Talk:Islamic views on slavery/Archive 2

message: So, I think that all these quotes from the Quran and hadith should be removed. They are all selected to promote a particular POV; this section is unacceptable. There are two options; I will find the quotes about slavery from the Quran and hadith which cast Islam in a bad light and put them here, removing half of the pro-Islam quotes, or we can remove the quotes altogether. The latter option seems to be a more encyclopedic choice and would produce a more stable article. Arrow740 05:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: use all of the quotes you can find, if POV is your concern. for now, i will restore the quotes. ITAQALLAH 01:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On what pretext? Arrow740 01:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: on the pretext that what the primary texts say about slavery is highly relevant. the article achieved GA status with them in. i see no justification for removal. ITAQALLAH 01:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Because Islam expanded and slavery didn't end, duh. In fact the more Muhammad expanded it the more people he enslaved. Arrow740 01:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Only children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners can become slaves, never a freeborn Muslim; therefore slavery is theoretically doomed to disappear with the expansion of Islam." ITAQALLAH 01:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the total takeover of Islam. What a terrible quote. Arrow740 01:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How was this "Only children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners can become slaves, never a freeborn Muslim; therefore slavery is theoretically doomed to disappear with the expansion of Islam." enforced. Perhaps a biometric ID card system? Can you find any legal cases were slaves were freed after proving they should not be slaves (as opposed to non-muslim's who deserve to be slaves). Notice i did not mention the world domination. Hypnosadist 07:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand Schimmel's logic here; are slaves not allowed to reproduce?Proabivouac 07:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the child is born free unless both parents are slaves. ITAQALLAH 10:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So thats a yes to slaves can be breed Forever meaning slavery would Never end. It had not stopped in 1200 years and it would not have stopped in the next 1200 years world domination or no world domination.Hypnosadist 12:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The elimination of slavery is, then, premised upon male slaveowners impregnating their female slaves, while male slaves are left without mates. Depending on the slave, that might make sexual, but not economic, sense.Proabivouac 13:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i thought i answered this (seemingly not though), but (all) slaves have the right of marriage. that includes male slaves. as far as i know, if a female slave is married, then the master is not permitted to copulate with her. ITAQALLAH 10:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is, then, no reason to believe that slavery would be eliminated per, "Only children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners can become slaves, never a freeborn Muslim." Only if the mating rights of slaves were somehow curtailed or discouraged would Schimmel's assertion make sense.Proabivouac 11:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The block of quotes 

message: Blocks of quotes are not encyclopedic. You have placed a block of quotes into an article that is entirely biased and unencyclopedic. Where were you when I first posted to this talk page about it? Is it only today that you thought to wikistalk me?
As regards your other bad-faith reversion, there is no claim of "exageration" as you put it. Also CNN and the BBC produced hard evidence of slavery, such as first hand accounts, and a little boy whose finger was cut off.
The title of the subsection "Existence of slavery disputed" is also highly misleading, as Nasr is not denying that it exists, just that it's not really that bad to be enslaved in that manner. "Sudan insists that the whole matter is no more than the traditional tribal feuding over resources," this is not a denial either. 
Maybe you should read the article before editing it? Arrow740 01:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: wikistalk? ridiculous. this article has been on my watchlist since before you even came to wikipedia. i was planning on responding for a few days now. the existence is indeed disputed, you need to read Nasr's quote again. please refer to my above response concerning the quotes: i invite you to find as many negative ones as you can and insert them. ITAQALLAH 01:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain to me how Nasr is denying the existence of slavery? In fact no one does, and the CNN and BBC reports present hard facts. Do YOU deny it? Could anyone? You assume that you are in a good position to push POV with these quotes, though you're not. In any case your response does not reflect well on you. Arrow740 01:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nasr is simply stating that the 'slavery' alleged to exist is little more than the 'slavery' that exist in Western and Chinese sweatshops. it's an analogy, slavery doesn't exist in the latter areas, through which he qualifies that such alleged slavery is not actually slavery at all. accusing editors of POV-pushing is uncivil. i suggest you refrain from it. ITAQALLAH 02:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He isn't saying slavery doesn't exist. This is obvious to a thoughtful native speaker of english. Arrow740 05:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who seeks to deny the existence or minimise the extent of slavery in the Sudan deserves a gold medal for being a [WP:Dick]. It's not hard to find the reports, the UN and interested human rights organisations are in no doubt, and we can see the suffering. They know and we know its good old-fashioned slavery and human subjugation ... see the link under 'Modern Slavery' below.DavidYork71 11:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Itaqallah's reverts 

message: Couldn't we just list the surah and ayat of the quotes in the text? e.g.
:The Qur'an urges 
:* kindness towards slaves (4:36, 9:60, 24:33, 40:13)
:* freeing slaves for the expiation of sins (4:92, 5:92, 18:3)
:* and the recognizing of concubinage (4:3, 23:6, 33:50-52) Lewis, Bernanrd, Race and Slavery in the Middle East : an Historical Enquiry, Oxford University Press, 1990. p.6 
--BoogaLouie 23:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no objections I'm going to do it. --BoogaLouie 22:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Muslims have the right to interpret their religion as they please.  Our job is not to interpret the Qur'an but to report the important interpretations of it over time.  Now Muslims predominately believe that the Qur'an calls for a progressive ban of slavery--Muslims throughout history have not always believed that and, as you know, many Muslims have owned slaves.  The Qur'an does not "naturally mean" anything.  It is given meaning through interpretation.  So, let us report those. Religion evolves and what you or I think the Qur'an means is... meaningless.  gren グレン 22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Now Muslims predominately believe that the Qur'an calls for a progressive ban of slavery." Sure pal. Arrow740 22:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd disagree here. Even scholarly sources also point to this fact. Freeing of slaves, asking for treating slaves good, and then at the end giving slaves the right to make contract with their masters! What does that show? A scholarly paper was simply rejected on the basis that it was published in a Law Journal. Althoug, it was a peer-reviewed journal, I don't know who gave us (wikipedians) to weigh opinion when the publishing source is a scholarly one. And also the author was well-versed in Islamic-jurisprudence. TruthSpreaderreply 23:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well-versed is not a qualification. I'm going to add quotes to the effect that slavery is divinely ordained and eternal in Islam when I have time. Arrow740 23:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you like to share your source? Because all the sources which I've read so far they say that Islam took slavery as granted, rather than it was ordained Divinely. And it also mitigated slavery as well. And then you have other (yet scholarly) opinions which say that the ultimatly it was prohibited to take more slaves at the end of prophet's life. TruthSpreaderreply 01:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Avicenna said "there must be masters and slaves." I can give you 10 people saying that it is lawful to enslave any non-believers in jihad. Lewis says, "The manumission of slaves, though recommended as a meritorious act, is not required, and the institution of slavery not only is recognized buy is elaborately regulated by Sharia law...From a Muslim point of view, to forbid what God permits is almost as great an offense as to permit what God forbids -  and slavery was authorized and regulated by the holy law...The emergence of the holy men and the holy places as the last-ditch defenders of slavery against reform is only an apparent paradox. They were upholding an institution sanctiied by scripture, law, and tradition and one which in their eyes was necessary to the maintenance of the social structure of Muslim life." (p 78). "In Islam, concubinage was sanctioned by the law and indeed by the Quran itself." I have others. Arrow740 03:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This argument is already there in article. You can add a bit more from what you stated above. But I believe that it is really, ridiculous to actually discard some scholarly source and only including those ones with which you are happy. I think both views should be there in the article (especially when both are scholarly). Also, the comment from PhD thesis was also removed very mercilessly, when it had direct relation to article with title "Sexuality in Islam" by Heba G. Kotb M.D. TruthSpreaderreply 03:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already presents a sanitized view of slavery in Islam. The lawyer added no new insight here as the POV she expresses is already expressed by others. This unqualified, biased source should not be included on these grounds. Arrow740 06:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is she being quoted? Is it from a law journal or from a book? Arrow740 07:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a POV, but it is a scholarly POV. It is a scholarly Jounral, which you can see here. Plus, I've explained earlier couple of times, PhD thesis are peer-reviewed as well. TruthSpreaderreply 07:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though if not published, unnotable. Arrow740 07:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure you can find her spouting her theories in a book, a more reliable source than a journal for a different field. Arrow740 07:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unpublished? who said that? Journals are published mate! TruthSpreaderreply 07:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Theses are endorsed by Universities. And they are also used in scholarly papers to refer for scholarly findings. I wish you'd be a PhD student to know it. *sigh* TruthSpreaderreply 07:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You wish that do you? The standard for being published in a journal is different than for a thesis. Not all theses are notable, a random thesis you found online is certainly not. Arrow740 07:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do wish that! The thesis was supervised by William Granzig. I don't see any reason for its being unscholarly. Otherwise it couldn't pass through strict scruitining of external examiners and University Syndicate board (as a badly and unscholarly thesis would bring bad name to the University). And the thesis itself has attracted alot of media attention in Muslim world  TruthSpreaderreply 08:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without any insult to Professor William Granzig, the thesis is not a notable source. And Maurice Bucaille's "book" is the second best selling book in the Muslim world so the standards don't seem to be very high over there. Also please desist your wikistalking. Arrow740 08:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not only the notability of the source, but also scholarliness of the source also matters. And I don't think that Professor William Granzig will forgive you for this insult ;). TruthSpreaderreply 08:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and TruthSpreader, I'm surprised you didn't know that there are a fair number of Muslim scholars talked of it as a divine system, albeit, one with a way out of slavery.  You should read "A Quest for Honour": Slavery, Islam, and the Contributions of Martin Klein to African History" E. Ann McDougall. Canadian Journal of African Studies, Vol. 34, No. 3. (2000), pp. 546-564.  It was very interesting about the processes of late slavery in Africa.  We can't pretend that Muslims didn't think that slavery was divinely allowed.  It differs in different places and we should make that clear.  You have many views.  The view that Islam progressively sought to end slavery (which is MSA Islam seems to argue a bunch).  The view that slavery is okay because Islamic slavery allowed for equality and whatnot.  The modernists like Sayyid Ahmad Khan who opposed it and argued that the Qur'an opposed it and such.  I think this book would be interesting since it seems to talk about the different camps.  I think it's clear that many Muslims have felt pressure from Western abolition in how they speak about slavery.  It worries me that TruthSpreader seems to want to sanitize the issue and Arrow wants to make slavery an eternal to Islam.  If you can get a copy of the article from the Canadian Journal of African Studies I would recommend reading it.  Its tone is very well done where it speaks of the complexity of slavery and Islam while not speaking positively or negatively about Islam's impact on it.  If we could emulate that tone this could be a good article. gren グレン 04:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Gren! Your comments are indeed useful. I have access to this journal. If you can quote the name of a few related articles in that journal, that'll great. Cheers! TruthSpreaderreply 05:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Syed Ahmed Khan shows an interesting 19th century view of slavery. :O  And he is the article of the day. gren グレン 03:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative to quranic quotes

message: According to this POV article. KittyHawker 20:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, though the justifications say so much don't they!Hypnosadist 21:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are under no obligation to include silly justifications for immoral practices. Arrow740 02:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is silly in your eyes. Note that your edits can be interpreted as disruption. --Aminz 06:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, yours can, because you revert without explanation. Arrow740 06:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can see my explanation above. KittyHawker virtually didn't reason anything. --Aminz 06:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You like ignoring edit summaries and claiming that no reasons were given. Please stop that. Also you've had 5 4 reverts here. You are the disruptive one. Arrow740 06:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course, Ghamidi is a perfectly legitimate source for interpreting the Qur'an (as opposed to, say, history). However, I'm not clear he's all that notable within a history of over a millenium of jurisprudence; certainly not enough to be our main source here. Reading this article, I'd like to see a discussion of how attitudes over this whole time period. I don't have the knowledge to do it myself, but I hope someone does.Proabivouac 06:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: unfortunately, many of User:KittyHawker's edits were unacceptably tendentious and poorly justified. ITAQALLAH 14:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slavery isn't that bad

message: Folks, we can't just appoint Ghamidi, who is not particularly representative of historical Islamic jurisprudence, as the official interpreter of the Qur'an here. Whoever added this material (I have my ideas) has a serious biased editting problem. Message: Wikipedia is not a a soapbox for our own personal views, however strongly held, about Islam.Proabivouac 06:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it to Mukatabat article. That's true. Ghamidi is one scholar. But I don't think his views are dissent on this matter. Just based on my personal experience. --Aminz 06:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that. I moved the tags along with it. I'd have to see more sources here, but my initial reaction is that the notion of a gradually-unfolding, increasingly socially-progressive revelation sound far too Ghamidi-ish for me to accept without proof that other scholars believe this exactly.Proabivouac 06:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ghamidi represents a very minority view, not just today but especially when you concider the 1200 of islamically sanctioned slave ownership.Hypnosadist 14:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mukatabat section

message: I have delisted this article from good articles due to long-standing neutrality disputes, excessive use of quotes, and persistent edit warring. Feel free to nominate the article for GA status again once the problems are resolved. Beit Or 10:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good!Hypnosadist 13:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA delisted

message: *al-Nasr's first quote is so vague that it conveys no historical information,
*al-Nasr's second quote does not question the existence of slavery, 
*Schimmel's quote is vague and is so far from the intended meaning (once everyone is Muslim there won't be any more people enslaved in war) that is cannot remain, 
*al-Hibri is a lawyer with no training in Islamic studies or history and publishes in law journals,
*rationalizations for extramarital sex with slaves is so unscholarly that we are under no obligation to include it,
*"sex with concubines was only permitted because..." is similarly devoid of content, it is a rationalization and neither exegesis nor history,
*I think we all know that mukataba is a contract, not a right. That doesn't even make sense. You should be saying mukataba is a contract that slaves had a right to (and you would be wrong). Arrow740 04:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be possible for someone to share the Schimmel passage upon which the deleted material was based?Proabivouac 08:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 1. al-Hibri guest-edited a special volume on Islam for the Journal of Law and Religion. She wrote a book named:"Sex, Marriage and Family in World Religions Columbia University Press". She os the professor (not TA) on the "Islamic Jurisprudence" at the university. Without qualifications she couldn't have done that. She is certainly a reliable source. 2. She says that the slavery naturally dies within the Islamic state, so the slavery theoretically ends with expansion of Islam. 3. It is obligation according to some, EoI says. 4. I will provide more details of the other views. As Gren pointed out Seyed Ahmad Khan is one example. It is not vague. "Many" doesn't mean at least 3. No. If we say many americans voted for Bush it doesn't mean at least 3 voted. And it appears to me that you only want to find a reason to remove the sourced material. I changed the heading of the section. --Aminz 08:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, would someone be willing to share the relevant Schimmel passage in full?Proabivouac 09:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess Itaqallah added it, so he might have access to the source. I don't. --Aminz 09:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aminz, it is unfortunate that you have abandoned the talk and resorted to disruptive edit-warring. I'm willing to offer a compromise. Both the flawed Nasr quotes can stay with the title on that section changed. As for the rest my position is as above.Arrow740 10:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have not abandoned talk page. You have not provided any new argument. --Aminz 10:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would be happy if some other people read my arguments and what you wrote and gave an opinion on the acceptability of the material in question. Arrow740 10:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proabivouac, i believe i quoted the passage above. "We're under no obligation to include false statements." and you're in no position to judge what is or isn't false, Arrow. as for "disruptive edit-warring," you have been doing so simultaneously over numerous articles, including this one. thus, such wikilawyering is needless. as for Hibri, we have already shown several times why she is competent in the field of Islamic law and jurisprudence, and her resume provides ample proof. ITAQALLAH 15:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There are of course other issues above besides her. Arrow740 11:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *the Fordham International law journal is an entirely appropriate publisher for this subject. since when wasn't Islamic law a sub-category of law? it doesn't specialise in "Western" law, it deals with all types of foreign and international legal systems, and evidently that includes Islamic law. furthermore, that she teaches at recognised institutions and has received prestigious awards (i.e. the Fulbright Award (which is a scholarship) from the University of Qatar's Sharia school) on the subjects, and has her work on Islamic law published by numerous reputed presses, merely points further towards her obvious pedigree. attempts to dismiss these points remain unconvincing and ineffective. ITAQALLAH 16:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain why she is any way qualified to speak about Islam and slavery and whether there is anyone out there who shares her views. Beit Or 21:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: she is qualified to speak on Islamic jurisprudence, and in this case on what Islamic jurisprudence says about slavery. ITAQALLAH 22:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Her hypothetical assertion based on flawed logic has no place here. "a contemporary scholar on Islamic civilization, asserts that because the status of slave under Islam could only be obtained through either being a prisoner of war (this was soon restricted only to infidels captured in a holy war) or born from slave parents, slavery would be theoretically abolished with the expansion of Islam" is just wrong. Slave breading like in Rome and America after the end of the trans-atlantic supply just becomes the order of the day. Not to mention the problem proving you are not owned or muslim on muslim jihad. Also its a cheap attempt to make it the slaves fault for being slaves! why i hear you ask? because if they were muslims the poor slave owner wouldn't be forced to wage jihad on them and enslave them. It's just plain insulting! Hypnosadist 23:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: i don't see any issue that has "been decided", except by your self. the journal is maintained by students and overseen by academics, the scholars who contribute to the journal are not necessarily students themselves. regardless, the journal is regarded as academic and prestigious. ans as we already know, al-Hibri is more than qualified enough to speak on the issue. ITAQALLAH 00:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I elucidated above, according to usual definitions of qualifications (not that you pay particular attention to standard definitions of words) she doesn't seem to have any. Arrow740 01:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: her resume suggests otherwise. in both instances you cite, you were incorrect. ITAQALLAH 01:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need an outside opinion. The summer school in Bahrain or wherever seems to be her only training in an Islam-related area. I wonder if she presented herself in Arabia the way she looks in the picture. Arrow740 01:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: we already had one the last time we discussed the issue, namely Merzbow's. ITAQALLAH 01:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Merzbow is a Saudi Agent (just kidding). Seriously, I guess I'll file an RfC or something. It is better to have something conclusive. Arrow740 01:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the situation for law journal is unique in that the most prestigious of them are, in fact, run by students. The FILJ page claims that "According to a study made by Washington and Lee University, Fordham International Law Journal was the number 5 most cited international and comparative law journal in the world." And the Harvard Law Review is also student-run; I'm not even a lawyer and I've heard of this famous and prestigious journal many times. It would be interesting to get an opinion by a lawyer to either back this up or not. In fact, I believe well-known user  is a lawyer, I'll drop him a note. - Merzbow 02:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are these students supposed to know about Islam? Arrow740 02:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Newyorkbrad has agreed with me that notable law journals are, in fact, student run. We can speculate about what they may and may not know about Islam, but the reliability of the publication has been conclusively established now. - Merzbow 03:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well. Now, are we to take it to be a reliable source for any subject the board cares to publish about? Arrow740 03:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not, if they publish an editorial on wine criticism it certainly won't be notable. But I think the subject of Islamic jurisprudence is close enough. I don't think law review journals are restricted to publishing only about American legal topics. - Merzbow 05:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Islamic jurisprudence is fundamentally different from secular law because the source documents are religious. These student editors were in no position to evaluate al-Hibri's paper. Arrow740 19:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: * She is specialized in Islamic jurispundence and teaches course on that in University of Richmond. She is also a former professor of philosophy. (Her area of speciality is "Comparative legal theory (especially Islamic-American in areas of human rights, and constitutional, contractual, and family law), Human rights (especially Muslim women's rights), Islamic jurisprudence,..." 
* She guest-edited a special volume on Islam for the Journal of Law and Religion. 
* She has written a lot on Islam, e.g. the book "Sex, Marriage and Family in World Religions Columbia University Press"; "The Nature of the Islamic Marriage: Sacramental, Covenantal, or Contractual,"
* In her website she putted the source we want to use "An Islamic Perspective on Domestic Violence," 27 Fordham International Law Journal 195 (December 2003)." as a featured publication of her.
* She has been a visiting scholar at "Harvard Divinity School and Center for the Study of World Religions"
--Aminz 10:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are of course other issues above besides her. Arrow740 11:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *the Fordham International law journal is an entirely appropriate publisher for this subject. since when wasn't Islamic law a sub-category of law? it doesn't specialise in "Western" law, it deals with all types of foreign and international legal systems, and evidently that includes Islamic law. furthermore, that she teaches at recognised institutions and has received prestigious awards (i.e. the Fulbright Award (which is a scholarship) from the University of Qatar's Sharia school) on the subjects, and has her work on Islamic law published by numerous reputed presses, merely points further towards her obvious pedigree. attempts to dismiss these points remain unconvincing and ineffective. ITAQALLAH 16:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain why she is any way qualified to speak about Islam and slavery and whether there is anyone out there who shares her views. Beit Or 21:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: she is qualified to speak on Islamic jurisprudence, and in this case on what Islamic jurisprudence says about slavery. ITAQALLAH 22:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Her hypothetical assertion based on flawed logic has no place here. "a contemporary scholar on Islamic civilization, asserts that because the status of slave under Islam could only be obtained through either being a prisoner of war (this was soon restricted only to infidels captured in a holy war) or born from slave parents, slavery would be theoretically abolished with the expansion of Islam" is just wrong. Slave breading like in Rome and America after the end of the trans-atlantic supply just becomes the order of the day. Not to mention the problem proving you are not owned or muslim on muslim jihad. Also its a cheap attempt to make it the slaves fault for being slaves! why i hear you ask? because if they were muslims the poor slave owner wouldn't be forced to wage jihad on them and enslave them. It's just plain insulting! Hypnosadist 23:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: i don't see any issue that has "been decided", except by your self. the journal is maintained by students and overseen by academics, the scholars who contribute to the journal are not necessarily students themselves. regardless, the journal is regarded as academic and prestigious. ans as we already know, al-Hibri is more than qualified enough to speak on the issue. ITAQALLAH 00:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I elucidated above, according to usual definitions of qualifications (not that you pay particular attention to standard definitions of words) she doesn't seem to have any. Arrow740 01:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: her resume suggests otherwise. in both instances you cite, you were incorrect. ITAQALLAH 01:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need an outside opinion. The summer school in Bahrain or wherever seems to be her only training in an Islam-related area. I wonder if she presented herself in Arabia the way she looks in the picture. Arrow740 01:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: we already had one the last time we discussed the issue, namely Merzbow's. ITAQALLAH 01:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Merzbow is a Saudi Agent (just kidding). Seriously, I guess I'll file an RfC or something. It is better to have something conclusive. Arrow740 01:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the situation for law journal is unique in that the most prestigious of them are, in fact, run by students. The FILJ page claims that "According to a study made by Washington and Lee University, Fordham International Law Journal was the number 5 most cited international and comparative law journal in the world." And the Harvard Law Review is also student-run; I'm not even a lawyer and I've heard of this famous and prestigious journal many times. It would be interesting to get an opinion by a lawyer to either back this up or not. In fact, I believe well-known user  is a lawyer, I'll drop him a note. - Merzbow 02:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are these students supposed to know about Islam? Arrow740 02:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Newyorkbrad has agreed with me that notable law journals are, in fact, student run. We can speculate about what they may and may not know about Islam, but the reliability of the publication has been conclusively established now. - Merzbow 03:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well. Now, are we to take it to be a reliable source for any subject the board cares to publish about? Arrow740 03:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not, if they publish an editorial on wine criticism it certainly won't be notable. But I think the subject of Islamic jurisprudence is close enough. I don't think law review journals are restricted to publishing only about American legal topics. - Merzbow 05:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Islamic jurisprudence is fundamentally different from secular law because the source documents are religious. These student editors were in no position to evaluate al-Hibri's paper. Arrow740 19:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments why [[Azizah Y. al-Hibri]] is a reliable source 

message: It is strange that Aminz views stating the facts about Islam and slavery in a neutral manner makes this article critical of Islam. When stating the facts seems like criticism, that becomes time for critical thinking. 
 The slavery in the Arab World in the 19th century has been documented by Dr. Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje, an Arabist and a scholar of Indonesian affairs, who had visited Mecca during his journey in the Hijaz. He states in his book Mohammedanism that "Slaves in the Arab world are generally not that different from servants and workers in Europe” and that their masters “handled them with a genial humanity that made their lot no worse - perhaps better, as more secure - than that of a factory worker in nineteenth-century Europe."  Hurgronje, 
This does not belong in the lead paragraph. Perhaps another place can be found for a summary of this, perhaps not. This article is not a place to put everything that one could use to rationalize divine sanction of the evil institution. 
Also regarding 4:92, replacing "Muslim" with "believer" removes argument that original research is being conducted. Arrow740 19:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find the quote in the source. The source instead says:"There is perhaps no nation where the captives, the slaves, the very toilers in the galleys are better provided for or treated with more kindness than among the Muhammedans." In general case, due to the negative bias of 19th century scholar regarding Islam, we should only use recent sources. --Aminz 22:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The quote could be even back up with the views of Jewish/Zionist scholars like Stillman and  Lewis. --Aminz 22:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Though Muslims use the word Zionist to avoid claims of antisemitism the word Jewish is still the prefereable term for those people. Arrow740 23:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Aminz, I'm really surprised by your choice of language here. It makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist. What has "Zionism" to do with Islam and slavery anyhow? Pretty much nothing.Proabivouac 00:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wanted to add this to the "Islam and Antisemitism" article and mistakenly added it here. Sorry. --Aminz 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wrong article again, Aminz? Arrow740 00:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I repeat my comment:"I couldn't find the quote in the source. The source instead says:"There is perhaps no nation where the captives, the slaves, the very toilers in the galleys are better provided for or treated with more kindness than among the Muhammedans." In general case, due to the negative bias of 19th century scholar regarding Islam, we should only use recent sources." --Aminz 00:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So what do you want from me? Arrow740 00:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are two problems. 1. The source for "Slaves in the Arab world are generally not that different from servants and workers in Europe" 2. Usage of a 19th century scholar. --Aminz 00:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. I took out that paragraph from the intro that someone else had put in. I don't have the book. Is it available online? 2. I hear your opinion on this. Arrow740 00:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you please check the presented source http://www.al-islam.org/slavery/3.htm#n21 It says quite the opposite thing: "There is perhaps no nation where the captives, the slaves, the very toilers in the galleys are better provided for or treated with more kindness than among the Muhammedans." --Aminz 00:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright, so let's keep it out of the article until it is verified. Maybe someone can get the book with the Hurgronye quote. Arrow740 00:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So please keep it out.  --Aminz 00:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am the one who removed it. Arrow740 00:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am refering to this edit. --Aminz 01:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Me too. I did two things in that edit. Arrow740 02:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologetics 

message: Malik ibn Anas, vol. 2, page 155 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidYork71 (talk • contribs) 
:please stop inserting original research. ITAQALLAH 17:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't removed sourced material without discussion. Arrow740 17:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: being sourced doesn't save it from being original research. besides, i have discussed it. ITAQALLAH 17:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is sourced and topical it is not OR. What are your specific issues regarding this article? Arrow740 18:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this edit is OR. ITAQALLAH 18:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose you're right, you can revert back to the bot. Arrow740 18:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference for forced marriage of slaves 

message: Can someone please summerize these and add to the article whenever he is free:
Sikainga states: 
:"The Quran admonishes the owner to treat the slaves well, and provide them with medical care when required as well as with adequate upkeep. If the owner fails to meet these obligations, the qadi (Muslim judge) can compel him/her to fulfil them or else either to sell or emancipate the slave. The owner is forbidden to overwork the slave, and if s/he does so to the point of cruelty, s/he is liable to incur a penalty that is, however, discretionary and not prescribed by law."
:"Islam encouraged manumission (Arabic ‘itq) and provided several procedures to facilitate it. The first method is mukataba, or a contract of manumission between the owner and the slave, whereby the latter would pay the former a fixed sum of money. The second is tadbir, by which the owner would declare that a slave would be freed after the owner’s death. A third method is a verbal proclamation by the owner that a slave is free. Fourth, a slave could be freed as a kafara or penance for accidental homicide, breaking an oath, or other offenses."
--Aminz 08:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions 

message: Arrow, I think Sikainga's point was a general description of the Qur'anic conception of slavery. I think we should start a new paragraph for that cause it is different from other verses dealing with specific verses. In his article, Sikainga starts with this and then goes into specific details later. Would you please let me know why you moved it to the end of the article . Thanks --Aminz 23:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How? --Aminz 01:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the verses there are of a legal nature. His comment should probably be removed altogether since it is incorrect. Arrow740 02:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arrow, he says that verses are mainly of ethical nature and it is attributed to him. BTW, in the article, he has an stress on that poiny putting it as "It is important to note that ..."--Aminz 02:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But the verses discussed in this article are mostly of a legal nature. Arrow740 02:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, Arrow, the "see also" for "Slavery in the Qur'an" is "Slavery in the Bible" and not in religion. --Aminz 01:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to draw the reader's attention to the Bible there. Arrow740 02:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is seealso. "Slavery in the Qur'an", "Slavery in the Bible" belong to the same category--Aminz 02:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll defer to you until I see what it's like in other articles. It seems like defensive writing to me. Arrow740 02:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The quranic verses need to be fixed using the  template.--Sefringle 02:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavery in the Qur'an 

message: By contributions and changes I've effected today there are some significant changes to the structure, which I relate for you below:
Contents [hide]
1 Reforming character of Islamic slavery 
2 Pre-Islamic slavery 
3 Slavery in the Qur'an and Sunnah 
4 Islamic jurisprudence 
4.1 Enslavement 
4.2 Means of emancipation 
4.3 Prerogatives of masters over slaves 
4.4 Obligations of masters to slaves 
4.5 Legal disabilities and dispensations of slaves 
5 History of slavery under Islamic rule 
5.1 The 'Islamic' slave trade 
5.2 19th century and post 19th century 
5.3 20th century suppression and outlawry 
6 Contemporary slavery in the Islamic world 
6.1 Contemporary Islamic juridical support for slavery 
6.2 Islamically-inspired resurgence of slavery in contemporary Africa 
6.2.1 Slavery in Sudan 
6.2.2 Islamic slavery elsewhere in Africa 
6.2.3 Disputation about the plight of slaves and official government denials 
you will see that 1, 4.3-4.5, 5, 5.3, 6.2 and 6.2.2 are new headings
The lead is a single paragraph with much of the former lead under the first para. I would propose renomination for GA, but also would propose to introduce picture content of Islamic slaves and slave traders past and present .. particularly sudan.  I can certainly find Sudan pictures but will take time for copyright clearing.
Please comment about the logical treatment of the subject matter in the scheme of content headings about. Any proposals for new headings or subheadings, moves, or mergings. Does it make sense and proceed logically and cover everything as good as or better than before. Please also note my newest contributions of the material for 4.3-4.5, 5.3 and 6.2.2.
DavidYork71 05:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformed structure, new content, propose renomination for GA 

message: DavidYork71 05:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Nom done by me today under 'Social sciences - Miscellaneous nominations' 

message: The issues in the top banner need to be fixed and a citation added to the statement with the citation needed template after it. Unless these two things are addressed, somebody may quick-fail it. --Nehrams2020 05:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA comment

message: Any objections in the next 48-72 hours?
DavidYork71 12:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there are far too many edits which are extremely tendentious and original research, as well as unilaterally enforced. there does seem to be some reasonable material here and there, but within the sea of unencyclopedic writing it seems a rarity. also, please don't flood up the history by making volumes of seperate edits. ITAQALLAH 23:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Itaqallah, I agree with your comments on the removal of the tag, except not your comment about not filling up the edit history. I would MUCH rather prefer small incremental changes that are explained in detail with each edit summary. Some one-off changes are so massive that it took me ten minutes to go through very carefully with a fine tooth comb. On the contrary, a detailed incremental edit history is very important for a clearly contentious topic as this one. Ie, look at this . ????  regards Merbabu 23:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that edit was pretty much a revert to his version. i've been told that flooding the history page wastes wiki resources. also see Template:Preview. ITAQALLAH 23:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok - i understand the argument that it stretches wiki resources, but in an edit war it will just have to be excused. Although I do agree with you that might simple non controversial fix of spelling which was one at a time, could have been done a bit more efficiently. As for saying that the reversion to his version it merely begs the question 'which version' - ie, it's unclear and 'opposing' editors can just get confused and grumpy. Merbabu 23:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose remove NPOV dispute tags 

message: Quick failed because of NPOV tag, obviously, the concerns above have not been adequately addressed, removal of the tag won't do that. Sorry. Good luck with the article.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 12:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Fail

message: *This article  is written in the passive voice as if Islam  accepts slavery, like there is not difference of opinion on it.
*There are Hadith that condemn slavery. Why are they not here?
*Why is the Quranic notion of slavery only to Allah not mentioned?
*Why is it when the Wahabi Salih al-Fawzaa's "affirmation of slavery" is mentioned from his rant "Taming a Neo-Qutubite Fanatic" that it is not mentioned that "Qutubite" refers to Syed Qutb followers of the Muslim Brotherhood and used as a slur against modern Islamists by Wahabis? i.e Islamists; currently the largest political leaning in the Muslim world, and the MB being the largest Islamic group globally and in Egypt + Sudan, believe Islam banned slavery. 
* There needs to be some quotes from islamic scholars that abhor slavery
* This article should be sourced and used more to add to the article. Aaliyah Stevens 10:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too much original research to merit a response. Beit Or 23:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Right on the spot, HS DavidYork71 03:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Slavery Hadith and Scholarly statements

message: NPOV and OR are tagged at the head of this article currently. Any objection to removal?
DavidYork71 02:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must be kidding given the current dispute. --Aminz 03:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He seems to operate in his own little world. Merbabu 04:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then describe the justification for maintaining. Is there any remaining aspect of the subject not yet covered in the article? DavidYork71 04:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's got nothing to do with items uncovered. I can't believe you need it explained. Read the tags - 'neutrality', 'original research' and 'unattributed claims' - and then consider the CONTINUING edits over the last week. it is your contributions more than any others that are at the centre of this dispute. Do you seriously believe these aspects are not in serious dispute? Merbabu 04:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current tagging 

message: this is a classic violation of WP:SYN, using two seperate sources to forward an assertion supported by neither:
:According to Australian social historian Robert Hughes (writing for Time Magazine), slavery in Africa has been dominated by Arabs. ""Slave markets, supplying the Arab emirates, were still operating in Djibouti in the 1950s; and since 1960, the slave trade has flourished in (the Islamic Republic of) Mauritania and the Sudan. There are still reports of chattel slavery in northern Nigeria, Rwanda and Niger."  The Republic of Sudan has been governed under the implementation of Islamic sharia since 1983.
it falsely assumes that all Arabs must be Muslim, and that any enslavement on their part must be Islamically-motivated, when the times article claims nothing of the sort, and neither does the citation to an obscure website. ITAQALLAH 07:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed... he even had the temerity to rewrite the quote he cited and add "(the Islamic Republic of)", which wasn't in the Time article at all. Also, what happened to section header 5.1? It's blank. - Merzbow 07:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: . ITAQALLAH 07:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: DavidYork71 you can not change the inside of quotes! Hypnosadist 07:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed. I'd frankly be surprised were there not a source which (rightly or wrongly) draws this connection, but we are rightly forbidden from imposing it ourselves.Proabivouac 07:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  disputed passage 

message: This introduction, which Aaliyah Stevens wrote, and Bless sins restored, is palpably tendentious as well as factually incorrect ("and over this time, according to most Islamic scholars, slavery was phased out.") Also quite ridiculous, "...by those who didn't uphold the principles..." I invite everyone to bear in mind WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox, WP:NOR: it does not fall upon us (that means all/any of us) to decide and declare what Islam “really” is.Proabivouac 07:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully concur. Facts and article do not bear out its content. See item 62 for an alternative introduction drafted by me.DavidYork71 07:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Phased out'. How does that explain 3-4 centuries of the Atlantic slave trave as against fourteen centuries of enslaving Africans for the Islamic world .. eventually arrested through the campaigning of Christian abolitionists (William Wilberforce et al.)?DavidYork71 15:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: http://www.swahilionline.com/features/articles/islam/binsumet2.htm Please read what makes a notable and reliable source Aaliyah. Hypnosadist 09:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am surprised that someone with a doctorate in Kalam and Fiqh would see fit to consult such a source.Proabivouac 16:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tendentious edits

message: I have noted the view of Aaliyah Stevens. Does any find that it adds more to content than it takes away from in style to have variants of the same saying (as follows) reiterated in two adjoining paragraphs early on: "There are three categories of people against whom I shall myself be a plaintiff on the Day of Judgement. Of these three, one is he who enslaves a free man, then sells him and eats this money".  I would have this said once and really question the need for it to be commented on twice in ways that aren't nuanced from each other.DavidYork71 15:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetitions - or not? 

message: Once again, the article has been POV-tagged without the tagger specifying the underlying POV concerns on talk.  I'm removing.  Whenever a POV tag is applied it is imperative to start a talkpage item headed 'NPOV' and listing the specific points of concern so each can be examined and tested in turn. Otherwise the tag just sits there (on some pages, somewhat indefinitely) as evidence that some reader simply doesn't like what a subject reveals about a person, people, movement or organisation. We don't just tag items as some sort of a protest action and not contribute to the process of examining and developing the article.DavidYork71 10:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tagging concerns previously raised (see 69 above) have been addressed:
1.difference of opinion among Islamic Scholars not noted. 
has been noted
2.Hadith that condemn slavery not there? 
yes. Now see under Qutb, Mawdidi, al-Nabhani
3. Why is the Quranic notion of slavery only to Allah not mentioned?
this article is not about that. It's about slavery 
4. Qutb not referred to
he is now 
5. There needs to be some quotes from islamic scholars that abhor slavery 
once again: Qutb et al. See 2 above 
6. Comparison with Atlantic and European slave trade
this have been covered
7. Islam 'phased out' slavery
unsustainable when it continued for 1000 years, still exists today and legal abolition was achieved through a movement foreign an inimical to Islamic slavery permissions 
8. WORLDNETDAILY.com not reliable
relevant article authored by a PhD
So I would be removing the tagging unless and until someone comes to talk again listing and specifying any remaining points of POV-coverage contention DavidYork71 12:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "WORLDNETDAILY.com" Looked through the article and could not find it, could one of you post it here so i can look at it as Worldnet often uses AP and other RS's and generates its own notable content but not everthing on it can be used in wikipedia. Hypnosadist 11:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging 

message: Merging would seem to lose a lot of content about the slave trade (1000yrs plus), legal position of slaves, enslavement in Sudan, and the plight of subsequent generations of slaves who are born into servitude under Islam without any participation in armed conflict. Topic is big enough to generate independent interest and invite specialist coverage, just like Christianity and slavery DavidYork71 11:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose that suggestion too. The article obviously discuss a separate and important issue. -- Karl Meier 16:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose, as above.Hypnosadist 09:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: by me DavidYork71 06:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please stop renominating the article for GA while there remains evident editorial dispute. ITAQALLAH 06:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing stopping this article from GA is reactionary pov-tagging because of what it, or a section of it, reveals about Islam on this subject. Almost every time I've seen a POV tag on this article I've followed the link to the associated talk page discussion and found .. no associated discussion.  It's the responsibility of any tagger to specify on talk what particular areas they feel has not been covered. Also, an article can't be GA-reviewed by someone who's been a contributor. What aspect of the legal status of slaves is claimed to be unrepresented? After this long it should be capable of being expressed in words.DavidYork71 07:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: another condition is that the article must be stable, which it is not. a quick review of the GA criteria reveals that the article is some distance away from attaining them. especially when there is editorial dispute over various sections of this page, as demonstrated above, simply removing the tags to obscure the fact there is a dispute will not hasten the article becoming a GA. ITAQALLAH 07:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DavidYork, i would invite you to self revert as per WP:3RR. ITAQALLAH 07:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my talk at #25. If the term 'legal disability' isn't an acceptable descriptor of the converse of 'legal dispensation' then what would you otherwise propose?DavidYork71 08:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that's strange... i see no "dispensations" in that section... ITAQALLAH 08:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article GA-nommed

message: This article is needs a lot of work before it is up to GA standards. 
#Well written. Immediately the lede jumped out as a warning flag. It is too long and just does not adhere to WP:LEDE. Overall, the writing in this article is inconsistant in quality and needs much work and copyediting.
#Factually accurate and verifiable. Reasonably good use of citations throughout. Still needs to be more completely cited however.
#Broad in its coverage. Seems to cover all the bases, though some more information about the explicit legality of slavery as appropriate would be desirable.
#Neutral point of view policy. This article is clearly tagged for NPOV and thus fails this criteria off the bat.
#Stable. Ongoing edit and NPOV disputes clearly fail this article.
#Images. No use of images.
This article plainly fails the GA criteria. Please work to improve the article and resolve the various disputes before listing this article again. Vassyana 13:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review (Failed) 

message: Levy uses the term at p.77 of his work in the following context:"The legal disabilities of slaves in Islam arise from the fact that in theory they have no more rights than other chattels. On this question the schools of law are substantially in agreement, and the authorities quoted in what follows are taken at random from any school, only divergencies being noted."DavidYork71 14:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the POV tag was there as it mentioned exclusively disabilities without mentioning apparent "dispensations", thus unbalancing the section. ITAQALLAH 16:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I should remove then because it does describe the dispensation of halved punishment. It would also refer to mukataba if that wasn't already covered adequately elsewhereDavidYork71 10:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriateness of term 'legal disabilities' w.r.t. situation of slaves 

message: 1. former lead was 'too long' and not achieving objectives outlined in 'WP:LEAD'
2. NPOV tagging. Any future tagging must propose its reasons so they can be addressed and not leave editors guessing about the POV existing and claimed uncovered or underrepresented
3. Needs copyediting to improve consistency of writing
4. Images not used well enough
5. Otherwise citations good and coverage sufficient. 
There are a number of images here that would be appropriate to use here to improve on the fourth point, but clearance required. Can an 1890 image be used freely?DavidYork71 14:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key points from GA review 

message: At GA review just completed the present lead was reviewed as a major problem because 'too long and just does not adhere to WP:LEDE'. Below is my proposal of a lead that is more apt. Please vote in support/opposition and make comments about how we might achieve a better lead to take this to GA. (text follows}
Bold textIslam and slavery have a long history of accommodation defined by the existence of the Islamic (or 'Arab' or 'Oriental') slave trade for over a thousand years until early last century. The subject has modern relevance because, despite official proscriptions, Islamically-condoned slavery (or at least slavery asserted as such) is still practised in Africa - notably in Sudan since the reimposition of sharia, and in the Islamic Republic of Mauritania. The subject describes a tension between the goals of the modern abolitionist movement and contrary outcomes tolerated by Islam, especially with respect to the circumstance of young children 'born into' slavery.   
-    
- It is also true that in the latter half of the last century a number of Islamic countries were among the last in the world to formally disavow and repudiate slavery, while the toleration for slavery practices still seen in parts the Islamic world draws some of its support from pronouncements by influential Sunni religious scholars on the subject of Islamic permissions for its continuance. The anti-slavery pronouncements of certain other influential Islamic scholars and schools of thought are also noted.   
-    
- As a historical fact and a modern reality the accommodation of slavery within Islam is a rich subject with some interesting variances between the main traditional schools of Islamic thought (madhhabs).    
-    
- Finally, Islamic slavery has, - with respect to racial equality and the social mobility of slaves and former slaves - produced some commendable outcomes at least in comparison with slavery practised elsewhere in the world Bold textDavidYork71 04:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: David York, one of the criterions for GA articles is stability, i.e. lack of edit-warring. --Aminz 04:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well i'm afraid the lead can't stay 'stable' if it's the first reason offered why whole article can't meet GA.DavidYork71 04:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as I know edit warring was the first reason for having this article de-listed. --Aminz 04:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at the last GA-review just recently.  There's 1)reactionary pov-tagging without corresponding pov discussion being raised on talk. 2)lead too long and totally ineffective. 3)images not used (i've recently added two), and 4)copyediting required.  I'd say the copyediting starts with that intro, and future POV-tagging  needs to target specific sections and be corroborated with reasons, examples and suggestions on talk. DavidYork71 05:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this article is not neutral, not to speak of passing all GA criteria --Aminz 05:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The POV of those scholars (all of the four main madhhabs) who say that slavery remains allowable under Islam is covered, as well as those innovators who say that it isn't. What other POV do you want covered or treated in greater detail?DavidYork71 05:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.(from policy)DavidYork71 06:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformed lead to meet GA Criteria 

message: please provide reasons on talk and your reform suggestions to overcome the non-neutral or 'favouritist' POV perceived. If not, as always, i'll untag.  It makes me sound like a termagent, but I shouldn't have to ask for you to do this, it should have been done routinely as a matter of courtesy and explanation. 
ps. does anyone have/can obtain pictures of islamic slavery scenes that are free images with copyright clearance?DavidYork71 06:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See your talk page for my suggestions. Merbabu 11:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whoever pov-tagged most recently 

message: "There are three whose prayer will not be accepted, nor their virtues be taken above: The runaway slave until he returns back to his master, the woman with whom her husband is dissatisfied, and the drunk until he becomes sober. Suyuti, commenting on Q. 4:34, see also Mishkat al-Masabih, English translation, Book I, Hadith No. ii, 74DavidYork71 09:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condemnation of those who take their own freedom 

message: Maybe this selection of articles from the BBC on modern slavery will help the Contemporary slavery in the Muslim world section.  Hypnosadist 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern Slavery

message: Lots left. Arrow740 03:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the lead section could be broken into smaller paragraphs... It looks kind of bulky for a lead, which I believe should be a bit more of a concise summary ? And is the thing about conservative quran interpreters even true?  How can there still be Islamic slavery if that is true. Can someone check that ? --ProtectWomen 06:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not true. Arrow740 06:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can't be true when directly controverted by references in the article from Shaykh Saleh al-Fawzan, Gordon, Shaikh Saad Al-Buraik, Dr. Kwaku Person-Lynn, Imam El Hassan Ould Benyamin, Dr. Abdul-Latif Mushtahari, Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri, and Clarence-Smith (speaking of Qutb and Mawdudi), as well as the evidence from Chad, Sudan and Mauritania. I will remove.DavidYork71 06:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work on the rewrite and re-org all round, Arrow and Protect. I still view the lead as a stinker, tho. It needs to be changed/trimmed for GA and I have put my suggested alternative above.DavidYork71 06:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea that a conservative Quranic scholar would declare that something Muhammad actively engaged in is opposed to Quranic principles is laughable. More proof that the EoQ is not as reliable a publication as the EoI. Arrow740 06:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You must be kidding. Article written by Jonathan Brockopp, professor of History and Religious Studies, in Encyclopedia of the Qur'an is not a reliable source? --Aminz 07:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No we're not kidding. We gave specific arguments why he is wrong. You might want to respond to them. Arrow740 08:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arrow, I don't have to explain to you. Wikipedia is not about finding truth. It is about verfiability. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution : The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true.  Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. --Aminz 08:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "i think he's wrong, so his opinions must be removed" - that is known on wikipedia as tendentious editing. ITAQALLAH 12:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  And why Murray Gordon is a reliable source? --Aminz 07:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  He's a professor of public policy. Slavery as conceived of and regulated by the socio-political Islam falls under the purview of such a person. He is in fact an excellent source. That's not to mention the publishers. Arrow740 08:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Professor of public policy in where(link to his webpage or other places please)? What are the publishers and what are they peer-reviewed. What is his speciality: Public policy is expressed in the body of laws, regulations, decisions and actions of government. Why does he have speciality in Islam. --Aminz 08:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the removed source was suggesting that the slave could accumulate property and choose any employment, then it's also contradicted by Levy. Slaves could have that only after a mukataba was granted for them. We mustn't represent a source in as much as its clearly mistaken or inaccurate about such points.DavidYork71 01:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't get the relevance of your comment to the reliability of the source in question. Arrow is using a source and he claims the author is a professor of public policy. He needs to find a reliable source for his claim and then if true, justifies how a professor of public policy is a reliable source on Islam. --Aminz 01:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  First, I'd like to ask if you have any reason to disbelieve any of his statements. Now, he is a professor (see page 9) at the Austrian Diplomatic Academy, which according to our article and their website instruct on history, diplomacy, law, economics, and politics. He contributes to journals put out by an institute for policy research. He is clearly qualified to study the matter of the social and political instution of slavery and the laws and regulations regarding it in a society. He is also clearly qualified to study policy making of law-givers. This is not to mention that his book has been published by what appears to be (we went over this) a reputable French publisher. His book was then translated and published by a reputable American publisher. I am afraid that you will be unable to appeal to the guideline WP:RS to censor him here, especially in light of the fact that we are quoting Azizah al-Hibri. Arrow740 03:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To Do

message: This article is heavily full of original research. After having examined just the imagery alone there are several examples of this. One image that I've just removed was labeled, "Probably a photography of slaves in chains, probably somewhere in East-Africa". Unacceptable. The soapboxing that has gone into this article is equally unacceptable.  01:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Netscott, please don't make unspecific accusations. That doesn't do any good. Arrow740 02:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The photo you're talking of was cited here in exactly the same fashion it's cited in Arab slave trade with nobody having a problem with it. Islamic permissions for slave trade and the section on the Islamic slave trade are an important part of the subject and this article.DavidYork71 01:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While somewhat related to Islam you should know David York that Arab slave trade≠Muslim slave trade. Your editing is highly problematic in this regard.  01:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Arab slave trade grows out of permissions from Islam for the ownership and trafficking of slaves. That's why it's treated in this article and documented with appropriate pictures. Further, East African slave trade became exclusive to Islamic traders after the proscription of slavery and slave trading by European nations in the first half of the 19th century. That's why the 1890 photo of the boy slave from Zanzibar is apt. In the case of Zanzibar, until 1898, slavery and slave trading was condoned by an Islamic ruler - the Sultan.DavidYork71 02:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are extending this to qualify an image you want to include here when you have zeo reliable sources saying this is what the image represents? It appears that as an editor you have much to learn. Doing this type of editing is original research. Without a source you are the one saying that the image represents an Islamic slave. Do you not understand that?  02:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. David, did you check the book the image came from, and verify that the book claims it is a picture of actual slaves who were owned by Muslims? If yes, then the picture stays. If no, then the picture has to go until you can prove the cite is relevant. - Merzbow 02:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:OR|original research]] [[WP:NOT#SOAPBOX|soapboxing]]

message: Could you please explain why the following source is reliable? Thanks.
# Segal, Ronald (2001). Islam's Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 
--Aminz 09:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:RS 

message: That sentence does not belong in the lead. We have removed a reference to racist theologians which is not elaborated on in the body, we should remove that sentence as well. Another problem is that the things which Muhammad supposedly abolished (and I have yet to verify this) were not prevalent according to the EoI so this is a red herring. Arrow740 20:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third sentence

message: Does anyone have a reason for it? Arrow740 03:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Arrow740 07:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because the tags are showing existence of active disputes.--Aminz 07:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag is supposed to show that someone is disputing the neutrality of the article. If no one disputes it here, the tag should go. Arrow740 07:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By your removal of POV tag, you seem to want to unilaterally force your own decisions. Or do you want to be reverted? Why don't you address the concerns I stated in the next section? --Aminz 09:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: At the end of 19th century a dramatic shift in Muslim thought occurred and today Islamists regard slavery as opposed to Islamic principles of justice, equality, and contrary the reported statements (hadith) of Muhammad (see . I'll look for Brockopp's article (in the Encyclopedia of Islam?), but I think we need to expand on this somewhere, if not in the introduction. I would like to know the reasoning that led scholars to conclude slavery as practiced by the prophet and his companions was okay, but slavery after 1900 (or 1970) was contrary to Islamic principles. Tom Harrison Talk 13:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sort of a throwaway comment at the end of the EoQ article. He doesn't back it up. There is no way that this statement should be in the intro. Arrow740 19:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Prophet', give us a break. The only prediction he ever got right in his life was to say that Rome would win a battle nor did he predict his own death well enough to have clearly identified his successor beyond dispute. But about slavery being 'contrary to Islamic principles after 1970' I don't see any of the happy slaves in Mauritania, Chad and Sudan today finding any agreement with you there. Look in the 'Islamist opinions' to find multiple references to scholars on the subject affirming the allowability of it in circumstances'DavidYork71 19:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please see WP:SOAPBOX. ITAQALLAH 20:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely not, see Usul al-fiqh. Arrow740 20:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it just me or does it strike others as rather simplistic to attribute these "modern" examples of slavery to Islam? Look at this section of the Joseph Kony article. He is the leader of the Lord's Resistance Army. If we follow the simplistic logic here then we could equally apply it to his "Army"'s enslavement of over 20,000 children and label it as "Christian slavery".  19:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are using Christianity as a justification, go ahead. It looks to me like the answer is 'no, Islam does not prohibit slavery, but the governments of all majority-Muslim countries do.' But I ask to know; maybe there is something analogous to In Supremo Apostolatus that declares slavery inconsistent with Islam. If so, let's say so and include it. If not, let's take out the sentence about the dramatic shift in Muslim thought. Tom Harrison Talk 20:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tom, I think the question of "Does Islam allow for slavery" is not a correct question. One might ask "Which interpretations of Islam allow for slavery and which don't". What are the arguments. EoQ states: "the institution of slavery changed dramatically in the seventh and eighth centuries c.e.: tens of thousands of captured slaves poured into Damascus and other urban centers, and Mecca (q.v.) and Medina (q.v.) became important centers of the luxury slave trade. The earliest legal texts have expansive chapters on slavery and manumission that depend very little on the Qurʾān. Pre-modern Islamic civilizations, with their eunuchs, slave armies and slave dynasties, were even further removed from qurʾānic concerns. 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, while others argue that the Qurʾān's original intent, properly understood, was to eliminate slavery altogether" --Aminz 22:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Every scholar says that slavery is portrayed in the Quran as divinely ordained. Every single one. Furthermore, every interpreter will say that Muhammad's actions are the standard for all time. Arrow740 23:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you Aminz; I have not yet been able to find a copy of the EoQ/EoI, so I'm glad to be able to read some of it. I would like us to be able to say, "All mainstream contemporary Islamic scholars teach that it is a sin to own or trade in slaves today." If that is not the case, we may have to make a more 'nuanced' statement which, speaking bluntly, will not reflect as favorably on contemporary Islam. Not that it's my goal to present Islam either favorably or unfavorably, but to accurately describe Islam and slavery as it is today and as it was in the past. If the people in Mauritania who keep slaves are claiming some Islamic justification for doing so, we probably have to present that. It would be good if we could say that almost all other Muslims and almost all other Islamic scholars say they are wrong, and why. Tom Harrison Talk 23:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tom, I think the most accurate statement is that in places where slavery is abolished, everybody is saying that the Qurʾān's original intent, properly understood, was to eliminate slavery altogether (that's what I have been taught). But I guess in some undeveloped African countiries like Sudan where slavery is still in practice, people may justify it by Islam. There is a lot of flexibility in our reading the sacred texts. EoQ says: "The great slave markets of Cairo were closed down at the end of the nineteenth century and even conservative Qurʾān interpreters continue to regard slavery as opposed to Islamic principles of justice and equality. This dramatic shift in Islamic attitudes toward slavery is a prime example of flexibility in interpreting qurʾānic norms." --Aminz 23:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "the most accurate statement is that in places where slavery is abolished, everybody is saying that the Qurʾān's original intent, properly understood, was to eliminate slavery altogether" Maybe people who don't know much about history or Islamic jurisprudence. Objective scholars all tell us the same thing; it is divinely ordained and Muhammad had absolutely no intention of abolishing the practice he himself took to new heights in Arabia with his destruction of the Jews. Arrow740 00:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arrow740, no doubt that was true in the past, but we would need solid citations to say it is the case today in the face of slavery being abolished in most Muslim countries. We have a citation for the statement in the introduction that "today even conservative Islamic scholars regard slavery as opposed to Islamic principles of justice and equality." I'm new to this material, and don't have access to as many references as I would like. Are there citations to scholars who today maintain the intrepretation you describe? Tom Harrison Talk 01:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last section of our article gives examples. No scholar would say that slavery is opposed to Islamic principles for reasons I've already stated multiple times. Arrow740 01:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are mostly justifying why Islam had to accept the institution of slavery at that time. Like Qutb who says: "And concerning slavery, that was when slavery was a world-wide structure and which was conducted amongst Muslims and their enemies in the form of enslaving of prisoners of war. And it was necessary for Islam to adopt a similar line of practise until the world devised a new code of practise during war other than enslavement" --Aminz 01:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  None of them say it is un-Islamic or opposed to Islamic principles, and some indicate that it is even now part of Islam. Arrow740 02:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When Qutb says "until the world devised a new code of practise during war other than enslavement", he clearly means it is not applicible now. I am waiting for your EoI quote that contradicts EoQ. --Aminz 02:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have been utterly unable to justify the sentence in the intro labelled dubious. It's presence is in violation of WP:LEAD, and if a sentence I wanted in an exception to the guideline is to be excluded on the exact same grounds, then this one should as well. At least my sentence was true. About the contradiction, I think I was referring to the EoI's reference to the word rajul, but because I couldn't read the EoQ properly, I didn't know that where I thought EoQ was talking about that term, it was in fact raquq, or something like that. Arrow740 09:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Raqiq is an arabic word for slave. What doesn't have to do with the point in discussion? We have a quote from EoQ, a reliable source, saying a shift has happened. Lack of mentioning it is POV. Should you find a quote from EoI contradicting EoQ(as you claimed), we can mention them both. --Aminz 10:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point # 1 

message: This is not necessary as every single scholar cited agrees with him. Arrow740 08:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please use quotation marks when quoting a scholar word by word. Otherwise it is copyright violation. Thanks --Aminz 08:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Arrow740 09:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: According to Lewis

message: Arrow, regarding this edit of yours: .
The EoI says: "Spiritually, the slave has the same value as the free man, and the same eternity is in store for his soul; in this earthly life, failing emancipation, there remains the fact of his inferior status, to which he must piously resign himself. The Quran regards this discrimination between human beings as in accordance with the divinely- [I:25b] established order of things (xvi, 71, 75; xxx, 28)."
It is clear that the discrimination is of this wordly manners not spritually. Lewis is also talking about legal status, not about spritual values. --Aminz 09:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lewis isn't making the distinction. Also I object to your cutting up Brunschvig's sentence, as the sentence is meant to summarize the status of the slave. Also, Brunschvig is not as prominent a scholar, and Lewis' treatment should come first. Arrow740 09:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lewis is talking about "rights" and "status" of slaves, not their after life status. That "Lewis isn't making the distinction" is your own view; Lewis doesn't contradict EoI. The EoI is both talking about both Spritual and legal status. The legal part is mentioned by Lewis; the spritual part by the quote I provided. --Aminz 09:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're injecting this into his discussion. "Lewis is also talking about legal status, not about spritual values." That is your own conclusion. Lewis is discussing the subject from a general perspective. You should not try to frame his exposition. That is exactly what you are doing. Arrow740 09:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Common. Lewis is talking about "rights" and "worldly status". It is a strange reading of the text to generalize it to hereafter and spritual matters and represent it as if it contradicts EoI and EoQ. --Aminz 09:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's best not to split up the quote/reference from the historian BruschvigDavidYork71 10:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavery in the Quran 

message: By me, under 'philosophy and religion'. If Toilets in Japan, can get there and beyond, why not this article??DavidYork71 11:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please stop renominating the article for GA. you have done it three or four times in quick succession now, and if anything it fails on the basis of stability alone. ITAQALLAH 15:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you sound like you don't want there to be a good article revealing what this does about the subject. Didn't we learn something from last review like .. more picture content desired, that the lead was the turkey, and copyediting needed. All have been addressed.DavidYork71 16:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  DavidYork, an article needs to be stable as a GA criterion. --Aminz 21:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article GA-nommed 

message: This relate to this edit  removing references to a work of 'Al-Kabaar' by Muhammad Bin Uthman translated as 'The Major Sins' by Mohammad Moinuddin Siddiqui. The Author noted 'a slave who runs away from his master' as one of the 70 major sins under islam. For more information about Major Sins of Islam Sin#Islamic_Major_sins:_Al-Kaba.27ir and note number 57.  So then should it leave any doubt that a slave commits a major sin by running away? Particularly when there are hadith expressing that a runaway slaves prayers will not be answered nor his/her good deeds taken account of. Here's the work again: .  What underlies treating the author, his work, or what he reports about runaway slaves in Islam as not notable, not reliable, or not scholarly. I had believed that the author and the work were in very good standing for Islamic scholarship. Itaqallah should address this.DavidYork71 16:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weblogs and Geocities sites would not meet our requirements for reliable sources. But, what are these works by Muhammad Bin Uthman and Mohammad Moinuddin Siddiqui? If they are notable scholars articulating a significant position, we should consider including their views. Tom Harrison Talk 17:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I'm saying. Now perhaps google their names and come back with your opinion of whether they ought be reliable sources or serious scholars in their treatment of this subject matter (among others)DavidYork71 17:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there doesn't seem to be very much information from which we can ascertain whether "Muhammad ibn Uthman" is notable, and i am sure Arrow will echo these sentiments. in any case, the way you have written this passage is unfortunately rather biased. ITAQALLAH 19:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad Bin Uthman and Mohammad Moinuddin Siddiqui as scholarly authors and [WP:RS] 

message: What is Segal's quote? The article says: "However, a slave was a slave for all that; owners were endowed with such power over their slaves that few can have failed to abuse it in humiliating and sometimes brutal ways." --Aminz 23:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. I notice the lead is again blowing up in size after I went through all that effort to shrink it the other night. I think the length I had it gave plenty of space to cover all the points important enough to be covered in the lead. Can we please agree to keep it roughly that size (regardless of the content or emphasis)? This is what I had it as: . - Merzbow 01:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that one. Itaqallah also expressed some support. You see my point, Merzbow? Once we start using the intro to advance opposing POV's it will blow up in size like before. Arrow740 01:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not perfect but I am fine with it too. You can revert it back to that version. --Aminz 01:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Segal