (?) 10:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * True enough; perhaps we could now just do it. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 11:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. I'll wait 24 hours, and then move if there are no objections. :) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 12:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

New focus: Religion and slavery
Okay, I've moved the article to Religion and slavery, and so it now needs work to adapt it to a structure listing each religion and it's response to slavery, etc. Please help! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

CANNAN IS A PERSON.
IN THE PASSAGE MOSES NAMES A PERSON CANNAN SON OF HAM NOT A GROUP OF PEOPLE REREAD THE TEXT ,VEEERRYY CAREFULLY,

No. Canaan is the son of Ham, and the ancestor of the Canaanites. The passage is not by Moses. Moses had not been born. Canaan was accused of violating the law, but it was clearly the pre-Mosaic law, and not the Mosaic law. Robert McClenon 03:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Hinduism
There is nothing here on salvery under Hinduism. Maybe thats because it's only recently been moved from that Abrahamic title.. Anyway, I have nothing of a source on hand on this subject.. can anyone sterr me in the right direction?--Irishpunktom\talk 21:35, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Why the bold?
Why is the following have bolded parts?

"“All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. 1 Timothy 6:1"

I can understand, the need for emphasis, but I think that, as a sober and unbiased page, it should not contain any bolds or underlines etc. Therefore I am removing the emphasis. Bless sins 2 August 2005

Can we limit the scope of this article, it seems like an entire detailed paper has been attached on Slavery in Islam. Also does this section address just theoretical theological stands or the actual practise. It seem to me it should be limited to the Theological side though the Theological vs. Actual needs to be addressed but somewhere else!! Maybe it all belongs in the Slavery sectin as sub-sections.

Islamic section POV
The first paragraph in the Islamic section is very POV and propagandic:

"Unlike slavery during the colonial era, slavery in Islam was never intended to be based on race and the main source of slaves were prisoners of war. This was influenced by the Greek and Roman models which formed the foundations for the practice of slavery in pre-Islamic society. Islam revised the structure of society in the Arabian peninsula, and this included addressing the institution of slavery."

1. Colonial era slavery is not related to the religious issue. The issue is religious institutions of slavery. 2. Islamic slavery was also prejudiced against Blacks, Zanj Rebellion is one example, and it occurred only a century or so after Muhammad, the practice of Slavery in islamic countries in Africa, Iraq, and elsewhere disproportionally and historically has been towards darker skinned slaves. 3. The Qur'anic verses on slavery are very clear and I find it amazing that in this day and age, for the sake of counterbalancing western imperialsm (which I agree is a worldwide social problem), we then ignore Islamic imperialism which has been just as devastating, especially for women and black people throughout history.

So what i did was take every passage in the Qur'an and in the Bible and compared the two. Considering the Qur'an is based ON THE BIBLE, i find it utterly amazing how Islamic scholars and theologians try to compare it TO the Bible. Of course the Islamic excuse can be used "those verses in the Bible we don't like we will say are the corrupted verses"... but never the less, here are the Qur'anic verses which I find rather fascinatingly worse than any Biblical account. I will agree, they are consistent with colonial type slavery.

"Believers shouldn't kill believers, unless by mistake. If you kill a believer by mistake, you must set free a believing slave. 4:92" (In other words, even keeping slaves who are Muslim is permitted. Christianity teaches that one should not hold another of the faith as slaves).

"Only worshippers (Muslims) and those who preserve their chastity (except with their wives and slave girls) will be spared from "the fires of hell" that are "eagar to roast." 70:1-30  (Where in the Bible is adultury with slave girls permitted with Christian believers???")

i can go on and on, but I am not here to inflame. I am offended myself however, and I would like to know why this kind of bias is permitted. Zaphnathpaaneah 18:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If one wishes to bring race into this discussion, it's important to remember, the first Ethiopian Christian was a representative of the Kandaka (Candace) empire in Ethiopia. He was a treasurer, a person of high standing in the Kandaka court.

The first Ethiopian Muslim was... a servant... of Muhammad. Zaphnathpaaneah 18:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The first Ethiopian Muslim converted shortly after the emergence of Islam...Bilal was offered the utmost of respect; servitude to the Prophet was a held in high esteem in Muslim society, Bilal was the first Muslim to call for the salat. Let's keep things in prespective, shall we? 213.42.2.28 22:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that sections of the islamic section should be moved over to Islam and Slavery which is currently totally one-sided, and then a wikilink to it placed at the top of the section.Hypnosadist 10:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If you seriously think that the Noble Qur'an is supposed to be based on the Bible, then you should be banned from editing Islam-related articles. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  00:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright vio?
This section was added in a massive chunk and reads and smells like a cut/paste job from an outside source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_and_slavery&diff=42861285&oldid=42503158

However, I haven't been able to track down this source yet, if it exists. The user who made it is long gone. Anyone else? - Merzbow 00:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Biblical principles
"Despite the fact it has taken Western society over 1800 years to reach that point, it is important to note, the institution of slavery in the United States was challenged through war, ultimately on Biblical principles, and not on economic conveniences. The institution itself had been creating friction based on the hypocritical principles of the constitutional statement the "All men are created equal under God.", that inherent inequity present in slavery initiated the subsequent changes in it's perception that has reverberated in Western society to this day. Despite secular and economic ambivilance to social change of enslaved people, the Biblical underpinnings of the U.S. Civil War and the Enlightenment period in Europe created the foundation of the current Western perceptions of slavery to this day."

What are those biblical principles? Are you saying the bible was used to free slaves after it was used to have slaves?

Appropriateness of this article
This article appears to have a lot of original research and original synthesis of ideas, as well as large chunks of possible POV problems. I wasn't able to read through it all in one sitting, which (for Wikipedia) makes it a bit too long. I strongly suggest that this entire article is overhauled as it desperately needs it. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 14:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is hopeless in its current form. People keep throwing in more unsourced material and it's not worth the flak to revert it because it's all in the same poor state anyways. - Merzbow 05:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * At this rate, I've nominated it for deletion. It's become too convoluted, unsourced, and originally researched. אמר Steve Caruso ( desk / poll ) 17:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD closure
AfD closure comment: "Keep and stub" means to remove all the uncited content. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Reversion
The reason for the revert is that the additions are POV. 1. You say that the Bible insists on the humane treatment. Currently we quote those Bible passages that prohibit violence against slaves and those that allow it. This gives a balanced view of the Bible's position. If you summarise it by "the Bible insists on the humane treatment of slaves" you are selectively giving more weight to certain passages, which is bias. Also, even the passages which are evidence for humane treatment don't really fit the modern equivalent of humane. 2. You contrast the behaviour towards slaves in the Bible to the behaviour towards slaves of "other cultures at the time". This is selective in that you are picking (without adequate reference) cultures that are less humane (possibly) to make the Bible look good. There were other contemporary cultures which did not have slaves or were far more humane. Without picking or choosing our comparison good, we can't say the Bible was either an improvement or a step backwards, so let's not make judgement calls. Finally, this article was once so biases it had to be stubbed. I tried to rescue it by sticking only to the facts and citing passages from various religious books rather than making judgement calls. I really hope it doesn't get as bad as Christianity and slavery, filled with POV to the point where it needs to be stubbed. Sad mouse 17:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - I'm not sure that using the word 'you' is constructive. These weren't 'my' edits, rather I merely reisntated what you removed - ie, reference to a reliable source that is used in other religion and slavery articles. IN fact, i simply reinstated what you removed. I did change the wording a bit, but I think it was largely innocuous, but I will consider if you think otherwise. I don't know why you'd want to remove a reliable source.
 * IN fact, wouldn't interpreting a primary source to imply "it is morally acceptable" not POV in itself? Merbabu 03:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies if I offended, it was not my purpose. I have tried to avoid secondary sources, because they are interpretations of the primary source. Some can be good, but since most secondary sources on any given religion are written by those who are of that religion they tend to look for ways to explain everything in a good light (to see what I mean, look at Christianity and slavery). It would be nice to get some good neutral secondary sources, although that will be a big job for who ever tackles it. For your comment on "it is morally acceptable" I agree, that is POV, it should be changed to "allowable". Sad mouse 04:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I read over the revisions and thought possibly that you might have taken out a little bit too much. The information stating that the Pope Callixtus was slave is accurate and I didn't understand why it was removed, although Pope Pius being is sometimes thought of as a former slave and others times not so you could simply put something along those lines. - Patman2648 03:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Slavery in Fundementalist Church of Latter Day Saints
I was curious as to whether this topic had been addressed, particularly considering the practice of female trafficking across the border between Canada and the US. Is this an issue worth discussing?SCmurky 05:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes if you have notable and verifiable sources for it, put it in. Hypnosadist 11:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Stubbed
Stubbed as per the consensus on this article's Afd here, and per CrazyRussian's suggestion to me here. - Merzbow 20:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I cut the christian stuff out of the history and pasted it into Christianity and Slavery. In addition, I have cut out some of the more egregious POV/OR, and am starting to cite what is left. Any help would be appreciated. - Francis Tyers · 13:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * [about Judaism/Christianity and Slavery] I think the article on slavery and religion misrepresents the entire picture on religion and slavery by leaving out critical verses.

Exodus called for death to those who engaged in stealing a man and selling but I did not see this in the article. But, this verse limits who can become a slave and effects the vary nature of slavery in Judaism.

The new testament in Timothy list manstealing on a list of sins. This again brings into question who could become a slave. Royboy111 06:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I Corinthians 7:21
Would it be possible to find a citation for the interpretation offered that this verse calls for slaves to leave their masters/owners?(RookZERO 03:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC))
 * Good point, but better than citing a single interpretation is to give the actual text. What do you think of the change I made? Sad mouse 15:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me.(RookZERO 16:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Christianity section
Hey all, I know there are many problems here, so I'll be concise. The Christianity section has some flat out mistakes, and some other shortcomings (in my opinion) as well. First, the cited letter Philemon is only directed to the slaveowner and not to the slave, so Paul never tells the slave to "love his master"--that's not even in there. Also, the passage in 1 Corinithians cited as telling slaves they should not accept their slavery is a relatively poor translation (NIV) and seems to be saying (and is explicitly translated this way in other, more literal translations) the exact opposite, that slaves should remain in the position in which they were called. My personal suggestions would be some content on how Jesus talks about slavery and on how every instruction of New Testament writers towards slaves to obey their earthly masters is on the foundation of obedience and reverence to God and Christ, explicitly stated in the text of all of the writer's references. I edited that part of the article earlier today, but apparently it didn't stay too long. If anyone knows why it got changed back, I'd love to know. Thanks. Dap716 00:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This section appears to have degenerated by people relying on modern interpretations of slavery in Christianity. The original text and position was far less favourable, encouraging slaves to be happy in their position of slavery. You might disagree with this position, but for the majority of Christian history this was the official position. I'll try a quick clean up. Sad mouse 16:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the Philemon part. I agree that the NT writers encourage slaves to remain and be content in their positions of slavery--in fact, I think it always says that, particularly in the 1 Corinthians passage (the context seems pretty clear--the verse comes just after Paul's saying to remain in the position your were called--as well as the Greek). I'd just prefer some foundation to this position, as it always bases the commands on reverence to God instead of a simple endorsement of slavery itself. And saying Jesus said he came to end slavery is a stretch--in that passage in Luke he is reading out of Isaiah, and then says "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." At least a qualification would be nice. Thanks. Dap716 12:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Christian Church Fathers were 'White Supremacists'
Origen (circa 185-c. 254): “For the Egyptians are prone to a degenerate life and quickly sink to every slavery of the vices. Look at the origin of the race and you will discover that their father Cham, who had laughed at his father’s nakedness, deserved a judgment of this kind, that his son Chanaan should be a servant to his brothers, in which case the condition of bondage would prove the wickedness of his conduct. Not without merit, therefore, does the discolored posterity imitate the ignobility of the race [Non ergo immerito ignobilitatem decolor posteritas imitatur].” Homilies on Genesis 16.1

“Mar Ephrem the Syrian said: When Noah awoke and was told what Canaan did. . .Noah said, ‘Cursed be Canaan and may God make his face black,’ and immediately the face of Canaan changed; so did of his father Ham, and their white faces became black and dark and their color changed.” Paul de Lagarde, Materialien zur Kritik und Geschichte des Pentateuchs (Leipzig, 1867), part II

St. Jerome: “Chus in Hebrew means Ethiopian, that is, black and dark, one who has a soul as black as his body.” (The Homilies of Saint Jerome, vol. 1, trans. Marie Liguori Ewald, Homily 3, 28). St. Ennodius (474-521): “Keep your chastity constant. Don’t let the body of a black girl soil yours, nor lie with her for her Hell-black face.” Epistulae 7.21

John Philoponus, Greek Christian philosopher (6th century): “The Scythians and Ethiopians are distinguished from each other by black and white color, or by long and snubbed nose, or by slave and master, by ruler and ruled,” and again, “The Ethiopian and Scythian. . .one is black, the other white; similarly slave and master.” A. Sanda, Oposcula Monophysitica Johannes Philoponi (Beirut, 1930), pp. 66,96 (Sanda’s Latin translation).

Ishodad of Merv (Syrian Christian bishop of Hedhatha, 9th century): When Noah cursed Canaan, “instantly, by the force of the curse. . .his face and entire body became black [ukmotha]. This is the black color which has persisted in his descendents.” C. Van Den Eynde, Corpus scriptorium Christianorum orientalium 156, Scriptores Syri 75 (Louvain, 1955), p. 139.

Eutychius, Alexandrian Melkite patriarch (d. 940): “Cursed be Ham and may he be a servant to his brothers… He himself and his descendants, who are the Egyptians, the Negroes, the Ethiopians and (it is said) the Barbari.” Patrologiae cursus completes…series Graeca, ed. J.P. Migne (Paris, 1857-66), Pococke’s (1658-59) translation of the Annales, 111.917B (sec. 41-43)

Bar Hebraeus (Syrian Christian scholar, 1226-86): “‘And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and showed [it] to his two brothers.’ That is…that Canaan was cursed and not Ham, and with the very curse he became black and the blackness was transmitted to his descendents…. And he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan! A servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.’” Sprengling and Graham, Barhebraeus’ Scholia on the Old Testament, pp. 40-41, to Gen 9:22.

Gomes Eannes de Zurara (official royal chronicler of Portugal, 1453): “These blacks were Moors like the others, though their slaves, in accordance with ancient custom, which I believe to have been because of the curse which, after the Deluge, Noah laid upon his son Cain [read: Cham], cursing him in this way: that his race should be subject to all the other races of the world.” C.R. Beazley and E. Prestage, The Chronicle of the Discovery and Conquest of Guinea in the Hakluyt 1st series, no. 95 (London, 1896), 1:54.

Francisco de la Cruz (Dominican, 1575): “The blacks are justly captives by just sentence of God for the sins of their fathers, and that in sign thereof God gave them that color.” Bartolomé de Las Casas in History (DeKalb, Ill., 1971), p. 417. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wanted EDITS and Additional Material needing to be added
Italicised sections are my own personal opinions and should be omitted, the rest is fully referenced and sourced as appropriate.

In this section I am outlining some sections that I wish to see removed and reasons why and also additional detail that needs to be added.

Firstly in the Religion and Slavery section I think the following on Christianity should be added:

Christianity

"[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 1,2

Sources:

1. Dunbar Rowland quoting Jefferson Davis, in "Jefferson Davis," Volume 1, Page 286

2.Jefferson Davis, "Inaugural Address as Provisional President of the Confederacy," Montgomery, AL, 1861-FEB-18, Confederate States of America, Congressional Journal, 1:64-66. Available at: http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~hoemann/jdinaug.html

The Christian church's main justification of the concept of slavery was based on the "curse of Ham" which appears in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) in 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."

"This reading of the Book of Genesis merged easily into a medieval iconographic tradition in which devils were always depicted as black. Later pseudo-scientific theories would be built around African skull shapes, dental structure, and body postures, in an attempt to find an unassailable argument--rooted in whatever the most persuasive contemporary idiom happened to be: law, theology, genealogy, or natural science -- why one part of the human race should live in perpetual indebtedness to another." 1

But in ancient times, cursing a whole race into slavery was considered acceptable because it was in the Bible. The American slave owner felt that he was carrying out God's plan by buying and using slaves.

Christians at the time believed that Canaan had settled in Africa and that his descendents had become black.

Although slavery was widespread in Palestine during Jesus' ministry, the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) does not record his opinion of it. Slavery was casually mentioned without criticism in the various books of the Bible. It was accepted as a natural part of life by almost all Christians until the 19th century CE.

Anabaptists started to criticize slavery in the late 17th century. They were joined by Quakers and Mennonites. It was only when John Wesley (1703-1791), founder of the Methodist movement, became concerned about slavery that the small protest became a mass movement for the abolition of slavery.

Slavery is still advocated in North America by some Reconstructionist Christians and a few racist fringe groups within the Christian Identity movement.

Source:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav.htm

1.Anthony Pagden, "The Slave Trade, Review of Hugh Thomas' Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade," The New Republic, 1997-DEC-22, as quoted in Ref. 21.

Quotations from the Bible

Correct and absolute references to the Bible on the use and proliferation of slavery.

"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them."1

"Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them."2

Sources:

1.http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%206:1-5&version=31;

2.http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%202:9&version=31

Judaism

Slavery was sanctioned and carefully regulated by many passages in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) largely in the Pentateuch - its first 5 books. Although slavery was widespread in Palestine during Jesus' ministry, he is not recorded as having expressed any opinion on it. Slavery was casually mentioned without criticism in the various books of the Christian Scriptures (New Testament). The authors appeared to accept slavery as a natural condition -- as a universal institution that was not particularly immoral.

Source:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav1.htm

Islam

Many times throughout the Quran and Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad it states quite clearly that slavery is wrong, that it is an injustice upon man, and except for absolute extreme circumstances, only during times of war, but as a general rule it does not nor has condoned slavery, in fact very much the opposite. Now whatever the individual, religious, secular, corrupt, good, bad or otherwise has done, the sin is on them and not on the religion.

"And what will explain to thee the path that is steep? (It is:) freeing the bondman;"

Quran, 90:12-13.

A direct reference to freeing of a slave which is the path of righteousness.

"The offerings given for the sake of God are [meant] only for the poor and the needy, and those who are in charge thereof, and those whose hearts are to be won over, and for the freeing of human beings from bondage, and [for] those who are over burdened with debts, and [for every struggle] in God's cause, and [for] the wayfarer: [this is] an ordinance from God - and God is all-knowing, wise."

Quran: 9:60

Again a direct reference by God to free those who are in bondage, bodily and economically. There are many exact references in the Quran to the above one which mention the freeing of slaves, but that alone should suffice. In fact out of the three Abrahamic religions only the Quran survives today with any direct mention of freeing slaves directly, as an act of righteousness and yet it is the one that is arguably most condemned for slavery when it quite clearly condemns it.

Speech of the second Caliph of the Islam Khalifate, companion of the Prophet, Umar:

Caliph `Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) said in a famous khutbah (speech or sermon) of his, “When did you make the people as slaves or servants of you while Allah, the Almighty, created them free!”

On reference to the Mamelukes of Egypt:

"Furthermore, Muslims were encouraged to manumit slaves as an act of worship. And if all that is not enough to demonstrate the differences between slavery in Islam and elsewhere, remember that the Mamelukes who ruled Egypt for nearly 300 years were slaves who legally belonged to the Islamic state."1

Sources:

1.Ahmad ibn Naqib Al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller, trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller, pp. 458-59

'Now I'm not saying that the Bible, Torah or Quran or their fundamental religious beliefs advocated slavery, because mostly those who used the religious sources to claim such beliefs did so with a warped understanding of what they were reading. But nevertheless time and time again, I come across articles and complete rubbish that is so biased against Islam, simple misunderstandings that a quick google search could put straight that it boggles the mind. Yes there is a propaganda war out there, and the western nations and many people are obligingly obedient when it comes to misinformation passed off as truth, but a certain balance in proceedings would be nice.'

So before you slam another religion for that which you could lambast at your own read from your own Book and understand:

‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.” (Matthew 7:3-5)"

89.167.221.3 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.167.221.3 (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Augustine and slavery badly out of date
The references in the text to Augustine are badly out of date in light of a letter by Augustine on the topic of slavery rediscovered in 1975 which shows that Augustine actually opposed the enslavement of his parishioners by "Galatian" slave raiders. Please see my discussion topic: "The Divjak letters shed new light on Augustine and slavery," at--Talk:Catholic_Church_and_slavery. Ajschorschiii (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Overview
Somebody has cut out the overview. I intend to re-add it if nobody has any reasonable objection to it. I will record it here also to save having to go and look through the history of prior edits if I don't get back here for a while also. "The issue of religion and slavery is an area of historical research into the relationship between the world's religions and the practice of slavery."Daniel De Mol (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

New article
I have reformed the article from scratch to remove POV. Still stub-like, since I have not included most religions. Sad mouse 18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I will try and add a bit on the Baha'i teachings and slavery, it will not be a great contribution, but if we all do our bit it will be a decent article before long. Keep up the good work. Daniel De Mol (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Misleading
This article is misleading, giving the implication that slavery was a continuous part of Christian Europe from its inception until almost the 20th century. In truth slavery as a form of institution was removed by Roman Christianity and largely stayed that way until it reared its ugly head again in a racial form around 1500. 76.93.155.137 (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Original research about caste system
seemed to have cherry picked one of the earlier version of this article, which was removed by a few users including. just came to WP:WIKIHOUND my edits and made blind reverts, it is obvious that none of these sources are reliable or they support the addition or make claims about Caste system being slavery. Almost three of the paragraphs are unsourced and original research. Pinging to look into this. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore sources don't even support the inclusion.


 * Hinduism Past and Present has no mention of slavery other than one instance which is completely unrelated.
 * is a dead link, and its archives show that the link never supported this inclusion either. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Also pinging. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also like to ping User: Mohanbhan and User: Deepcruze. Terabar, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * So you decided to delete the entire Hinduism section from this article because you didn't like a few recent edits? How is that appropriate? If you want additional sources equating the caste system and slavery, here you go:, , , , ,  —Мандичка YO 😜 15:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Because if you like something it would still require some reliable source. Thanks for agreeing that current text is totally flawed and problematic per verification, now looking at your extensive research, these few sources by you    do not support your assertion, only this source makes a passing mention by claiming that slavery of India has roots with caste system, however it is not mentioning Hinduism. Thus it still remains original research and largely contradictory. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the present text (which was apparently reclaimed from the article history according to ) is certainly problematic. Most of it is unsourced, probably contains a lot of WP:OR, and makes connections using WP:SYN. We have to really find scholarly sources to find the truth.
 * To say that the caste system leads to slavery is not to say that the caste system is itself slavery. The text seems to do that.
 * It is also by no means clear how much of caste system is part of Hinduism. The Christian missionaries have traditionally regarded the caste system as being an integral part of Hinduism (conveniently for them), but scholars like Michaels regard caste system as a social practice that was vaguely condoned by the Hindu religion.
 * So there are a lot of unknowns here. And the text makes it sound as if it is all clear-cut. All said and done, it is poor text. Neither am I confident that something clear and reliable can be produced easily. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you look at any of the many sources I presented above? Additionally there are plenty of (non-Christian missionary) experts who discuss the caste system's association with Hinduism at length.,, , . Of course more sources can be added to the text, but the insistence to completely delete the Hinduism section is not a solution and shows clear bias.  —Мандичка YO 😜 18:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A random Google search doesn't make up "sources." Most of your sources talk about slavery in India, not in Hinduism. Only one of them (the encyclopedia article) has any connections to Hinduism, because it is on "Sudras". It is wishy washy saying "some scholars say slave and sudra mean the same, and some scholars don't." That is as far as your sources concerned. If you think a section on Hinduism is required to avoid "bias," that clearly shows your POV. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not do a "random Google search" but looked quite closely for relevant context. Yes, to remove an entire religion when there are so many sources discussing it is unacceptable. There should be EVERY religion on this page because surely every religion has SOME view on slavery, no? Even if it's just "Hinduism forbids slavery and here are the refs that discuss that," it should be on there. —Мандичка YO 😜 18:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, then, this whole article is POV-pushing. The title "Slavery and religion" indicates that it is about what religions have to say about slavery. It is certainly possible that certain religions don't say anything about it, in that all you can say is that it doesn't say anything about it. What is the connection between slavery and religion anyway?
 * I called your so-called "sources" random google searches because you haven't bothered to check whether they are reliable for the matter at hand. They even include blog posts on Huffington News by random people! - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikimandia, These new sources [ are not supporting your claims either, I would point out that third source is self-published. Can you provide some sources that would say that Caste system is part of Hinduism and it is equivalent to slavery? Because none of these sources say that at all. We are having over 4 misleading paragraphs at this moment. [[User:D4iNa4|D4iNa4]] (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Over-reliance on a dated source Sharma
The Slavery & Hinduism section relies too much on a single source, Sharma's 1958 book, and does not reflect recent scholarship. This needs to be corrected. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There was originally a section on "Slavery in Hinduism" which caused edit-warring between editors that claimed that there was no slavery in "Hinduism" (i.e. religion), and others that said that there should be a section like all other religions. I added the section on "Slavery in Hindu society," based on what I know. Other sources are welcome. But, in my view, the section shouldn't get much longer because we know that slavery was only a small part of the society and it was unnoticeable to foreign visitors. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The revised section spends most of space on the Vedic period, when slavery is believed not to have existed, and brushes over the later period when it is known to have existed. It is out of balance. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Let us take one item at a time. What are your objections with the Buddhism section, which you deleted with your revert? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ashoka, Islamic era etc
@Kautilya3: Thanks for reinstating the Buddhism section. Next item: what have Ashoka, Islamic era etc have to with "Slavery and religion" focus of this article? Why title this as Hindu society, why not just Hinduism, in a way similar to other sections such as Christianity, Islam etc? Or are you suggesting we change the other sections to "Slavery in Christian society", "Slavery in Islamic society", etc there as well? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not confident that the "Hindu religion" has anything to say about slavery. Slavery occurred in the society, independently of the religion itself, and the religion perhaps condoned it and tried to restrain it. This is different from some other religions which explicitly permitted the taking of slaves and others where the religious establishments took part in it. This was precisely the point on which edit-warring occurred previously. If we can find reliable sources that state these facts (presuming they are facts), we can cite them and then the section title wouldn't make much difference. But without it, I think we need to highlight it as a social phenomenon. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As for Ashoka, the claim has been made that he banned slavery. I don't quite know if it is true, but I haven't researched into it.
 * The Islamic period introduced the middle-eastern norms into India, which then led to increase of slavery. There is no claim that the Muslims were the only ones that engaged in it. Slavery was still prevalent when the British took over India and the Emancipation Act exempted India from the abolition of slavery (hard as it is to believe!) Getting into that would take us too far away from Hinduism. But we need to recognize that the Islamic rule led to an increase in slavery in the "Hindu society." - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @Kautilya3: This is an article on "Slavery and religion". The Hinduism and Buddhism section should not be out of sync with the focus and scope of Christian / Judaism / Islam sections, or vice versa, for WP:DUE and balance. It conflates the social in one with the religious in another, misleading the reader. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to that. You can see the discussion in the previous section above that took place in November. If we don't put reliable content in the Hinduism section then somebody or the other will come and fill it up with junk and that doesn't do anybody any good. Secondly, Hinduism being a naturally grown religion, it is hard to draw a dividing line between religion and culture (or social norms/practices). In some sense, the Hindu religion is what the Hindu society practises. It is a "way of life." So how can we decide which is which? - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @Kautilya3: I am glad that you are persuaded enough to accept Hinduism/Hindu/Hindu texts/way of life in 2nd/1st millennium BCE and 1st millennium CE. Indeed, this article should include some reliably sourced content under Hinduism and Buddhism, just like the others. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Trimming the Vedic era
@Kautilya3: I am in broad agreement that the Vedic discussion should be short, for balance. Yet, we should not rely predominantly on a single source published in 1958 and ignore recent dissenting scholarship.

Current Older version Vedic texts discussion (1733 characters out of 3241 characters):


 * Traditional Hinduism had a system of "dasa" (dāsa) which is loosely translated as "slave." However, the meaning of the term varied over time. During the time of Rig veda, dasa was a varna (class), distinguished from the varna of aryas.[111] According to D. D. Kosambi, the dasas represented a "servile class" owned by an Aryan tribe as whole, much in the same way as cattle.[112] However, R. S. Sharma points out that the evidence for such a conclusion is weak. He believes that the dasas were probably an advance guard of mixed Indo-Aryan peoples that came to India before the Rig Vedic Aryans and were later subdued by them. When the male members of the dasa clans were killed in conflict, some of their wives seem to have been reduced to slavery, giving rise to the meaning of dasi as slave.[113] However, male slaves are rarely mentioned in the vedic texts.[114]


 * Towards the end of the Vedic period (600 BCE), a new system of varnas had appeared, with people called shudras replacing the erstwhile dasas. Some of the shudras were employed as labouring masses on farm land, much like "helots of Sparta", even though they were not treated with the same degree of coercion and contempt.[115] They could be given away as gifts along with the land, which came in for criticism from the religious texts Āśvalāyana and Kātyāyana Śrautasūtras.[116] The term dasa was now employed to designate such enslaved people.[117] Slavery arose out of debt, sale by parents or oneself (due to famines), judicial decree or fear. The slaves were differentiated by origin and different disabilites and rules for manumission applied. While this could happen to a person of any varna, shudras were much more likely to be reduced to slavery.[118][119]

Proposed Vedic texts discussion, in this version, which you reverted (1878 characters out of 3245 characters):


 * R. S. Sharma, in his 1958 book, states that the only word which could possibly mean slave in Rigveda is dāsa, and this sense of use is traceable to four later verses out of 10,600 verses in Rigveda, namely 1.92.8, 1.158.5, 10.62.10 and 8.56.3.[119] The interpretation of the word dāsa in Rigveda varies by scholars.[120] HH Wilson, for example, translates dāsa in Rigvedic instances identified by Sharma, as servant rather than slave, as in verse 10.62.10.[121][122]


 * The identity of dāsa in ancient texts of Hinduism, states Barbara West, remains unclear and disputed among scholars.[120] Dāsa are interpreted as indigenous people of northern Indian subcontinent by some scholars, as fellow Aryans who had not adopted the Vedic beliefs and were enemies, and by some scholars as mythical enemies in the battle between good and evil.[120] Michael Witzel in his review of Indo-Iranian texts in 1995, states that dāsa in the Vedic literature represented a North Iranian tribe, who were enemies of the Vedic Aryans, and das-yu meant "enemy, foreigner."[123]


 * According to D. D. Kosambi, the dāsa represented a "servile class" owned by an Aryan tribe as whole, much in the same way as cattle.[124] In contrast, according to R. S. Sharma the evidence for such a conclusion is weak, and male slaves are rarely mentioned in the Vedic texts.[125] Sharma states that the word dasa occurs in Aitareya and Gopatha Brahmanas, but not in the sense of a slave.[126] He translates dasi in a Vedic era Upanishad as "maid-servant".[126]


 * Sharma states the word dasi is found in Rigveda and Atharvaveda, which he states represented "a small servile class of women slaves" and that "it seems when the male members of enemies of the Aryans were killed, their wives were reduced to slavery".[127] Vedic slavery, according to Sharma, was mostly confined to women employed as domestic workers.[117]

How should we reconcile these two for NPOV? I am fine with ~1700 characters, even shorter will be better for WP:DUE, balance. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

After reading all your sources, a suggested compromise version:

The term '"dasa" (dāsa) in ancient Hindu text is loosely translated as "slave."[118] However, the meaning of the term varied over time. R. S. Sharma, in his 1958 book, for example, states that the only word which could possibly mean slave in Rigveda is dāsa, and this sense of use is traceable to four later verses in Rigveda.[119] HH Wilson translates dāsa in Rigvedic instances identified by Sharma, as servant rather than slave.[121][122] Michael Witzel in his review of Indo-Iranian texts in 1995, states that dāsa in the Vedic literature represented a North Iranian tribe, who were enemies of the Vedic Aryans.[123] Geoffrey Samuel in his 2008 book, quoting Michael Witzel, states the term dasa has been used as an equivalent for "aborigines, servant or slave".[124] The identity of dāsa in ancient texts of Hinduism, states Barbara West, remains unclear and disputed among scholars.[120]

The word dasi is found in Rigveda and Atharvaveda, states R.S. Sharma, which he states represented "a small servile class of women slaves".[127] Vedic slavery, according to him, was mostly confined to women employed as domestic workers.[117] He translates dasi in a Vedic era Upanishad as "maid-servant".[126] Male slaves are rarely mentioned in the Vedic texts.[125] The word dasa occurs in the Hindu Sruti texts Aitareya and Gopatha Brahmanas, but not in the sense of a slave.[126]

It is shorter, includes more scholarly views, and keeps the focus on Vedic texts. This part would be followed by Arthashastra etc. Please note that I reworded some of your version because I am unable to verify that the source is implying what you do. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * My preference is to state what the scholars say rather than what the texts say. The texts are the primary sources from which the scholars gather information, but they are not the centre of the subject. (It would be different if slavery was in fact part of the religion, in which case the texts would take the centrestage.) References to the texts can be put into footnotes for the interested reader. We should neither second guess the scholars nor encourage the reader to do so.
 * The reason for the out of balance was mostly because of your condensation of the post-Vedic period. We need to cover it as the information demands it. See this source, for example, for the information that is available to us. I think we need to first reach consensus on the post-Vedic period. That seems to be the immediate task. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That is what the Proposal 2 offers above, with Michael Witzel, George Samuel, etc. I accept your idea of using footnotes. Indeed, we need to and will collaboratively bulk up the post-Vedic section. But, let us agree on one part at a time. Let us reach a consensus on the Vedic part, without changing your post-Vedic part, for now. Thanks for the link, but who is Gian Chand Chauhan? Why is it WP:RS? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Lengthwise, this version seems right. Thanks for the clean-up. I have some concerns however.
 * HH Wilson is from the 19th century, and shouldn't be used to make it appear as if he overrides RS Sharma.
 * It is better to quote Witzel's translation of dasa directly, rather than in Samuel's voice. The paper is the Early Sanskritisation paper.
 * Barbara West is saying nothing about slavery. So, I don't see why she is being mentioned here.
 * The North Iranian tribes also seem off-topic. (In fact, Witzel is not saying that the dasa in the Rigveda is a reference to a North Iranian tribe. That is the "remembrance" the Vedic Aryans carried.) The directly relevant point is rather that the dasa were the enemy tribes of the Rigvedic Aryans. RS Sharma says this. So does Parpola.
 * I think we both agree that slavery wasn't a big part of the Vedic society (as far as we can tell). The only significance of the Vedic period is the term dasa/dasi which seems to have acquired the meaning of slave. It can only be explained via the enslavement of enemy tribes, however few in number. But it seems that you are reluctant to say this. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed that is my understanding too, slavery wasn't a big part of the Vedic society. The need to mention the content in Wilson, West and Witzel is to provide the different, diverse views on what dasa was, for NPOV. Slavery is an English word, "dasa" is a Sanskrit word, equating it is one-sided, and the interpretation/dispute/confusion about dasa is an important point to clarify for both ancient Buddhism and Hinduism texts context. How about we embed most of the Wilson, West and Witzel into a footnote, for the interested reader and our consensus? I will check Witzel again, but I think he has said the Indo-Iranian thing in several papers. Let me triple check. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Triple checked. Witzel sure has been writing, "Another North Iranian tribe occurs in Skt as Dasa; Iranian (Latin) Dahae, (Greek) Daai". See page 321 of book edited by George Erdosy's The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia. If we mention Skt Dasa theory of Sharma, we need to include this, to avoid pushing Sharma's dated one-sided theory. Do you want to draft the trimmed Vedic part with footnotes, or would you like me to? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am quit happy for you to edit the Vedic period parts as discussed.
 * As for the Witzel, note that the page 321 is talking about "reminiscences," stated on lines 3-4 of the page and continued down. These names retained a "vague memory of the route followed." So, it doesn't seem to me that Witzel is saying that the dasa of the Rigveda were in fact a North Iranian tribe. Rather that they were named after a North Iranian tribe that the Vedic Aryans remembered. In the "Autochtonous Aryans" paper, the same kind of text appears in a section titled "Remembrance of immigration." It is always a bit hard to decode what Witzel writes. It would have been nice if he told us which North Iranian tribe is supposed to have been the reference point. can you tell us what you think of this reference to "North Iranian tribe?" - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @Kautilya3: Indeed. Yet, that is the alternate interpretation of what dasa in Rigveda could be. It doesn't have to be "slave", the hymns make sense if we read it with Witzel's reminiscences theory reading lens. Witzel theory has equal if not the more "recent-WP:RS"-weight, than Sharma's. We need to mention it, for NPOV, at least in the footnotes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is fine to put it in the footnote. But I don't see this as an "alternative" interpretation. It is not different from RS Sharma's interpretation either. Historians note that the names of enemy tribes have a way of turning into words for "slave." Several such examples cited by Parpola. But Chanana's book promises to give a more detailed treatment of this process. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Nice colours. I'm fine with Witzel's mention of "North Iranian tribe." But I wouldn't write "ancient Hindu texts," but "ancient Vedic texts" or even "ancient Indo-Aryan texts." It's not just about Hinduism or India, it's about the Indo-Aryans.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @JJ: Thanks. @Kautilya3: I am fine with either wording. You choose. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks JJ. I can now confirm that Witzel doesn't equate Rigvedic dasa with North Iranian tribe. He (along with Stephanie Jamison) calls them "local inhabitants" here . Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3: I see the North Iranian discussion, but somehow I am missing the mention of "dasa was not one of the North Iranian tribes"? That will contradict something he wrote in George Erdosy's edited book, and elsewhere, see above. Page please, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @MSW: The "local inhabitant" explanation is on page 61. I don't see any mention of North Iranians here however. I don't think there is a contradiction, because the North Iranians were only a "memory." - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Expanding post-Vedic part
@Kautilya3: I agree that the post-Vedic part needs some more encyclopedic summary. I suggest you add the views of alternate scholars on Arthashastra, as well a paragraph that summarizes the recent scholarly debate on slavery in their Dharmashastras. If you don't have access to the latter or the time, I am fine if you want to invite some other wiki editor to help. I respect you, am happy to help from the sidelines, to collaboratively improve this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words! I have ordered a couple of books that cover slavery in ancient India, one by Chanana and another of Uma Chakravarti. I will get back to this after I have glanced through them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Take your time. If you can read French, you may want to read Yvonne Bongert (1963), Réflexions sur le problème de l'esclavage dans l'Inde ancienne : à propos de quelques ouvrages récents, too. Beautifully written. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I can't read French unfortunately. But, if you can, please feel free to add text from it and I will be happy to learn! - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)