Talk:Islamic views on slavery/Archive 1

message: :The POV expressed in the present version of this article as posted by Anonymous editor is an apologia. I have written a more exhaustive article entitled Slavery in Abrahamic religions that covers also slavery in Islam. If this article is to be kept it must be revised. Neither the original article nor the present version are neutral. Since this topic is already covered in Slavery, there is not point keeping a different entry dedicated to slavery in Islam. -Independenza
:: Wow, not only is this a poorly written article but it is a strong POV. It talks about freeing slaves, kind treatment of slaves, freeing slaves, and an apologetic version of why slaves still exist. Where to even begin? Barneygumble 8 July 2005 13:41 (UTC)
It's certainly poorly written, and it's difficult to see why it merits a separate article.  Slavery in Abrahamic religions is also pretty poorly written, but given that it exists, could this be merged with and made a redirect to it? --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 20:04, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: This article i sbeyond hope. In an encyclopedia there can be no such thing as a discussion on how a major religion handles slavery (or other similar matters). Some people will always try to prove that the religion is at fault, others that it is not. The hermenutical problem is too complcated. Quoting verses in the Quran proves nothing ("konkordanzemethode"). We now for a fact that people claiming to be muslims have had slaves (as well as people claiming to be christians, Jupiter-worshippers or almost anything.
Some people see their actions as justifiable according to how they interpret their religious tradition, others don't and would claim they did what the did not acting as "true" muslims (or christians or whatever). It is not the role of an encyclopedia to provide the single true and normative interpretation.
That said, the article in it's state today is apalling. It is nothing but an apologetic sermon trying to convince us about the beauty of islam. I think this article should be deleted.
--itpastorn 21:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow some people got a lock on this page to prevent normal editing. I love how some people say how much they like NPOV, but then they go ahead and produce garbage like this. This article is the biggest apologetic writing I have ever seen. No mention that Saudi Arabia didn't end slavery until 1962... only random writings that Islam has tried SO hard to eliminate slavery and slaves were treated so kindly. Barneygumble 18:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inevitable POV 

message: I don't see why the deletion tag is there, it's in the Quran!!!--The Brain 08:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: This article sounds like a guilty person trying to cover-up something.  It says the Quran doesn't forbid slavery but discourages keeping slaves and then goes to say all the verses about freeing slaves.  There is a conscious effort my muslim wiki members to remove all the bad stuff about islam and their culture and to present only the good.  That's not what wikipedia is about, it's about presenting facts.  This website isn't a propaganda tool.  (Anonymous User) 14 June 2006
:Oh, so Muslims can't keep slaves but encourages the act of slavery to exist? So then Muslims are allowed to treat people like slaves then - torturing them in any way, and that their God allows this act? Is that what you all are implying? --Fantastic4boy 05:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavery 

message: My first edit was make the intro less pov, and much more factual by removing unsourced comments such as "this greatly reduced slavery". My second edit was to add some historical information from the arab slave trade artical. This is bad form i know but there was nothing historical in this artical.Hypnosadist 11:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "theology moved position to accomodate this situation" could not have said it better my self, and that whiff was the smell of british gunpowder.Hypnosadist 14:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: actually I was not referring to the British gunpowder, that did not really end the slave trade just closed the markets under its governance. I was referring to how clergy can cherry pick things conveniently enough to be seen as the fount of divine wisdom. Nevermind that they got it wrong earlier. The Pope can fit that bill just fine too. Just as a related aside look up the history of POWs what happenned to the sods and the countryside before there were any agreements governing the sides.--Tigeroo 16:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hypnosadist edits

message: Does anyone have information on slaves owned by Mohammed or taken in battle by forces under his command or orders, as that would be particularly relivent.Hypnosadist 11:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for information

message: That is by far the more comprehensive article.--Mike18xx 04:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article "Arab slave trade" started out life as the islamic slave trade, but that got changed for POV reasons. If we keep the two articles separate then we can cover the religion here and the people at "Arab slave trade" but as i say below lets find concensus.Hypnosadist 23:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This article can stand on itself. --Aminz 22:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to merge "Islam and Slavery" and "Arab slave trade"

message: there is no need to discuss the prevalence of slavery within arab/muslim history, this is already covered in the arab slave trade article. this article should focus more on the stance of islam on slavery (i.e. "slavery in islam") according to the general islamic texts, as currently there is no article dealing with the concept of slavery in islam. as an extension to this, perhaps the title of the article can be changed to "Slavery in Islam"? ITAQALLAH 21:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. Thus, we do not need to mention "Arab slave trade" at all as it is a different topic. Instead, I support a merge with "Religion and slavery." --Truthpedia 00:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the thing is, that there's nothing much to merge it with (the proposed article is a stub as per its afd noted on the talk page). as for the section "arab slave trade" then its relevance in this article needs to be discussed further. what i tried to articulate was that this article should deal with the islamic conceptual stance on slavery, which is derived from the texts and the experts in the field of islamic studies. it can be argued that the section in its current form is irrelevant here, unless the content is changed and it talks about slavery in and around the time of Muhammad which would make it relevant to the teachings of islam. this, as opposed to talking about the actions of later Muslims which, as well as not being directly relevant here, has already been dealt with to a reasonable degree in the "arab slave trade" article. ITAQALLAH 00:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that this article should contain more information on the ayats and hadith associated with the slave trade. Also Islamic notables and their connections to slavery, ie did they own, trade or capture slaves themselves. Also modern Scholars and Jurists must also say what they think about slavery. I think the title is ok at the moment but we should look to see if there is a concensus.Hypnosadist 23:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: okay, i started work on the lead section. yes, we would want the opinions of notable scholars and jurists in the article. the sentence about islam not forbidding slavery needs work, as many jurists state that slaves can only be obtained as PoW's, and generally rule that as institutionalised slavery is more or less destroyed, it cannot be reintroduced. ITAQALLAH 23:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  about refining the focus of the article 

message: I reverted a deletion of the below section but did not notice the change at thesource that says this article is now part of legal proceedings. I've put it here on talk until the case is sorted, if its not true i will remove it totally.Hypnosadist 23:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: section i removed due to legal complaint

message: " Schimmel asserts that because the status of slave under Islam could only be obtained through either being a prisoner of war or born from slave parents, slavery would be theoretically abolished with the expansion of Islam." end quote.
Hypnosadist, from what i understand of your justification is that this passage is irrelevant as the condition is only true under the pretext of islam ruling the world (as well as slavery still existing). i would say not quite: because everything islam says about slavery is indeed conceptual (and this article is about what islam says and the consequences of that according to scholarly opinion). what the author is ascertaining is whether or not islam encourages or discourages slavery, and i think within this context the assertion (which muslim jurists generally opine also) is entirely relevant. it is also speculating on the restrictions placed upon slavery (by islam) and the possible effect that would have. obviously, if you have any good sources which disagree with that, then this can also be mentioned. thanks. ITAQALLAH 23:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: just checked EoI, it says the exact same thing also. ITAQALLAH 17:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just factually wrong, if you have slave breeding its infinite. Slave begets slave begets slave for generation after generation. For proof of this look at america after the british navy cut off the transatlanic trade, they had more than enough when they stopped aborting the female slaves. Hypnosadist 21:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: slaves are most likely to breed with the master being the father (marriage with another slave is not generally likely), thus the child is born free. if it's factually wrong then all you need to do is bring a source on par with with EoI, Schimmel and Lewis so that it can be incorporated into the article (WP is about verifiabilty, not truth). ITAQALLAH 09:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Fine as much as i dislike quoteing them it looks like its time for Bat'yeor et al as this is just BS and does not have a place in this encyclopedia.Hypnosadist 12:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: PS At least you know you are promoting lies!WP is about verifiabilty, not truth) Hypnosadist 12:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: please refrain from personal attacks. what you perceive as truth may not be so. WP aims to quote scholarly opinions on a matter, not ascertain what is "true" via original research or unauthoritative sources like bat ye'or. ITAQALLAH 13:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Bat ye'or is an authoritve source ,at least she comperhends logic unlike this Annemarie Schimmel, no wonder Spencer and so forth think that Academia is completely Biased. So its non-muslims fault they are slaves for not converting (and forceing muslims to take them as POW's) is going to WP stance on islam and slavery. Hypnosadist 14:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: considering that she has no formal education or qualification in any topic related to islam (as well as having been criticised by established authorities), i think the value of her work is limited to helping document well-known criticisms directed at islam. she would not qualify as an independantly reliable source. ITAQALLAH 15:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: passage removal 

message: regarding the recent layout changes, i think the article needs to follow a coherent and chronological order. the previous layout was more suited to this i believe. it makes sense to put pre-islamic slavery as the first section, in order to contextualise the discussion (i.e. add background information) and make the actual changes implemented more apparent. slavery in islamic jurisprudence IMO belongs under "slavery in islamic society" because for a significant period of time islamic jurisprudence was part of islamic society. the opening para in "slavery in islamic society" serves as an introduction to the coming section (jurisprudence, and any historical info)  which is why the 'asl (principle) is mentioned there as a pretext to what follows. ITAQALLAH 06:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think the previous layout was more coherent and ordered. --Aminz 06:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  layout changes 

message: This evangelical ex-SA military pro-lifer is not my cup of tea but he is on a par with Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq for education (both doctors of divinities) and notability. I think you are applying a level of academic standard only appropriate to a modern science article not theology and history. Especially as they are a link not a source. I think this is a case of both or neither for me.Hypnosadist 14:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hypnosadist, These sources may give an idea of the lines along which one should be looking for additional material to add to this article. But I think all these sources should all go away since their works are peer-reviewed university-press published works. The article by Hammond is polemical. I don't have any trust in what he says. I have seen lots of lies from both Christian and Muslim polemics. --Aminz 22:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dr. Peter Hammond

message: I've read the article and it has a promise for GA status. However, there are few minor copyedits needed to be done, before I make a decision. Could editors fix the following issues?
# The second paragraph of the lead section has 2 ideas: slavery in Qur'an and Hadith, and racial slavery in Islam. It would be better to split it into 2 paragraphs. 
# The last line in the lead is awkward: "The famous medieval jurist al-Ghazzali rejected the idea of a white man being better than a black one as adopting the same hierarchical principles adopted by Satan in his ignorance, and thus falling into polytheism.[3]". Why does suddenly white, black, Satan and polytheism appear in the text? I don't understand it, because the line does not belong to the lead section at all.
# Quoted statement: "The Qur’an, like the Old and the New Testaments, assumes the existence of slavery, Bernard Lewis states." should have inline citation. And then the next lines of Lewis statements do need to be cited anymore, as the context has been given.
#* I found there are many cases of this. I've made a copyedit as an example in for Azizah Y. al-Hibri in the subsection Treatment.
#* Basically, readers do not have knowledge of these persons, which are the source of the text. They are not part of the topic. So whenever you want to introduce him/her by giving a quotation, please describe first who he/she is and the first quotation should have inline citation. For example, "John Doe, an English mathematician, stated that equation of ......[1]"
#* Another way of quoting is by indirect quotation, which the person name is not given, but only the citation.
# A brief explanation should be given for rare used words. For example manumission, fornication, etc.
I think the above issues are feasible to be resolved. Whenever they have been fixed, please leave me a message in my usertalk. I don't want to put this page on hold. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 17:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My take on the review (I didn't know Indon reviewed it) :
* There is a bundle of vague words used such as majority, widely, are thought and more which doesn't comply with the MoS.
* Plenty of material given in the article uses dubious verbs to present the facts like the word speculate for example.
Lincher 21:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA comments 

message: I saw your message and the lead section has been fixed, but still there are some issues. I will give my review below, and if editors can fix the issues, then I can decide the GA status. As of 2 October 2006, per WP:WIAGA, here's my assessment:
1. It is well written.
:(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers → pass
::There is no difficulty for me to understand the subject. Although some minor one-further-click is required (see criterion 1.d).
:(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles) → pass
::The lead section is better than the previous one and it gives contexts and also summarizing the article. The structure is quite logical to follow, because it all relates to slavery in the context of Islam.
:(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style → weak pass
:: To make a quotation, use double punctuation "...". Single punctuation '...' is only used if it is a quotation inside a quotation. Please read again WP:MOS on how to make quotation.
:(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided → needs minor copyedit
:#Well, it is said in this criterion that specialized terms are briefly explained or give wikilink, but I hate to do one click first to understand the word. It is even worse if the link is only a stub page, or has no further information, or it goes to disambiguation page, etc. So I would suggest editors to briefly explained the following words in parentheses, just like manumission that I've pointed in the above thread. They are: eunuch, congregational prayers, zakah, fornication.
:#Does zihar mean unintentional murder, or other offence?
:#What does bracket in "(for [freeing] necks)" mean?
:#What does the meaning of "..., such as the sometimes independent sultanate of Adal."? And the wikilink to Adal is disambiguation page. Please fix that.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
:(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material → request for citation
:#All materials are sourced and editors follow inline citation for better verifiability. However, some inline citations were not placed in appropriate place. When you want to quote a statement from an author of a book, it is better to put inline citation when it is first given in a context (paragraph). After that, editors can give further his/her statements in the following lines without inline citation, because the context has been given. For example in the first paragraph of section "Slavery in Islamic Society", it is stated about Bernard Lewis statement, but its source is given in the 4th line, which is too far. The link becomes loose that the same source is used for the first line.  I have already given my comments above about citing quotation from a source (see the previous thread). Perhaps, editors still miss one or two of this problem. I've made a copyedit to correct for this problem.
:# Could editors give source of this line and also Qur'an passage of it? "Islam permits intimate relations between a male master and his female slave outside of marriage (referred to in the Qur'an as ma malakat aymanukum or "what your right hands possess"), although he may not co-habit with a female slave belonging to his wife." I've put  there. Please update it.
:# The last section about Arab slave trade has no citation at all. I would like to have at least one citation there for verification of the section. You can take one or two sources from the main article.
:(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required → inconsistent
:# There is inconsistency of quoting Qur'an and Hadith. For example in the section "Treatment of the captive". I was first confused of the list of items. Why don't readers expand it as text? But I assume that they are list of quotations from Qur'an and Hadith about treatment of captive, aren't they? But why the citation is not similar with the pervious sections? Please update it with consistent style of Qur'an and its passage number and Hadith and its source.
:# I would suggest to use quotation template for Qur'an verses. For example:
:: There are available , ,  and  templates, depending which style you like.
:(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources → pass
::Good sources.
:(d) it contains no elements of original research → pass
3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :
:(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic → pass
::I'm not really major of this issue. As far as I know, all major aspects are included.
:(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia) → pass
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
:(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias → pass
:(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic → pass
5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. → pass
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
:(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions → pass
:(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status → not relevant
Conclusion: since there are some minor copyedits, I put this article On Hold status. Please fix criteria 1.(d), 2.(a) and 2.(b); and again leave me a message when they are all fixed. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 09:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Indon for your comment and suggestions. 1.(d) is fixed now. So, 2.(a) and 2.(b) are remained. --Aminz 06:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 2.(a)1 is fixed. --Aminz 07:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 2.(a)2 is fixed. TruthSpreader has also fixed 2.(b), so only 2(a)3 is remained. I've asked user:Yom to help us with this section. --Aminz 07:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very good. Actually for the last section, you can take sources from the main article (Arab_slave_trade). All right, I'll wait for the last issue to be fixed. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 13:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the arab slave trade article misses out some sources needed for the relevant points in that section so i did a quick search around and found some other refs for those points. one or two other sentences may need cites which i will add shortly. ITAQALLAH 16:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: Why is there no section on Slavery in Christianity? Is this balanced, or is slavery on something in Islam? I have started the article and would like some serious development to finish it, just like has been done here---Halaqah 13:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AND?Hypnosadist 01:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Slavery in Christianity

message: There is a seperate article in the Arab slave trade for the slave trade in Muslim societies vs. slave trade in Muslim theology, as in what this should probably be. I think that should help sort out and present a solution to some of the problems this page is having in terms of focus.--Tigeroo 18:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tigeroo you have stumbled on the great game of ping pong. Content keeps being deleted from one because it is to do with Islam and from the other because the info is to do with the arab racial/cultural grouping, it would only be possible if most editors on both articles agreed a joint frame of reference.Hypnosadist 19:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: PS For editors who haven't been around that long that the Arab slave trade used to be called the Islamic slave trade. This was changed after long edit wars on claims that it was POV to say that the trade was Islamic in nature, then many of the references to the Quran and islam were removed. Then this article was created to re-add that information to wikipedia.Hypnosadist 19:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, this article is (or is going to be) dealing with the slave trade from Pakistan to the West Coast of Africa. Arabs are but one part of the article. IronDuke 20:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the problem maybe it needs to be modified to Slave trade in the Muslim world to be more encompassing, right now either they need to be merged or a way ot intergrating the contents or flow of both be worked out, and be clearly indicate and link the other article. I think seperating the historical, from the theoretical could help sort out a lot of issues. Maybe slapping a merge tag could help come up with a solution from both sets of editors.--Tigeroo 13:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No tigeroo there is no split between the historical and the theoretical. Islam mandates slavery and slavery exists in these countries(in sudan to this day) because of that fact. Slave trade in the Muslim world would not cover the information that is most often deleted, that this trade is allowed by Islam.Hypnosadist 15:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Right, the article would be about how the institution is treated in Islamic theology and thought, and the evolution of the theological position through history. I don't know of a single religion or society that outlawed slavery before the modern era so I really wouldn't be expecting to find any such thing. There is "no mandate" as in thou shall go out and enslave the infidel, just as there is no prohibition. Historically even Muslims have been enslaved, something that doesn't fit in well with Muslim theology which generally "mandated" for them an exemption, and the article could explore that.--Tigeroo 17:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arab slave trade

message: As per request, I am going to be adding a secondary source. Accordingly, I will be removing the OR tag. IronDuke 22:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR, secondary sources 

message: This edit/pov war has spiraled out of control to the vast detriment of this article. I've reverted to the article that got the GA status. Lets discuss the changes we want on this article BEFORE we make any and then with consensus.Hypnosadist 15:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hypno, I appreciate what you're trying to do. However, as there is an active RfC, it will help if people can actually see the edits under scrutiny. If you read the dialogue above, you'll see I've made this point several times. IronDuke 16:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting to GOOD article

message: References are all biased and questionable. The lengthy quotes are unnecessary. --Kitrus 10:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we were waiting for RfC. But it seems we should solve the problem ourselves. --Aminz 10:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any good refs that seem to support the other "side" would be welcome. Also, summarizing the some parts of the quotes would be okay as well. IronDuke 19:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sudan section 

message: I have a question to ask regarding this article - what is Islam's definition of slavery? Is it similar to the Western view of slavery like the African slaves in the Americas?  By that, I mean getting whipped brutally, left them to undergo extreme hunger and make them over work, physically, emotionally and sexually abused. Is that how slaves are like in Islam? If there is a difference, what makes it different to Western definition of slavery? --Fantastic4boy 05:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no difference, PERIOD!Hypnosadist 09:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: on the contrary the two definitions do indeed differ. perhaps i can find for you a scholarly paper on this, but basically you only need to see what the primary texts say to conclude that there is a major gulf in the two definitions. ITAQALLAH 09:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Under shariah law, slaves had rights as well as obligations to the master. --Aminz 09:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "rights" enforced by whom? "major gulf in the two definitions" thats just sick is there no limit to the lies!Hypnosadist 12:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If its so good sell your kids to me under those rules! What No! Not even that cousin you don't like.Hypnosadist 12:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slavery as practised in Christendom was different from the way slavery was and is practiced in Islam. However, slaves are still slaves, and don't have the most important human right, freedom. Arrow740 16:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Islam's definition of slavery

message: The article needs some serious editing. It should be a quarter the length it is now. Arrow740 11:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote farm 

message: Who is he? I have sources saying that concubines were slaves, period. Arrow740 03:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Lovejoy 

message: I've reverted a few changes, because the removals are not discussed. As it is pointed in other disucssions that wikipedia is not based on truth but on the principle of verifiability of information. And just a scholarly comment that when a paper is published in a journal, you don't need to have a famous person to be author to use it as a reference. The Journal itself should be a scholarly peer-reviewed source (hence, verifialbe), and self assertions like xyz is not Islamic scholar is not a valid reason in this regard. You can quote any scholarly journal which is published by big publishing companies like EBSCO and JSTOR. TruthSpreaderreply 03:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Law journals are not reliable sources for Quranic exegesis. I am putting my edits back. Before you revert again, please address my concerns with your actions below. Arrow740 03:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent removals 

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)
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: Merzbow wrote, "I agree that it's wrong to bring other religions into discussion here. "like Judaism, Christianity and other world religions" is defensive writing."
That holds equally true here as it does on Dhimmi, Islam and antisemitism and other similar articles. However, for the same underlying reasons, it seems to me that the practices of pre-Islamic Arabia are very relevant. Other religions provide "context" only insofar as we make it so, but pre-Islamic Arabia really was the context as a matter of historical fact. It might still be defensive writing, of course, but some treatment is in order.Proabivouac 06:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Context