Talk:Mukataba

message: EoI is not clear that "the consensus reading of the verse is that the verse makes only a recommendation" just that the strict obligation didn't prevail. I might be mistaken but I can not find it there. Could you please explain. Thanks --Aminz 23:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are mistaken. EoI states "It is recommended by the Kur'an" as fact. Beit Or 23:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The consensus reading 

message: "According to Ghamidi, the above verse was the last qur'anic directive regarding slavery in a chain of gradual directives to eradicate the evil aspects of slavery from society." How about the slavery part? Please clarify. Arrow740 05:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In a minute. --Aminz 07:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evil aspects 

message: "Among later Muslim scholars, the early opinion that Qur'an 24:33 implied a strict obligation did not prevail; the consensus reading of the verse is that the verse makes only a recommendation."
Could you please provide a full quote so we can ascertain what the opinion is, who held it, some context. It doesn't seem likely that there was an early consensus on that. Arrow740 07:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source doesn't explain anything further. Beit Or interpreted "has not generally prevailed" as the later consensus. He might have written that based on other things he has read and the source doesn't contradict this, so I left it as it is. It deserves inclusion because there are two interpretations. Ghamidi, a modern scholar, goes for the strict obligation one for example. --Aminz 08:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain to me why Ghamidi's opinion is sufficiently notable so as to be included. In Islamic jurisprudence, only the consensus of scholars (ijma) has strength. The opinions of disagreeing scholars are of no importance. Beit Or 21:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In addition, please explain why "According to Ghamidi, the above verse was the last qur'anic directive regarding slavery in a chain of gradual directives to eradicate the evil aspects of slavery from society. Ghamidi recognizes nine different stages of the Qur'anic approach to slavery." is relevant to this article. Beit Or 21:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to remove Ghamidi unless adequate explanations are provided. Beit Or 20:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ghamidi thinks that the qur'anic treatment of slavery was gradually developed. The relevant verse, he says, is the last verse revealed on this topic. Just an abstract though: There is no question of abrogation here but for those who would like to interpret the matter in this way, they can see this verse as abrogating other verses. I just mean that this verse being revealed last is an interesting point and the gradual development of qur'anic treatment of the subject is also relevant. Please note that I have mention this very briefly. Ghamidi is not giving an opinion on an Islamic jurisprudence matter but rather giving information about the order in which the verses were revealed and the gradual developments of Islamic directives towards slavery. It is descriptive. He is not deriving a legal law based on that. --Aminz 02:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the explanation, but I can read what Ghamidi has written. My question remains: his views are highly idiosyncratic and he is hardly the most authoritative Muslim scholar of all times. So, why is he preferred over everybody else to comment on this issue? Can you name several prominent Muslim scholars who think, like Ghamidi, that "A big source of the institution of slavery at the advent of the last Prophet (sws) were the prisoners of war. The Qur’an rooted this out by legislating that prisoners of war should be freed at all costs – either by accepting ransom or as a favour by not taking any ransom money. No other option was available to the Muslims."? Beit Or 20:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a joke. They had a variety of other less savory options. Arrow740 21:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that addition of the quote you presented here needs justification. In the summary presented in this article, Ghamidi says that among the quranic verses related to slavery, "Mukataba"-verse is the last one. It is like mentioning in an article on Sura 9 that it is the last chapter to be revealed. The second part of Ghamidi's quote is his own personal analysis. He thinks one can distinguish nine different stages in the Qur'anic treatment of slavery, the 9th of which is "Mukataba". This division might be not as popular as say division of Muhammad's life into Meccan and Medinian, but it shows the view of an scholar who has tried to see how the Qur'anic ideas regarding slavery was gradually declared. --Aminz 04:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any arguments justifying the inclusion of Ghamidi. He is not the most notable Muslim scholar of all times, so you cannot present his views while not presenting the views of more authoritative scholars. Beit Or 07:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  He is not the most notable scholar but I don't think WP:RS requires us to only use those sources. We have not given undue weight to him. --Aminz 07:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't include more notable scholars, but include Ghamidi, then you give undue weight to him. Beit Or 07:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. It is ideal to quote the most notable scholars. The same argument goes with western academics. I don't know the views of those scholars. I'll add them before Ghamidi if I find some. --Aminz 04:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you admit that you add the views that you can find rather than those that should be there based on their prepoderance. Please review WP:NPOV and do adequate research before editing. Beit Or 09:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ghamidi is an expert on Islam, so his views are notable enough to be briefly mentioned. There is no reason that we use the most notable Muslim experts ever appeared. Yes, it is ideal to do that but it is not a requirement. --Aminz 10:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm already tired of saying that you've given undue weight to Ghamidi. You admit that and still you insist on including him. COntrary to what you say WP:NPOV is a policy, not an ideal to strive for; it must be observed in all circumstances. Beit Or 10:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No undue weight. I have given him two brief sentences not a section. That's not undue weight. There is no difference with the POV of Ghamidi and some western scholar X from university Y. --Aminz 10:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you've given exactly no space to more notable Muslim scholars. That's a clear violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Beit Or 10:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no reason to believe that more notable scholars have not expressed the same POV. Your argument means that we should clear out Ghamidi from wikipedia. I can ask the same question that whether Gerber or other scholars are the most notable ones. We can always ask those sort of questions. --Aminz 10:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The burden of proof is on you to show that the opinions of these scholars are the same as that of Ghamidi. You are always inventing new arguments to justify the inclusion of Ghamidi. Beit Or 10:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That we can not theoretically use Ghamidi is your own interpretations of NPOV policy. No such interpretations has ever traditionally applied to any article in wikipedia. No one has ever excluded the view of an expert on a matter arguing that he is not the most prominent expert. --Aminz 10:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In addition, please explain what Ghamidi's comments have to do with mukataba. Beit Or 20:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think I've explained this above. --Aminz 07:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The early opinion 

message: The quotes you tagged were direct quotes. Arrow740 10:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Calm down

message: I putted "check" tag to the quote attributed to Murray Gordon because the source "Murray Gordon, Slavery in the Arab World. New Amsterdam Press, New York, 1989. Originally published in French by Editions Robert Laffont, S.A. Paris, 1987," doesn't seem to be a reliable source at all. And EoI is silent on the point it says. 2. It seems that the Lewis quote should start with the positive side because most jurists are sunnis. In any case, it looked suspicous based on what I have read. There is the further question of what schools the majority of Sunnis are supposed to refer.
Arrow: Please explain why "Murray Gordon, Slavery in the Arab World. New Amsterdam Press, New York, 1989. Originally published in French by Editions Robert Laffont, S.A. Paris, 1987," is a reliable source. It is not. What are the qualifications of Murray Gordon?
--Aminz 10:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you are arguing in the other article, it is not necessary to have a degree to be a reliable source. I don't know what degrees he has. I guess you're not able to use google? He is an adjunct professor at the Austrian Diplomatic Academy. I think I left a link about this on a talk page of Str. Anyway he's French so there is probably more to be found about him by a French speaker. About the publisher, this you could have done yourself. Choose publisher name and type in Robert Laffont. Do this. If UCB owns almost a hundred books in French from Editions Robert Laffont on a variety of academic subjects they must be a reliable source. The Lewis quote was verbatim. Arrow740 10:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hibri's research focus is the relation of religion and law. She teaches these courses in a university. Al-Hibri guest-edited a special volume on Islam for the Journal of Law and Religion. UCB holds billions of books in different languages, not just scholarly books. I wonder if you have ever visited its library? If he is a professor in international affairs, he is not a reliable source on Islam. --Aminz 10:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see WP:RS. Either the publisher or the author must be reliable. Arrow740 10:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have not established that any of them are specifically publish reliable books. --Aminz 10:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem to me that we are switching tacks depending upon the situation. In the absence of further information, if Gordon is a professor of international affairs, this puts him in the same category as Al-Hibri re this subject.Proabivouac 10:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it doesn't. Al-Hibri's research interest is specifically Islamic law. She has lots of publications related to islam. She teaches a course on that. She was a guest editor for a special issue on Islam in a journal of Law and Religion. Please see the evidences I've provided in the other article. --Aminz 10:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In the case of Murray Gordon the publisher appears to be a RS, in the case of al-Hibri's article in Fordham International Law Journal, neither the author nor the journal is (for the material). I've responded there. Arrow740 10:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "In the case of Murray Gordon the publisher appears to be a RS". UCB has billions of books. It doesn't select academic ones and buy them. It is a library.  --Aminz 11:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The standards are usually pretty good. Arrow740 11:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Aminz, as a third party, could I ask you to please explain your reasoning as to why you believe Murray Gordon is not a reliable source? In this talk page you give no reason for why you question its reliability, besides a blanket statement: "It is not." <puts tongue in cheek> One might question if you are a reliable source for determining if a book is a reliable source. (That last sentence is intended to be a mildly ironic joke) ... but seriously, instead of having a two-year old's argument on this talk page ("Is not!", "Is too!", "Is not!", "Is too!"), could we all just assume good faith, and clearly lay out the *entire* reasoning for our positions? I'm sure some compromise can be reached. -- 128.104.50.116 18:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: "Kafa'a quote" is related to the marriage with slave-men in general. It is related to slavery in general and not to Mukataba, which is the contract of manumission between a master and a slave. --Aminz 05:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved it to Islam and Slavery --Aminz 05:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. Arrow740 06:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, would you please remove it. --Aminz 07:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You already removed it. Arrow740 19:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed "another" because the decision it describes is the first decision mentioned. Also a jurist's interpretation belongs in the last section not the "origins" section. I hoped you would understand my reason for that from the edit summary. Arrow740 19:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kafa'a 

message: Arrow, please find another source for "Having given his consent the owner was not permitted to change his mind, although the slave had such an option. In the event the slave became delinquent in meeting the payments, he was obliged to return to unqualified servitude, with the master keeping the money already paid him." I am not sure about it. --Aminz 02:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gordon 

message: I removed the "In addition, Ata held that the master was obliged to conclude a mukatab with a deserving slave." Because one person's opinion that was not widely accepted is not relevant. His opinion is mentioned in passing in the sentence "Among later ..." Also, calling his opinion "the early opinion" implies that this was the concensus among early Muslims, which is laughable as the Quran does not make it obligatory, and even if it didn't there is no evidence that this opinion was every widespread. 
I also removed the reference to this one person's ignored opinion in the intro because that gives it undue weight, and removed the word "facilitate" because freeing slaves is easy and needs no facilitation, thus this word is inaccurate. Arrow740 19:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The early view that "the master was obliged to conclude a mukatab" is mentioned by EoI so it is not a minor view. If something is laughable to you, please laugh for yourself rather than writing it here. Thanks. --Aminz 23:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not obliged to parrot the author of the EoI article. We have here one person's opinion which is being mentioned in the article three times in an attempt to whitewash Islamic history. That is unacceptable. Arrow740 23:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be original research to try and find early scholars that EoI is talking about. Ata is apparently one of them and his views were notable in early Islam as a secondary source is explaining his views (like Ibn Hazm in polemic issues). --Aminz 00:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "It would be original research to try and find early scholars that EoI is talking about." No, not original, just research. It's what we are supposed to do before editing. Beit Or 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it was even an early opinion. Ghamidi is a modern scholars who also says the same thing. --Aminz 20:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I don't think it was even an early opinion." Now this is your original research. Please check Schacht. Beit Or 21:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does Schacht says that only early scholars believed in that or does it just mention some early scholars? --Aminz 21:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, just like EoI, Schacht says that it was only an early opinion that did not prevail. You could easily find this out by reading the article. Now we have two rock-solid scholarly sources saying that mukataba as an obligation was only an early opinion on the one hand, and Aminz, on the other hand, saying that these sources are wrong. Beit Or 21:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not saying it was not an early opinion. Ghamidi is a modern opinion who is saying the same thing. So, it is not only an early opinion but also that of some modern scholars. --Aminz 21:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Some modern scholars"=Ghamidi. Is there a reason why his views must be inserted into every Islam-related article, even though he is the only one to hold such views? Beit Or 21:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How many modern scholars are needed to make it "some Modern scholars/writers" think that way? --Aminz 21:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see the relevance of revisionist statements from the ivory tower from men whose version of Islam is so heterodox that they need armed bodyguards at all times. Arrow740 21:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arrow, please stay on the topic. --Aminz 22:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Arrow, that the opinion that Mukataba was obligatory didn't prevail is both attested by Schacht and EoI. Where should we put it in the Early Islam section? --Aminz 02:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please clarify your question. Arrow740 07:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Beit Or stated above that:"Yes, just like EoI, Schacht says that it was only an early opinion that did not prevail." I know EoI says that the opinion did not prevail. Apparently Schacht states that it was an early opinion. My question is where should this early opinion be added to the article? --Aminz 07:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's already mentioned. Arrow740 07:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "it's not as bad as it looks" material 

message: Arrow, that the slave acquired liberty after having paid three-quarters is a regulations as much as being obliged to conclude a mukatab with a deserving slave is a regulation. And we are reporting it. Please do not remove it. Thanks --Aminz 20:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, one involves terms of the contract, the other is a legal opinion on when the contract should be made. Arrow740 21:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is not only about the terms of contract but also about the contract itself. --Aminz 21:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section title now reflects the contents more accurately. Arrow740 21:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, the word "facilitating" is mentioned in the source: "Islam encouraged manumission (Arabic ‘itq) and provided several procedures to facilitate it. The first method is mukataba, " I compressed "encouragement" and "facilitate" in one word "facilitate", please do not remove it. --Aminz 20:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's bad writing as freeing a slave requires no facilitation. Please stop putting that back into the intro. And there is no need to mention that one person's opinion did not prevail in the intro. Thanks. Arrow740 21:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a strong POV in academia that Islam encourages manumission. EoI doesn't name "Ata". EoI just says that the view of those scholars who considered it as a strict obligation didn't prevail. --Aminz 21:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is denying encouragement. Obligation is clearly a fairy-tale. Arrow740 21:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I quoted EoI word by word. It is more reliable than Gordon. " Obligation is clearly a fairy-tale" is your own POV which is incorrect. --Aminz 21:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arrow is right. The view that mukataba is not an obligation is sourced to reliable sources. Beit Or 21:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  First of all, we discussed it above that Gordon is not a reliable source. Can you explain why he is. Second, that there were (early?) scholars who believed it to be an obligation is not disputed either. --Aminz 21:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't have any suggestions for the improvement of the article regarding this matter, then please do not continue this pointless debate. Beit Or 21:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, so how is it relevant to mukataba? Beit Or 21:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The source says that Islam provided four methods to facilitate manumission of the slaves, one of which is Mukataba. So, it is a piece of information about Mukataba --Aminz 21:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't add anything new to the article. Beit Or 21:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That there are four methods and Mukataba is one of them doesn't add anything? --Aminz 21:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, but "facilitate" means to make easy. The original writing is sloppy and pointless. Arrow740 21:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, we can use:"Islam encouraged manumission (Arabic ‘itq) and provided several procedures to facilitate it." --Aminz 21:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. Arrow740 21:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The article explains pretty well what mukataba is. Beit Or 21:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But it doesn't explain the categories it belongs to. --Aminz 21:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Islam and slavery is right there, next door. Beit Or 21:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ata 

message: Can you clarify this, Aminz? "Some modern interpreters have accused the medieval interpreters to have been subverted the Qur'an's demand for manumission contracts." In what way do modern interpreters think the medieval ones subverted it? Arrow740 06:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence "Some modern interpreters have accused the medieval interpreters to have been subverted the Qur'an's demand for manumission contracts." is ungrammatical. It must be different in the source. Beit Or 09:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The source says: "Modern interpreters have used this disconnect to argue that the Qurʾān would not have condoned the slaving practices common in Islamic history, with some claiming that medieval interpreters subverted the Qurʾān's demand for manumission contracts (Rahman, Major themes, 48), while others argue that the Qurʾān's original intent, properly understood, was to eliminate slavery altogether (ʿArafat, Attitude; but compare Mawdudi, Purdah, 20)." --Aminz 09:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you don't know what the sentence is referring to, why did you add it? Arrow740 03:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The quote