This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I kinda agree with this edit because it is an attempt to clean up an otherwise mixed up article. Many of the sources removed don't even mention "sexual slavery" or "sex slaves".
Another big problem is that the article states as fact that which is merely opinion. For example, it stated "For all Sunni law schools the concept of marital rape is an oxymoron." Yet marital rape is condemned by Islamic scholars. If someone thinks that Islamic scholars don't recognize marital rape then that must clearly be attributed to the author. VR talk 02:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
The Jewish position on the subject is particularly difficult to ascertain; although concubinage appears in Biblical texts, it seems to have fallen out of favour a long time before the birth of Muhammad and is rarely mentioned. We can only say that in later peiods Jewish legal authorities under Islamic rule prohibited Jews from sexual intercourse with their slave women on pain of death.
Despite this small caveat, there is still no way we can equate derivations of the Roman practice of concubinatus as it existed in the seventh century Christian Near East with concubinage as practised by Muslims- and it is safe to say that the Christians utterly condemned Islamic behaviour in this regard.
So with the taking of concubines, and the full acceptance of their offspring, the Muslims did something that contrasted with the prevailing norms of every major Near-Eastern religious practice of the conquest era-including that of the pre-Islamic Hijaz. By allowing unlimited concubinage they were overturining the Roman understanding of it being a monogamous institution, and by allowing it at all they were in conflict with Jewish and Christian law. Even in the only religious system that did allow concubinage in something approaching the Islamic sense - the Mazdaean- there were important discreprancies.
Islam does indeed discourage slavery and there are many sources, including the Freamon source, that say this. It is not common to add sources to the lead, hence the inline reference wasn't there. But I can certainly add the inline reference, yet you removed that sentence yet again. VR talk 10:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
"The lead makes it seem like "Islam" was what caused sexual slavery to exist."I will say that concubinage actually increased dramatically with the emergence of Islam. It was uncommon before the time of the Prophet sallalahu alayhi wassalam and actually increased as the early Islamic conquests allowed the Muslim armies to capture a large number of women.
A study of the Arab genealogical text Nasab Quraysh records the maternity of 3,000 Quraishi tribesmen, most of whom lived in between 500 and 750 CE.[50] The data shows that there was a massive increase in the number of children born to concubines with the emergence of Islam.[50] An analysis of the information found that no children were born from concubines before the generation of Muhammad's grandfather.[51] There were a few cases of children being born from concubines before Muhammad but they were only in his father's and grandfather's generation. The analysis of the data thus showed that concubinage was not common before the time of Muhammad, but increased for men of his generation as a result of military conquests.[52]
Due to these conquests, a large number of female slaves were available to the conquerors. Although there were more births, the attitude towards children born from slaves still remained negative.[53] Some early Arab Muslims discriminated against those people who were born fron non-Arab female slaves. However, there is no indication that these attitudes were ever acted upon.[54]
Concubinage was not a common practice among the civilisations which the early Muslims had conquered and it was condemned wherever it existed.[56] Concubinage was allowed among the Sasanian elites and the Mazdeans but the children from such unions were not necessarily regarded as legitimate.[57] The position of Jewish communities is unclear although slave concubinage is mentioned in Biblical texts. Apparently, the practice had declined long before Muhammad. Jewish scholars during Islamic rule would forbid Jews from having sex with their female slaves. Christian communities had already prohibited the old Roman version of concubinage long before the Islamic version of concubinage came about. The Christians condemned the Islamic practice of concubinage.[58] Leo III in his letter to Umar II accused Muslims of "debauchery" with their concubines who they would sell "like dumb cattle" after having tired of using them.[57] It's expansion under the Umayyads occurred mainly due to the their tribal desire for sons rather than because of the support for it in the Quran and Prophetic practice.[59]
The so-called mild nature of Muslim enslavement was as far from realities in the Muslim parts of the Philippines or in the Algero-Sahara as it was in the Ottoman Empire. ...However, on the polemics level, when Muslim writers defended enslavement in their societies, they sought to project a totally different image of the realities enslaved persons had to cope with. They emphasized domestic, household, mainly female slavery as the predominant form of bondage, and depicted that as being “part of the family”, a benign mode of belonging to a patron, the head of the household, one of a number of ways that attached people to those social-political-economic units. The practice of concubinage, common in elite households, was portrayed as an intimate arrangement that enabled enslaved women to join good Muslim families and be integrated, together with their offspring, into secure and respectable households. That realities for the enslaved were far from being “mild” has been amply documented and cogently argued. [1]
Mcphurphy ( talk) 04:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
@ Eperoton:, with due respect, I strongly disagree that Mcphurphy has presented sources in an NPOV way. I'll give just an example from the above. Mcphurphy cites a source to say: "Concubinage was not a common practice among the civilisations which the early Muslims had conquered". The author does indeed say that the concubinage practiced (eventually) by Muslims was quite different from what was practiced in pre-Islamic Near eastern civilizations. But the author also says that the concubinage eventually practiced by Muslims was also quite different from the practice of Prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an, and is instead rooted in the unique circumstances presented to the Umayads. The author says this literally on the same page, yet Mcphurphy omitted to mention this in his edits. This bit was added to the article by an anon IP twice [5] [6] (twice, cause after the first addition Mcphurphy removed it). This is just one example of extreme WP:CHERRYPICKING that is being practiced here. I'm also seeing the same pattern quoting sources out of context at Rape in Islamic law. VR talk 08:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Like the absence of concubinage in earlier generations, this finding concurs with the traditional narrative sources; concubinage was uncommon in pre-Islamoc Arabian society, but this changed for the men of Muhammad's era as a consequence of military conquests.
Sexual exploitation is a common aspect of slavery, practiced in virtually every known slave society...In the Roman the role of sexual exploitation in the slave system has been increasingly recognized. Indeed, it has become effectively obligatory to make some reference to the complete sexual availability of slaves in Roman antiquity.
— Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275–425, page 282-3
Mcphurphy ( talk) 00:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)With regards to Christian communities, not only was their original Roman understanding of concubinage completely different to their normative Islamic version, but they had banned this more limited practice a long time before the conquests.. The first instance of prohibition relating to concubinage is dated to Constantine I, though laws regarding the inheritance rights of the children of cincubines did later appear in the Near Eastern provinces (these children got some rights rather than none). Despite this small cavetat, there is still no way we can equate derivations of the Roman practice of concubinatus as it existed in the seventh century Christian Near East ith concubinage as practised by Muslims - and it is safe to say that the Christiansutterly condemned Islamic behaviour in this regard.
I am going to restore this article as it was in its longstanding version before
Arsi786 made sweeping changes on from 17 May onwards
[9] without seeking consensus. The Wikipedia policy states that "During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo." Multiple editors
[10]
[11] reverted his changes. Until
Vice regent came in to restore his version. I have explained in the above section that there are many problems with this new version, not only in that it distorts the content to make it say something completely different to what the sources are saying, but it has produced disjointed, incoherent and grammatically incoherent sentences such as this: However, Islamic jurists held that
Dhimmis who lived in areas which were known as
Dhimmi's which had formal pacts with Muslims were to be protected from enslavement.
. Therefore, I will restore the longstanding version and request all editors to respect the
WP:STATUSQUO while we resolve any content issues. I would also urge @
Vice regent: to stop moving this article's title without obtaining a clear consensus. Ping other editors active here to keep an eye on this. @
Eperoton:, @
Koreangauteng:, @
Balolay:, @
Elmidae: please keep an eye.
Mcphurphy (
talk)
07:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
two (different) groups of women, but that's not correct. Concubines in the Sultan's harem (i.e. not wives) were a subset of "ma malakat aymanukum", i.e. slaves. So these two groups of women actually fall under the same category. Also, I'm not sure what Boko Haram has to do with any of this. VR talk 07:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I read all the quotes from the sources Mcphurphy showed. [20] This article before Arsi786 represented the sources faithfully.
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I kinda agree with this edit because it is an attempt to clean up an otherwise mixed up article. Many of the sources removed don't even mention "sexual slavery" or "sex slaves".
Another big problem is that the article states as fact that which is merely opinion. For example, it stated "For all Sunni law schools the concept of marital rape is an oxymoron." Yet marital rape is condemned by Islamic scholars. If someone thinks that Islamic scholars don't recognize marital rape then that must clearly be attributed to the author. VR talk 02:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
The Jewish position on the subject is particularly difficult to ascertain; although concubinage appears in Biblical texts, it seems to have fallen out of favour a long time before the birth of Muhammad and is rarely mentioned. We can only say that in later peiods Jewish legal authorities under Islamic rule prohibited Jews from sexual intercourse with their slave women on pain of death.
Despite this small caveat, there is still no way we can equate derivations of the Roman practice of concubinatus as it existed in the seventh century Christian Near East with concubinage as practised by Muslims- and it is safe to say that the Christians utterly condemned Islamic behaviour in this regard.
So with the taking of concubines, and the full acceptance of their offspring, the Muslims did something that contrasted with the prevailing norms of every major Near-Eastern religious practice of the conquest era-including that of the pre-Islamic Hijaz. By allowing unlimited concubinage they were overturining the Roman understanding of it being a monogamous institution, and by allowing it at all they were in conflict with Jewish and Christian law. Even in the only religious system that did allow concubinage in something approaching the Islamic sense - the Mazdaean- there were important discreprancies.
Islam does indeed discourage slavery and there are many sources, including the Freamon source, that say this. It is not common to add sources to the lead, hence the inline reference wasn't there. But I can certainly add the inline reference, yet you removed that sentence yet again. VR talk 10:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
"The lead makes it seem like "Islam" was what caused sexual slavery to exist."I will say that concubinage actually increased dramatically with the emergence of Islam. It was uncommon before the time of the Prophet sallalahu alayhi wassalam and actually increased as the early Islamic conquests allowed the Muslim armies to capture a large number of women.
A study of the Arab genealogical text Nasab Quraysh records the maternity of 3,000 Quraishi tribesmen, most of whom lived in between 500 and 750 CE.[50] The data shows that there was a massive increase in the number of children born to concubines with the emergence of Islam.[50] An analysis of the information found that no children were born from concubines before the generation of Muhammad's grandfather.[51] There were a few cases of children being born from concubines before Muhammad but they were only in his father's and grandfather's generation. The analysis of the data thus showed that concubinage was not common before the time of Muhammad, but increased for men of his generation as a result of military conquests.[52]
Due to these conquests, a large number of female slaves were available to the conquerors. Although there were more births, the attitude towards children born from slaves still remained negative.[53] Some early Arab Muslims discriminated against those people who were born fron non-Arab female slaves. However, there is no indication that these attitudes were ever acted upon.[54]
Concubinage was not a common practice among the civilisations which the early Muslims had conquered and it was condemned wherever it existed.[56] Concubinage was allowed among the Sasanian elites and the Mazdeans but the children from such unions were not necessarily regarded as legitimate.[57] The position of Jewish communities is unclear although slave concubinage is mentioned in Biblical texts. Apparently, the practice had declined long before Muhammad. Jewish scholars during Islamic rule would forbid Jews from having sex with their female slaves. Christian communities had already prohibited the old Roman version of concubinage long before the Islamic version of concubinage came about. The Christians condemned the Islamic practice of concubinage.[58] Leo III in his letter to Umar II accused Muslims of "debauchery" with their concubines who they would sell "like dumb cattle" after having tired of using them.[57] It's expansion under the Umayyads occurred mainly due to the their tribal desire for sons rather than because of the support for it in the Quran and Prophetic practice.[59]
The so-called mild nature of Muslim enslavement was as far from realities in the Muslim parts of the Philippines or in the Algero-Sahara as it was in the Ottoman Empire. ...However, on the polemics level, when Muslim writers defended enslavement in their societies, they sought to project a totally different image of the realities enslaved persons had to cope with. They emphasized domestic, household, mainly female slavery as the predominant form of bondage, and depicted that as being “part of the family”, a benign mode of belonging to a patron, the head of the household, one of a number of ways that attached people to those social-political-economic units. The practice of concubinage, common in elite households, was portrayed as an intimate arrangement that enabled enslaved women to join good Muslim families and be integrated, together with their offspring, into secure and respectable households. That realities for the enslaved were far from being “mild” has been amply documented and cogently argued. [1]
Mcphurphy ( talk) 04:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
@ Eperoton:, with due respect, I strongly disagree that Mcphurphy has presented sources in an NPOV way. I'll give just an example from the above. Mcphurphy cites a source to say: "Concubinage was not a common practice among the civilisations which the early Muslims had conquered". The author does indeed say that the concubinage practiced (eventually) by Muslims was quite different from what was practiced in pre-Islamic Near eastern civilizations. But the author also says that the concubinage eventually practiced by Muslims was also quite different from the practice of Prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an, and is instead rooted in the unique circumstances presented to the Umayads. The author says this literally on the same page, yet Mcphurphy omitted to mention this in his edits. This bit was added to the article by an anon IP twice [5] [6] (twice, cause after the first addition Mcphurphy removed it). This is just one example of extreme WP:CHERRYPICKING that is being practiced here. I'm also seeing the same pattern quoting sources out of context at Rape in Islamic law. VR talk 08:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Like the absence of concubinage in earlier generations, this finding concurs with the traditional narrative sources; concubinage was uncommon in pre-Islamoc Arabian society, but this changed for the men of Muhammad's era as a consequence of military conquests.
Sexual exploitation is a common aspect of slavery, practiced in virtually every known slave society...In the Roman the role of sexual exploitation in the slave system has been increasingly recognized. Indeed, it has become effectively obligatory to make some reference to the complete sexual availability of slaves in Roman antiquity.
— Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275–425, page 282-3
Mcphurphy ( talk) 00:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)With regards to Christian communities, not only was their original Roman understanding of concubinage completely different to their normative Islamic version, but they had banned this more limited practice a long time before the conquests.. The first instance of prohibition relating to concubinage is dated to Constantine I, though laws regarding the inheritance rights of the children of cincubines did later appear in the Near Eastern provinces (these children got some rights rather than none). Despite this small cavetat, there is still no way we can equate derivations of the Roman practice of concubinatus as it existed in the seventh century Christian Near East ith concubinage as practised by Muslims - and it is safe to say that the Christiansutterly condemned Islamic behaviour in this regard.
I am going to restore this article as it was in its longstanding version before
Arsi786 made sweeping changes on from 17 May onwards
[9] without seeking consensus. The Wikipedia policy states that "During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo." Multiple editors
[10]
[11] reverted his changes. Until
Vice regent came in to restore his version. I have explained in the above section that there are many problems with this new version, not only in that it distorts the content to make it say something completely different to what the sources are saying, but it has produced disjointed, incoherent and grammatically incoherent sentences such as this: However, Islamic jurists held that
Dhimmis who lived in areas which were known as
Dhimmi's which had formal pacts with Muslims were to be protected from enslavement.
. Therefore, I will restore the longstanding version and request all editors to respect the
WP:STATUSQUO while we resolve any content issues. I would also urge @
Vice regent: to stop moving this article's title without obtaining a clear consensus. Ping other editors active here to keep an eye on this. @
Eperoton:, @
Koreangauteng:, @
Balolay:, @
Elmidae: please keep an eye.
Mcphurphy (
talk)
07:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
two (different) groups of women, but that's not correct. Concubines in the Sultan's harem (i.e. not wives) were a subset of "ma malakat aymanukum", i.e. slaves. So these two groups of women actually fall under the same category. Also, I'm not sure what Boko Haram has to do with any of this. VR talk 07:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I read all the quotes from the sources Mcphurphy showed. [20] This article before Arsi786 represented the sources faithfully.
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.