Talk:Muhammad's slaves

message: You say: "In islam, having sexual relations with one's female slaves is allowed even if married, it is not considered as adultery". If you want to critisize Islam, you should firstly read Qoran. If you read Qoran, you'll see that, this is not legal in Islam.
I think that this topic should be deleted rapidly.
Of course it is allowed. Read 23:5-6, and this article about the subject:  -- Karl Meier 11:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon the link is in the article at the top but here it is for you Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya, hope that helps. Hypnosadist 08:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

message: This article gives very little information about these slaves. Whethere all these female slaves were Ma malakat aymanukum or they were freed is completely ignored in the article. Muslim history records only one Ma malakat aymanukum and that was Maria al-Qibtiyya as per Polygamy in Mizan. TruthSpreaderTalk 12:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zad al-Ma'ad is a primary source. We need a secondary source to prove the claims. Even the factually accuracy can be disputed of this document, and this article presents things as facts, such as the list of slaves (implying M. had marital relations with all of them) and then statements like He was used to renting out and hiring many slaves, but he hired more slaves than he rented out are "Original research". TruthSpreaderTalk 13:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I question your claim that it is a primary sources. We're talking about Muhammad's slaves and yet the Zad al-Ma'ad which is claimed to be a primary source was created over 600 years after that time. It is not a primary source in that as a document or other source of information it was not created at or near the time being studied (i.e. the lifetime of Muhammad) nor by the people being studied (obviously if it was written six hundred years or so later). It is clearly a secondary source as it is a work which would built on primary sources (in this case obviously as a commentator, the Quran, Hadith, Sahaba etc). You haven't provided a convincing argument why it's a primary source. Ttiotsw 20:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female slaves 

message: Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid, from saoudia arabia, has this website (www.Islam-QA.com) that one of you here calls a "forum", This Sheikh (or a satanic gourou, depending on your POV) gives fatwas on this website (www.SurvivorsAreUs.com) with "Dr" (what a stupidity) Abdullah Faqih of Dubai. The fatwas of this satanic imam are used iin serevarl islamosatanic websites : , , and to end this, islamonline, the website of the islamic hiter (qardawi) cites him , so please, don't revert again.Toira 05:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source about having sex with one's female slave

message: Is this really an improvement? --Striver - talk 13:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a  good idea to discuss slavery from reliable sources. TruthSpreaderreply 23:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: edits

message: It is not the case that everything written in a book can be included in wikipedia. Obvious lies are not to be included. Respond to my requests in the edit summaries about the obvious lies you are peddling. Arrow740 06:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lies 

message: these quotes and attributions to za'ad al-ma'ad need verification. the lists of slaves currently provides little context. were they all his slaves at the same time? or are they a list of every slave irrespective of duration of assumed ownership? please provide the full extracts. i have tagged the article to reflect the requested verification. ITAQALLAH 06:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Itaqallah, to answer your points about the context of ownership, yes more detail is needed. Be clear though there is no assumed ownership, Mohammed owned slaves, he also (which is not yet covered here) enslaved the women and children of at least one town after a siege and had them sold. But yes it would be good to know the length of ownership and which of the female slaves were concubines and hence (probably) the victim's of rape, and which were just house slaves. Also the total value (or individual values) of slaves traded by Mohammed would be important information for this article to have.Hypnosadist 15:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur! Someone needs to verify the source, otherwise we will have no other option but to remove it. TruthSpreaderreply 06:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What needs to be verified? Know what "verified" means before your response. Arrow740 07:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a copy of Zad al-Ma'ad or an authentic translation of it? If yes, would you like to share the content with us! TruthSpreaderreply 07:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This from those who, with assistance from a revert-only anon (hmm, wonder who it might be?) are preserving outright fabrications about the Qur'an from a professor of law and feminist theory contra over one thousand years of Islamic scholarship.Proabivouac 07:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read: Iman Hashim, Reconciling Islam and feminism, Gender & Development, 1999, vol. 7, issue 1, p 7, ISSN 13552074 ! TruthSpreaderreply 07:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not the eminent Iman Hashim to whom this misrepresentation of the Qur'an is sourced, but Azizah al-Hibri. As your scholarship is superior to my own, might you be willing to explain her argument to me?Proabivouac 07:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hashim writes in conclusion:
I have argued that there are significant reasons
why feminists might benefit from drawing
upon Islam when attempting to address the
particular subordination of Muslim women.
At an individual level, Muslim women will
be unlikely to subscribe to a Western notion
of feminism, which would mean abandoning
beliefs which they have a commitment to and
which provide them with mechanisms to deal
with and resist the oppression they face.
Moreover, the Qur’an lays down significant
rights for women, of which they are often
unaware, but which can be drawn upon to
address and improve their circumstances. At
the political level, women’s exclusion from
religion in the past has resulted in the dominance
of patriarchal interpretations of the
Qur’an. It is only from a position of knowledge
that women can claim their rights and contest
patriarchal interpretations of Islam.
Having said this, I do not wish to present
an over-simplistic or over-optimistic view of
the potential for women’s emancipation as a
result of either knowledge of their rights or
feminist reinterpretations of the Qur’an. This
strategy is, of course, insufficient in and of
itself. Many Muslim women are politically
and economically marginalised, and this in
itself prevents them from claiming their
rights, let alone from using theological
arguments to do so. In this sense, reinterpretation
of the Islamic texts from a feminist
perspective remains an academic and
intellectual exercise, and it is primarily more
affluent and educated women who are able
both to engage in this debate and to benefit
from its argument. Moreover, women’s
experiences of Islam are myriad, and their
subordination is not only based in so-called
Islamic practices. Consequently, one cannot
prescribe some form of universal formula to
overcome the constraints Muslim women
face, and strategies adopted must respond to
these contextual constraints.
Incorporating the study of rights accorded
to women in Islam into the awareness-raising
and educational components of development
interventions could be very effective in
improving women’s lives. Addressing these
issues from within an Islamic perspective
would prevent opportunistic accusations of
cultural imperialism (intended to prevent
feminism from entering an Islamic culture),
and would be more likely to appeal to
Muslim women. Although egalitarian reinterpretations
of the Qur’an are currently
relatively marginalised and limited in their
scope, Muslim women (and men) are actively
working not only to reinterpret the Qur’an,
but also to educate the political elite and
provide them with new interpretations of the
sacred texts which can be used as a basis for
legislation. Activists are also making efforts
to mobilise grassroots support for these
activities and to establish a dialogue between
people at the grassroots and national and
international decision-makers, in order to
ensure the dissemination and adoption of
these interpretations (Afkhami 1997).
Speaking as a woman born into a
predominantly Muslim family and
community, and having undertaken a study
into gender and Islam, I now recognise the
ways in which Islam is frequently
misrepresented (deliberately or otherwise).
Having studied what the Qur’an actually
states, I am now in a position to oppose
patriarchal interpretations and to challenge
others when debates are foreclosed on the
basis of my gender. This, for me, is
remarkably liberatory; but it is easy to get
carried away by one’s personal experience. I
am a Northern-based, privileged woman
who is relatively untouched by these
interpretations of Islam. I can only imagine
the constraints facing women in other sociogeographical
locations. It is important to be
aware of the problems of advocating the
dissemination and adoption of egalitarian
interpretations, and not to underestimate the
dangers involved in contesting patriarchal
interpretations of Islam ± witness the plight of
Taslima Nasreen or the recent death threats
levelled at Nawal el Sadaawa, the Egyptian
feminist. However, the mere fact that this
does arouse such strong reactions, I would
suggest, is testimony to the potentially
significant ramifications of such a strategy.
TruthSpreaderreply 07:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No need to flood the talk page, Truthspreader, I asked you to explain Azizah al-Hibri's argument to me, as it's to her that the false claims about the Qur'an are sourced. Namely, that the Qur'an "recognized slavery only as an undesirable transitional socio-political condition and spelled out many ways for its elimination." Your evasion of this question is transparent, and will not put it to rest.Proabivouac 07:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added another source, which suggests exactly what Ghamidi has concluded in his remark. If you want to see what Qur'an and the Prophet has done to curb slavery, kindly see Islam_and_slavery#Mukatabat. But the best sources to understand this issue would be the one which Hibri has suggested in her paper. But in any case, I don't find a need to justify her, as we as wikipedians don't justify others, as it will be original research, but rather use WP:RS and WP:V compatible sources. TruthSpreaderreply 08:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, Truthspreader (ahem!), I've asked after Al-Hibri, not Ghamidi, whose opinions I did not remove from the article. Please explain not Iman Hashim's, not Ghamidi's but Azizah al-Hibri's argument that the Qur'an "recognized slavery only as an undesirable transitional socio-political condition and spelled out many ways for its elimination."Proabivouac 08:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to give you a clue (and you might call it an original research) that why she would have said "undesirable transition" is verse . Qur'an call freeing of slaves as "free the necks" (you have to read an accurate translation of this verse to appreciate it) and you can see the flare in the language that how much abhorant this practice is to Qur'an. Secondly, she has already cited sources which have done work on it. For more information, you should read them. And I find this a futile exercise to justify a scholarly source as Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss such matters. TruthSpreaderreply 08:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Yusufali, Pickthall and Shakir are unreliable, will you not share your superior translation? For I see nothing here which "recognized slavery only as an undesirable transitional socio-political condition." I suppose one might say that using alms for freeing captives is one way spelled out for its elimination? But buying slaves has never proven too effective at deterring people from taking them, while did not Muhammad and his men themselves take many hundreds of slaves? Perhaps that, too, is original research. What is not is to observe that your source is more than inadequate to support the inclusion of such a dubious claim, which you seem either utterly incapable of or determinedly unwilling to address.Proabivouac 08:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if her statement were more than a stupid lie, she is a lawyer. Arrow740 09:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: barring the red herrings above, this comment is simply an attempt to sweep glaring verification problems under the carpet. whoever has been attributing the content to Za'ad al-Ma'ad should verify this material because it currently provides extremely little context. it is simply a list of names, yet the editor who added it cites several pages. please provide what ibn al-Qayyim actually says about this list so it can be contextualised. it seems an unreliable polemic website has been used as the resource here. as it is bereft of any credibiliy whatsoever, especially as it is using this cherry-picking from Ibn al-Qayyim as polemic, we can only conclude that the material must be verified and the exact cited passages provided for us to understand the context (see WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it). ITAQALLAH 18:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is utterly false to accuse me of attempting to "sweeping glaring verification problems under the carpet" - in the context of the discussion above, this charge is nothing but a red herring of your own. I've no opinion about the veracity of the material attributed to al-Ma'ad, as I've not seen the source, and didn't add this material. What I do know is that Al-Hibri is an inadequate source for the novel claim that the Qur'an "recognized slavery only as an undesirable transitional socio-political condition and spelled out many ways for its elimination" (and speaking of verification, note how Truthspreader substituted lengthy passages from Iman Hashim for the requested Al-Hibri material.)Proabivouac 19:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "this comment", meaning Arrow's comment, is what i was addressing. your discussion above with TS is what i referred to as the red herrings. ITAQALLAH 19:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.Proabivouac 19:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "it seems an unreliable polemic website has been used as the resource here" this is a bad-faith accusation. The one violating wikipedia guidelines is you. The list is self-contained and needs no context to be understood. Arrow740 23:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: bad faith? would you like me to provide you the website that has been used? no, we must verify that Ibn al-Qayyim a) said this and b) in what context he said it, whether he means Muhammad had all these slaves at once or at some point. the person attributing cites several pages, so it's clear that Ibn al-Qayyim has conducted some sort of discussion about it. you are simply refusing to endorse the fact that the material needs verification, despite this is being a patently obvious no-brainer. ITAQALLAH 23:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "bad faith?" Yes, clearly. Provide me with any website you want. You have no grounds (except your bad faith assumption) to assume that Ibn al-Qayyim did not say this, and the context is irrelevant. It is a list of all the slaves he owned. Arrow740 01:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the other editors here seem to disagree with you. clearly, you must have missed me directing you to WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it, and it has been obtained rather obviously from here. the website has no credibility, and so we cannot be sure that what has been translated and attributed to Ibn al-Qayyim is accurate or the entire picture of what he was saying. context is certainly relevant here, although it is only one facet of many we currently require through verification (i.e. accuracy of translation, attribution, page numbers). we aren't obliged to include material we can't verify, especially when we have as fundamental problems with verification as this. ITAQALLAH 01:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a good website! I will get that book. Who knows what other juicy tidbits about Islam it contains. The libraries are closed until Tuesday. Arrow740 02:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: was that a joke? check the front page, i doubt that the book is even in print by a decent printing press. even they admit they are unsure of the accuracy of what they're using. as you seem content with a red herring, i will proceed to remove the dubious information. ITAQALLAH 02:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I mean ibn-Qayyim's book, obviously. Your bad faith assumptions are not grounds to remove cited material. I will get the original source myself when the libraries open. Until then it will remain, tagged if you wish. Arrow740 02:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the material has obviously been taken from the website, there are no "bad faith assumptions". per the bibliography, the versions they are quoting are in Arabic. therefore, seeing as the page numbers are identical, the person who has been attributing the material to Ibn al-Qayyim must also have been using that same 1984 edition arabic book from the library of manara al-islamiyya, hmm? good luck on finding ZM in english, i don't believe there exists an english translation of the whole work. you can re-insert the unverified material when and if you actually verify it. ITAQALLAH 02:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I see no particular reason to doubt its veracity, I agree with Itaqallah that this quote must be verified, as it clearly derives most immediately from answering-islam.org. It's not clear to me that anyone is operating in bad faith here, and in any event, ridding Wikipedia of poorly-sourced or otherwise dubious material is a service, regardless of the motivation for doing so.Proabivouac 02:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "good luck on finding ZM in english", can you find one in a language you can read Itaqallah? Then you can check if this is right and look at the context.Hypnosadist 03:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's on the web in Arabic. however 1) the refs given will not correspond to the e-books so i'm not prepared to go fishing through the work for the exact passages and 2) my arabic isn't good enough to provide an authoritative translation, and certainly not for encyclopedic purposes. ideally, we require a reputed press to verify the translation. ITAQALLAH 04:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: thus, we do not insert material from dubious third party sources, which cannot be independantly verified. instead, we remove it. ITAQALLAH 19:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: above you admit that more context is needed yet now you backtrack and say it's merely a list. i already told you my arabic isn't good enough to translate substantial prose: how can we verify it if we don't know what exactly it's a list of or what he says about the list (both of which are extremely important)? there is no room for assumptions. due to that, i have reverted your re-insertion- please do not reinsert extracts from dubious, polemical third-party sources which you cannot independantly verify. ITAQALLAH 12:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  verification needed 

message: What are those? Why is this phrase being used? Arrow740 02:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intimate relations 

message: Who knew? KittyHawker 00:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Really? And why didn't Jesus own any slaves?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.101.232.100 (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we know he didn't? Uncle Milty (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Muhammad engaged in slavery

message: Help to give more comprehensive information about the persons named in the 'male slaves' and 'female slaves' section would be appreciated.  DavidYork71 04:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I don't want to involve nor to engage discussion in this talk page, because of always due to POV assertions & debacles in this kind of topic. However, I did revert DavidYork71 additions as he did not improve the article. Look at the his version, how can references DavidYork71 introduced be verified? The citations are all incomplete. Not to mention his POV assertion in this , which he allegedly changed Islam's view of Slavery into Mohammed's view without being discussed before. Therefore I reverted back due to OR elements. — Indon (reply) — 08:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh man, I didn't look one thread above. I reverted back my reversion, sorry David, but please discuss first something that is likely contentious. — Indon (reply) — 09:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the "if." You and I are both editing in a somewhat unconstructive manner. You initiated it so the burden falls more heavily on you. I'm glad you have decided to use the talk page and have no objection to your removal of uncited material of the kind you noted. Arrow740 08:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the whole of the first section follows this manner. apart from that, the rest of the changes concern with removing a) obvious original research and b) unverified material. there is misleading ref at the bottom to Schacht, i don't see him being used in the article at all- in either version. ITAQALLAH 15:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The biggest problem with your edits is that you remove almost all references to Muhammad's slaves inserting instead barely relevant material from Islam and slavery. Beit Or 21:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the information was there from before, i was simply restoring the previous version. nothing is stopping you from writing about Muhammad's slaves based on resources which we can verify. we aren't obliged to include material we cannot verify. ITAQALLAH 21:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns About Comprehensiveness 

message: I've notice a pattern of comprehensive reversions/edits like this [] by user Itaqallah stripping all information about the subject matter (which is to say, names of muhammed's slave and referenced information about them) from the article.  What does it aid the knowledge of the subject by creating a page here which people may visit and not be informed of the name of characteristic(s) of any of the people that it named in honour of?
What knowledge is imparted by disruptions in the nature of the continued blanking of the names and informational narratives relating to all the people identified as slaves on this page?
Explain please.
DavidYork71 13:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you may wish to read through this talk page, all of these issues have been addressed. as such, i will not re-iterate these points at length. referencing Za'ad al-Ma'ad in Arabic is not viable, as it does not fulful our criterion of WP:V. you have not read za'ad al-ma'ad, nor has anyone here, we have no way of verifying that what has been attributed to Ibn al-Qayyim is totally accurate. secondly, you have been misrepresenting sources by changing the sentence subject from Islam/Islamic jurisprudence to Muhammad, as i addressed above. furthermore, your use of primary sources has been contested on this page also, as it constitutes original research. until you are able to properly qualify your changes, please do not reinsert material which is misleading. ITAQALLAH 15:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You claim to speak Arabic, so you should be able to easily check the references to Al-Qayyim. Beit Or 21:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: refer to Talk:Muhammad%27s_slaves#verification_needed. ITAQALLAH 21:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had occacion to review WP:V, and by its definitions this Za'd al Ma'd fits all criteria of 'reliable secondary source' rather than 'questionable source' or 'self-published source' So it's the essence of thumbing your nose at WP:AGF to delete references originally put by someone whe read the work or presumably reference to it from another reliable source
In the final analysis why suppress information? What reason is there to doubt that these names are associated to persons who are the subject of the article? also the information about their characteristics and remarks WHICH MAY QUITE EASILY BE "VERIFIED" with reference to online collections of Islamic source material.DavidYork71 15:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: wrong. the material was obtained from this unreliable, polemic website. the user who inserted it does not speak Arabic. either verify the information, or do not re-insert it. we wouldn't be having this discussion if you simply read through the above discussion. ITAQALLAH 16:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't work for you ITAQALLAH, do it yourself!Hypnosadist 17:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *i'm not pushing for the inclusion of material i know i am unable to verify. you are, so the burden is yours. ITAQALLAH 21:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have visited the site link provided by Itaqallah as a justification for his content- and-reference-stripping on this page. As a website is self-published and therefore not 'reliable source' under WP:V unless quoted in other 'reliable sources'. The author certainly adopt the tone of digust and contempt for slavery (!!!how reprehensible!!!) then at the end launches into a christian evangelical sermon.  Apart from za'd al-mad the article properly references islamic primary and secondard materials including the quran (2:178, 2:187) and I can see that its not making misstatements for any of its named sources that I'm in a position to verify (that's to say, online quran and hadith only). So if they're properly treating their references to sources that we CAN most easily verify ??does that give any credence at all?? to User Itaqallah's thesis that the Za'd al Ma'd is a false or materially misrepresented references for which we must do the opposite of WP:AGF. Stripping the referenced list of slaves is saying what?? that's is a list of butchers and bakers but not slave??  you must have some reading from your consultation of the source itself then to thumb your nose at WP:AGF and cherrypick references to tag 'dubious'.  You saying it's not a list of slave but a list of what? and what's your reading and your reasons for maintaining that as the correct or preferable reading? I'm at a loss to understand what you're asserting the source says at variance with what the publisher affirms it says..DavidYork71 19:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you don't seem to know much about Za'ad al-Ma'ad: answering-islam.org are not its publishers. answering-islam.org is a polemic, unreliable website. they are not known for their fact-checking nor do they care much for it. they are under no obligation to represent him faithfully. you personally may find such websites reliable: not so on Wikipedia. we don't need to "AGF" of pseudo-scholars and polemicists, we shouldn't be using them in the first place. there are, quite obviously, many reasons why we may assume that Ibn al-Qayyim has not been faithfully represented by Christian polemicists. for instance, Ibn al-Qayyim may be referring to these people in a different context, such as "Here is a report naming slaves attributed to Muhammad, which were not actually possessed by him:". there are infinite possibilities as to the context he could have enclosed the list of names in, and we're in no position to guess. ITAQALLAH 03:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is merely your speculation that the material comes from answering-islam.org. Beit Or 21:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: how do you explain this? it is clear that the references to za'd al-ma'ad come from that very article on answering-islam.org. the references have been copied, quite explicitly, from there. ITAQALLAH 21:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *your re-insertion of specious original research which is factually inaccurate, as i have highlighted on this page, is unfortunately rather careless editing on your part. ITAQALLAH 21:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Za'ad al-Ma'ad is not invalidated by being copied by answering-islam.org. Beit Or 21:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes it is, as the intermediary website is unreliable and possesses no credibility. the citations were obtained from that website. we have no guarantee, nor any reason to believe that Ibn al-Qayyim has been represented faithfully. we must independently verify it. if we cannot, then we have no need to include material we cannot verify. ITAQALLAH 21:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are insinuations. You have no proof that the material was obtained from that website. Beit Or 09:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: look at the external link section in the oldid version i provided above. the references and reference style provided in this article correspond exactly with that article. also see WP:DENSE. ITAQALLAH 22:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shall I point you to WP:CIV? The material is attributed to a source, and while you were arguing, lots of other sources have been added. The fixation on Za'ad al-Ma'ad is getting ever more irrelevant with each passing day. Beit Or 22:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beit Or, i simply pointed you to that metawiki link as i feel you are behaving rather unreasonably in denying what seems apparent. i would apologise if you found the directive uncivil. however, this concern is amplified in the light of how you have been endorsing the insertion of material misrepresenting its sources, such as what is cited to EoI, as i highlighted above. you have yet to justify this. it is quite right that we remain fixated upon Za'ad al-Ma'ad as the attribution does not meet encyclopedic standards. please verify it independantly if you wish for it to remain. ITAQALLAH 23:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That goes for all the refs that aren;t linked to a source we can verify.Aaliyah Stevens 00:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Beit Or, you reinserted original research, not for the first time, citing it as relevant. i can only conclude that you have not thoroughly looked at the factually inaccurate material you have been including. please substantiate this original research before reinserting it "Muhammad categorised slaves mothering children by their masters as "Umm Walad" "Muhammed always affirmed the notion that the children of two slave parents are born into slavery", "He otherwise recognised no limits on slave concubinage ". some of these statements are falsely attributed to EoI. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Itaqallah's edits

message: What's the story on him and his book? Arrow740 07:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nadvi

message: Oppose this is one article in a series about aspects of the life of muhammed.  I think the other article also would be overburdened in size by the including this information and it will distract focus from the historical narrative there. For example, how does whether one of muhammad's slave was a tailor or not have any relevance to the broader suhject of islam and slavery. DavidYork71 11:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any references to Jesus's slaves? Beit Or 22:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If you'd like to start an article on Jesus' slaves, you're welcome to do so.Proabivouac 22:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Why how clever of you to miss the point. I was using it as an theoretical example Aaliyah Stevens 00:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope the point is one religious leader owned slaves and millions of humans were bought and sold because he did and he said it was ok. Got the point yet that this is not theoretical slavery this is real.Hypnosadist 00:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Well if you believe that, it still belongs as a section in Islam and SlaveryAaliyah Stevens 10:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that only slaves actually owned by Muhammad belong here. However, this is not the same as Islam and Slavery. Even were Islam to prohibit slavery, Muhammad the historical individual still owned them. We should steer clear of broadening the scope to a review of Islam generally. speak only a little of Muhammad's attitude towards slaves, and focus on what we know of the slaves themselves. It would have been an interesting life, I'd imagine, to have been enslaved to a man who'd accomplished so much; I'd like to hear more about this.Proabivouac 10:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: Further names of female slaves of muhammad referred to there: *Salma Um Rafi' *Maymuna daughter of Abu Asib *Maymuna daughter of Sa'd *Khadra *Radwa *Razina *Um Damira Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya lists in addition two other female-slaves. One was given to him as a present by his cousin, Zaynab, and the other one captured in war.
DavidYork71 02:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zad al-ma'ad 

message: Dear Islam-QA,
I am composing an article about Muhammad's slaves. 
I have found a reference which is  Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya in his work "Zad al-Ma'ad", particularly (part 1, pp. 114, 115, and 116).
It is said there to list the following person's as his slave at one time or another
[list given]
I do not have access to the original work of Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, nor can I understand it's original language.
Would you be able to verify this information and this list?
Do you know any other information about Muhammad's slaves, their names, their characteristics, and his personal dealings with them?
[end] DavidYork71 03:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's not the list itself that needs verification, it's the context surrounding the list which must be known. i don't know what other editors here would say were we to consider islam-qa.com as a reliable source (for verification or otherwise) ^_^. ITAQALLAH 07:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok i'm confused i thought it was the list you where wanting verified ITAQALLAH. What do you mean by context? Do you mean what jobs they did? How long they were owned for? How much they cost? These details while usful and i would support the adding of, are not needed IMHO for the list to be present. It loooks as if DY71 has ask for any of that sort of info. As to reliability you have complained of the origin of this source being answer-islam or some such site, islam-qa.com should at least give us a different POV.Hypnosadist 08:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: he might well have a list of names on various pages in his work. the context surrounding the list i.e. is it a list of slaves Muhammad had at a particular time? is it a reproduction of a reported list slaves passed on to him? what does Ibn al-Qayyim actually say about the list or report he is citing, does he contest to some of these people being named slaves? he might well be saying "here is a list of all slaves ever attributed to Muhammad, some of whom weren't actually slaves:", or he might succeed the list with a detailed discussion specific to the addressing its accuracy. there are infinite possibilities as to what kind of context he could surround any potential list in: which is why we must verify that a) the list is what it is, and; b) that Ibn al-Qayyim has been represented faithfully and precisely. these two factors are essential for verification and a reasonably standard of encyclopedicity. ITAQALLAH 08:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My email message to webmaster@islam-qa.com today