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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
In one of my last comments, where I was answering to another editor's enthusiasm for a new article named Sexual slavery in Islamic terrorism, I said that I am not competent enough for proposing such split, although I think it can be done. However, immediately afterwards, Vice regent has come to my aid and has added to the page a paragraph named ISIL, which seems perfectly suited for the new article. I have then created a draft for Sexual slavery in Islamic terrorism using the recent material from Vice regent.
The draft is only a very pale beginning of a proper article, but objectively there is plenty of material about sexual slavery practiced by terrorist groups who claim a theological justification for their activities without any endorsement from a large part of the Islamic community. I believe that the new article should contain only sexual slavery practiced by organized terrorist groups recognized as such, if it is practiced by regular governments' soldiers or as a result of mass violence it should not be listed there (which does not mean it must be listed here). However, since the page Sexual slavery in Islam currently does not contain much about terrorism but is only focused on historical non-sectarian sexual slavery, most of the material would need to be written from scratch – which also mean that we are not talking about a proper split.
This “split” would also guarantee that the current page Sexual slavery in Islam will remain clean from POV-pushing from who wants to equate Islamic views on slavery to those of Islamic terrorism.
Personally I cannot work alone on the new page, but I will be happy to collaborate.
Differently than this page the new page does not involve theology. There are only two requirements that need to be met for listing something in the new page:
If you do agree, please improve the draft. If you don't, no problem, just explain below why you don't.
-- Grufo ( talk) 19:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Discussion warning This discussion is not about the name used by Wikipedia for the institution of
sexual slavery in Islamic law. |
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
I agree with splitting this topic roughly into two articles: Concubinage in Islam and Sexual slavery in Islamic terrorism. This is what Karaeng Matoaya suggested as well. I understand this to be the position of Mar4d above too. Ping @ Andrewa: for his opinion. VR talk 20:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
This might be of interest. There is currently a related discussion, at Concubinage (not in Islam, just plain concubinage), currently involving only me and Vice regent, started after a massive edit (simply WP:POVSOURCE in my opinion) concerning the connection between concubinage and sexual slavery – further edits have gone in the same direction in the meanwhile. -- Grufo ( talk) 17:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Pinging editors that have been involved in this discussion: @ Mcphurphy: @ Vishnu Sahib: @ Bolanigak: @ Dr Silverstein: @ Dhawangupta: @ Andrewa: @ Vpab15: @ Rreagan007: @ Karaeng Matoaya: @ HaEr48: @ Dr2Rao: @ AnandaBliss: @ JorgeLaArdilla: @ Episcopa: @ Usernamekiran:
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
I am having trouble forming sentences so I am putting this here for suggestions. These references say that theological rape of non-Muslim females is permitted as per Islamic scriptures. How to make sentences using these sources?
[1]
[2]—
Dr2Rao (
talk)
09:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
References
VR talk 11:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Of course, the Islamic State's worldview falls far out of the scope of mainstream Islam, and has been repudiated by clerics across the Muslim world. Some analysts argue that it's less important to focus on the Islamic State's religiosity than the political and economic underpinnings of the jihadist insurgency...
#Requested move 30 August 2020 above contains lots of good research that should go into improving the article. Or perhaps articles as I suggested.
I commented Both concubinage and slavery seem to have been practised, and this seems well documented, and they seem to be different things. Is any of that really in doubt? and have received no comments in reply. But I don't want to argue from that silence that there is no disagreement, it was a very busy RM.
Concubinage in Islam is currently a redirect with no significant history. I suggest that it should be carefully and gradually built into a well-focused and well-referenced article on what reliable secondary sources in English refer to as concubinage in the context of Islam.
Once this is complete, we can restructure and in need rewrite this article. Andrewa ( talk) 23:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I believe that the term “concubinage” appeared in literature with this strange meaning only because the current meaning of the English word “sexual” is relatively recent, while the studies about sexual slavery in Islam are older. “Sexual” in the past meant only “pertaining to the gender of people”; the modern meaning of “pertaining sexual intercourse” appears only after 1929. So basically there was no word in the Western world for the Islamic phenomenon, and the weird shift of meaning should be considered as a linguistic relic that served as a fallback, and that today would be only misleading.-- Grufo ( talk) 01:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
It sounds to me as if there is or has been a concept in Islam that is best described in English as concubinage and which deserves an article. Is this disputed?I fully agree, for sources see #part1.
It also appears that there is or has been a concept in Islam that is best described in English as sexual slavery and which also deserves an article. Is this disputed?I agree that many sources discuss sexual slavery by Muslim extremists like ISIS who claim religious motivation. [3] This was also pointed out by Karaeng Matoaya.
are they in fact just two names for the same thing?They are not the same thing, as you correctly pointed out. There is a world of difference between Islam and ISIS. VR talk 13:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
And third, her child is considered freeborn and legitimate. The child is a full member of the father's family, heir to the father's estate, and equally legal to any of the father's freeborn children.. This is a far cry from sexual slavery. VR talk 00:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
with China you are talking about a historically circumscribed (now unproductive) phenomenon that got first described in the West in a time where a label such as “sexual slavery” would not even be possible, thus as such it got crystallized. With Islam we are talking about a potentially productive phenomenon (unless you consider “Islam” – which is what the article talks about – a dead religion), and using a linguistic relic for it, such as “concubinage”, is unjustified.
In the context of Islam, how are the English terms concubinage and sexual slavery related? This is discussed in places above, and seems to me to be the key issue.
They could mean exactly the same thing. I raise this first because I don't think that is likely, but it is suggested above.
One could be a type of the other. In particular, all concubinage could be forms of sexual slavery. (I don't think it's been suggested that all sexual slavery is a form of concubinage.) This seems likely to be a POV. Sources required at least.
Or they could be related but significantly different, and at least in some places and at some times neither one has been simply a type of the other. In which case, two articles would still seem the obvious course to me. Andrewa ( talk) 14:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
The vague quranic pronouncements on concubines are matched by vigorous debates in the first few centuries over the status of children born to concubines. Although the Prophet is known to have had a child by his concubine Mariya.... Clearly concubinage is a part of Quran and the life Muhammad. VR talk 16:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Good, do you mean you now agree that concubinage is a part of Islamic scriptures? Secondly, I explained the difference between concubinage and sexual slavery, in the Islamic context, 3 times in the past few hours: here, here and here. VR talk 17:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Good, do you mean you now agree that concubinage is a part of Islamic scriptures?”
So just to clarify, your position is still that concubinage is not a part of Islam? Despite the fact that I provided a reliable source [6] saying otherwise? VR talk 17:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Proponents of the split should list here the differences between “sexual slavery” and “concubinage” in Islamic Law. This list will constitute the basis of what the proposed split will talk about. Please keep this list as dry as possible. For the discussion use the appropriate paragraph. -- Grufo ( talk) 01:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This is irrelevant, for several reasons.
One is simply that Islamic law is in Arabic. There may well be only one term for such relationships in Arabic, sometimes translated as one English term and sometimes the other. But there can still be two different topics in English Wikipedia, just as some languages have several different words for different types of what we call snow. So whether or not Islamic law makes a distinction, English readers can and do. A concubine, as understood in English, can have a far higher status than a slave would have.
It is possible that the concept of concubinage does not exist anywhere in Islam, and never has. But this is certainly not what the current article says. The term concubine occurs 71 times. Let me just quote the first of these: Many female slaves became concubines to their owners and bore their children. Others were just used for sex before being transferred. The allowance for men to use contraception with female slaves assisted in thwarting unwanted pregnancies. (A reference is given and the abstract is available online but the text is behind a paywall... Or does Wikipedia have an account to access it?) This seems to be saying that a sexual slave could improve her position by being allowed to bear children, which is compatible with the Judeo-Christian tradition as well, and if that is not what is intended then it should be rephrased. Notable concubines in the Judeo-Christian tradition are of course Hagar, Zilpah, Bilhah, and the three hundred lesser wives of Solomon who ranked below his seven hundred senior wives or princesses. Mention should also be made here of priestly concubinage (currently a redlink but we should have an article) as condemned by the Council of Trent.
If on the other hand it is true that no such concept has ever existed in Islam, then there is indeed no need for a separate article. Instead we need to source that information, and have a section of this article that says something like Although the term "concubine" has sometimes been used to translate the Arabic term of (whatever it is), such women have always had identical status to other slaves used for sexual purposes, and probably eliminate all of the existing 71 mentions of concubine. As I said, that is not what the article currently says at all, or ever has so far as I can see, and it seems unlikely to me. But we go by sources, not guesswork.
Either way there is work to do. Andrewa ( talk) 04:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The Quran also promotes marriage to slaves and abstinence as alternatives to right of intercourse by possession. By contrast, there is no evidence of ISIL ever advocating for "marriage" and "abstinence" in its sexual slavery, quite the evidence to the contrary. Then AnandaBliss pointed out that Islamic concubinage grants legitimacy to the concubine's children. We see something totally different when it comes to ISIL's sexual slavery. And AhmadF.Cheema pointed out that even the status of the concubine changed if she had children. Andrewa brought up the point of a concubine having a higher status than a sex slave. This is true: Muhammad's concubine Mariya is referred to in Islamic scriptures as " Mother of the Believers". Concubines even indirectly ruled the Ottoman Empire during Sultanate of Women. This is rather different from ISIL's sexual slavery. These are just some of the very many differences between concubinage and sexual slavery.
“And what happened to Hindu women on the Pakistani side also happened to Muslim women on the Indian side”: Enslaving women and selling them to Islamic harems definitely pertains to this article. If you believe that Sexual slavery in Hinduism was an important phenomenon like Sexual slavery in Islam was, you could propose a dedicated page; and if the Pakistani women were also used as sexual slaves in anything related to to the new page (like the harems here), you can mention the same fact in the new page. During wars people commit horrible facts, and I do not think that who rapes women does it in the name of religion (they can at most justify it). But I do believe that if harems did not exist, or if the population willing to pay for enslaved around was scarcer, there would be at least an incentive less to enslave women. Religious acceptance of sexual slavery can play an important role in preserving it. If you have a look at Slavery and religion § Christianity, there are mentioned also relatively recent events that were not born in the name of the religion, and nevertheless the religion's acceptance is (correctly) considered enough for mentioning them in the paragraph. -- Grufo ( talk) 15:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I invite any interested to indicate whether they are for or against the split, and briefly why. One sentence should do. This is not an RfC or anything so formal, although it might at some stage be closed by an uninvolved editor if they assess that there is a rough consensus. I will go first. No discussion here please, that belongs in other sections, and it all should follow the talk page guidelines of course.
My thoughts have changed somewhat during the various discussions, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. See wp:creed#wrong, particularly the bit in brackets, and the very first bullet point in User:Andrewa/How not to rant.
Here is the position as I now see it. In particular, I am now sceptical that use of the term concubine in any sense is helpful at all.
Have I got that much right?
The challenge as I see it is to come up with a well-sourced, NPOV article or articles that will be informative and not confusing to the general reader. The term concubine is currently used with so many different and conflicting meanings that it is best simply eliminated.
Or if not, I think it is now up to those who wish to retain it to demonstrate its use in reliable English-language secondary sources. That use need not be consistent, but if inconsistent the usage in articles should be restricted to discussions of direct quotations from sources (and those quotations themselves of course), and the inconsistency in terminology should be noted.
These inconsistencies arise at least in part from changes in meaning of the Arabic terms being translated over time. This is no help. It would be far clearer to use these untranslated Arabic terms, and note their changes in meaning, rather than use an English term whose meaning has not changed to match.
Comments? Andrewa ( talk) 08:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Andrewa and Grufo most English language sources use the term "concubine", see #part1. However, one English language source says this:
[The Quran] permits the male owner of a female slave to take her as a surriyya (plural sarari) a female slave whose master has a sexual relationship with her (the term concubine is generally used in Western scholarship, but in this book I will use the term ‘slave-concubine’).
In that case, would "slave-concubine" be a term that we can all agree to? If not, what would be the objection of using that term? Another acceptable alternative would simply be "female slave". VR talk 14:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Most sources, including the sources proposed by Vice regent, are very clear in using the right words: slaves, enslaved, captive, sexual use, etc. etc. – fact that you keep not acknowledging. Once a source has made it clear that it is talking about slaves it can even call the sexual slaves “lovers”, “concubines”, “lower wives”, etc.: the reader won't forget that it is talking about slaves. In the same way, if a source were talking about other kinds of slaves whose main task was a different one – let's say house holding – it could perfectly start calling such slaves the “householders”, as long as it has made clear at least once that it is talking about slaves.
In other places, the terms slave concubine or slave-concubine are used. Does this imply that there were also free concubines?I think you are interpreting "slave" in "slave-concubine" as an adjective. Instead I think "slave" here is used as a noun. So a "slave-concubine" is someone who is both a slave and a concubine. VR talk 14:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Does contemporary human trafficking in Muslim-majority countries fall within the scope of this article? A user recently such related information to this article. VR talk 19:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I am trying to copy the sources from this article and add it to other articles but I observed that I only just get the name of the author and year of publication - I don't get the full details as can be seen here. How do I add all those details when I cite sources that I copy from this article to other articles? Please let me know. Please also let me know how to read what those sources say.—
Dr2Rao (
talk)
13:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Female captives were frequently used as sexual partners sanctioned in the Quran "ma malakat aymanuhum/kum (what your right hand possesses)". How do I cite it?— Dr2Rao ( talk) 06:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Currently the article contains {{POV section}} and {{POV}} tags referencing to discussions in this Talk page, but no discussion about neutrality is currently open. There are two possible scenarios in this case: either someone starts discussing about POV or we remove the tags – they can always be re-added in case a new discussion is opened. -- Grufo ( talk) 14:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I know, the text is quite poorly written. However it bloated the Concubinage page more than any other section, and this is the place for it, as it is basically a duplicate of this page that looks at sexual slavery in Islam from a slightly different perspective. Meet the new section: Sexual slavery in Islam § Discussion. I hope we all won't mind reviewing and improving it, I am sure there will be interesting things to read. -- Grufo ( talk) 17:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Toddy1: I have seen that you have reverted the merge of the new section from Concubinage. Could you please explain? As things stands now this section goes either here or there. It is poorly written in both places, but chances are higher that it will improve by remaining here. -- Grufo ( talk) 19:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I am replacing this: Sexual slavery in Islam results from the permission in Islamic law for men to have sexual intercourse with the female slaves they own.
with this:
Classical Islamic law allowed men to have sexual intercourse with their female slaves, subject to certain conditions.
There are plenty of sources that mention that medieval Islamic law allowed men to have sexual relations with their female slaves (subject to conditions). But I couldn't find any source that says it resulted in " sexual slavery". And if "sexual slavery" means the exact same thing as "having sex with slaves" then the sentence is redundant anyway. VR talk 14:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Vice regent:
You
keep changing the first sentence of this article despite four three editors have told you to stop (@
TryKid: @
Vpab15: @
JorgeLaArdilla: and myself).
Please self-revert your edits.
-- Grufo ( talk) 12:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
An IP editor has deleted or changed cited paragraphs. [12] The editor has also added some cited paragraphs. I think these need checking.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Its about slavery not about what goes on in the marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.182.165 ( talk) 13:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
In one of my last comments, where I was answering to another editor's enthusiasm for a new article named Sexual slavery in Islamic terrorism, I said that I am not competent enough for proposing such split, although I think it can be done. However, immediately afterwards, Vice regent has come to my aid and has added to the page a paragraph named ISIL, which seems perfectly suited for the new article. I have then created a draft for Sexual slavery in Islamic terrorism using the recent material from Vice regent.
The draft is only a very pale beginning of a proper article, but objectively there is plenty of material about sexual slavery practiced by terrorist groups who claim a theological justification for their activities without any endorsement from a large part of the Islamic community. I believe that the new article should contain only sexual slavery practiced by organized terrorist groups recognized as such, if it is practiced by regular governments' soldiers or as a result of mass violence it should not be listed there (which does not mean it must be listed here). However, since the page Sexual slavery in Islam currently does not contain much about terrorism but is only focused on historical non-sectarian sexual slavery, most of the material would need to be written from scratch – which also mean that we are not talking about a proper split.
This “split” would also guarantee that the current page Sexual slavery in Islam will remain clean from POV-pushing from who wants to equate Islamic views on slavery to those of Islamic terrorism.
Personally I cannot work alone on the new page, but I will be happy to collaborate.
Differently than this page the new page does not involve theology. There are only two requirements that need to be met for listing something in the new page:
If you do agree, please improve the draft. If you don't, no problem, just explain below why you don't.
-- Grufo ( talk) 19:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Discussion warning This discussion is not about the name used by Wikipedia for the institution of
sexual slavery in Islamic law. |
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
I agree with splitting this topic roughly into two articles: Concubinage in Islam and Sexual slavery in Islamic terrorism. This is what Karaeng Matoaya suggested as well. I understand this to be the position of Mar4d above too. Ping @ Andrewa: for his opinion. VR talk 20:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
This might be of interest. There is currently a related discussion, at Concubinage (not in Islam, just plain concubinage), currently involving only me and Vice regent, started after a massive edit (simply WP:POVSOURCE in my opinion) concerning the connection between concubinage and sexual slavery – further edits have gone in the same direction in the meanwhile. -- Grufo ( talk) 17:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Pinging editors that have been involved in this discussion: @ Mcphurphy: @ Vishnu Sahib: @ Bolanigak: @ Dr Silverstein: @ Dhawangupta: @ Andrewa: @ Vpab15: @ Rreagan007: @ Karaeng Matoaya: @ HaEr48: @ Dr2Rao: @ AnandaBliss: @ JorgeLaArdilla: @ Episcopa: @ Usernamekiran:
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
I am having trouble forming sentences so I am putting this here for suggestions. These references say that theological rape of non-Muslim females is permitted as per Islamic scriptures. How to make sentences using these sources?
[1]
[2]—
Dr2Rao (
talk)
09:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
References
VR talk 11:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Of course, the Islamic State's worldview falls far out of the scope of mainstream Islam, and has been repudiated by clerics across the Muslim world. Some analysts argue that it's less important to focus on the Islamic State's religiosity than the political and economic underpinnings of the jihadist insurgency...
#Requested move 30 August 2020 above contains lots of good research that should go into improving the article. Or perhaps articles as I suggested.
I commented Both concubinage and slavery seem to have been practised, and this seems well documented, and they seem to be different things. Is any of that really in doubt? and have received no comments in reply. But I don't want to argue from that silence that there is no disagreement, it was a very busy RM.
Concubinage in Islam is currently a redirect with no significant history. I suggest that it should be carefully and gradually built into a well-focused and well-referenced article on what reliable secondary sources in English refer to as concubinage in the context of Islam.
Once this is complete, we can restructure and in need rewrite this article. Andrewa ( talk) 23:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I believe that the term “concubinage” appeared in literature with this strange meaning only because the current meaning of the English word “sexual” is relatively recent, while the studies about sexual slavery in Islam are older. “Sexual” in the past meant only “pertaining to the gender of people”; the modern meaning of “pertaining sexual intercourse” appears only after 1929. So basically there was no word in the Western world for the Islamic phenomenon, and the weird shift of meaning should be considered as a linguistic relic that served as a fallback, and that today would be only misleading.-- Grufo ( talk) 01:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
It sounds to me as if there is or has been a concept in Islam that is best described in English as concubinage and which deserves an article. Is this disputed?I fully agree, for sources see #part1.
It also appears that there is or has been a concept in Islam that is best described in English as sexual slavery and which also deserves an article. Is this disputed?I agree that many sources discuss sexual slavery by Muslim extremists like ISIS who claim religious motivation. [3] This was also pointed out by Karaeng Matoaya.
are they in fact just two names for the same thing?They are not the same thing, as you correctly pointed out. There is a world of difference between Islam and ISIS. VR talk 13:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
And third, her child is considered freeborn and legitimate. The child is a full member of the father's family, heir to the father's estate, and equally legal to any of the father's freeborn children.. This is a far cry from sexual slavery. VR talk 00:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
with China you are talking about a historically circumscribed (now unproductive) phenomenon that got first described in the West in a time where a label such as “sexual slavery” would not even be possible, thus as such it got crystallized. With Islam we are talking about a potentially productive phenomenon (unless you consider “Islam” – which is what the article talks about – a dead religion), and using a linguistic relic for it, such as “concubinage”, is unjustified.
In the context of Islam, how are the English terms concubinage and sexual slavery related? This is discussed in places above, and seems to me to be the key issue.
They could mean exactly the same thing. I raise this first because I don't think that is likely, but it is suggested above.
One could be a type of the other. In particular, all concubinage could be forms of sexual slavery. (I don't think it's been suggested that all sexual slavery is a form of concubinage.) This seems likely to be a POV. Sources required at least.
Or they could be related but significantly different, and at least in some places and at some times neither one has been simply a type of the other. In which case, two articles would still seem the obvious course to me. Andrewa ( talk) 14:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
The vague quranic pronouncements on concubines are matched by vigorous debates in the first few centuries over the status of children born to concubines. Although the Prophet is known to have had a child by his concubine Mariya.... Clearly concubinage is a part of Quran and the life Muhammad. VR talk 16:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Good, do you mean you now agree that concubinage is a part of Islamic scriptures? Secondly, I explained the difference between concubinage and sexual slavery, in the Islamic context, 3 times in the past few hours: here, here and here. VR talk 17:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Good, do you mean you now agree that concubinage is a part of Islamic scriptures?”
So just to clarify, your position is still that concubinage is not a part of Islam? Despite the fact that I provided a reliable source [6] saying otherwise? VR talk 17:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Proponents of the split should list here the differences between “sexual slavery” and “concubinage” in Islamic Law. This list will constitute the basis of what the proposed split will talk about. Please keep this list as dry as possible. For the discussion use the appropriate paragraph. -- Grufo ( talk) 01:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This is irrelevant, for several reasons.
One is simply that Islamic law is in Arabic. There may well be only one term for such relationships in Arabic, sometimes translated as one English term and sometimes the other. But there can still be two different topics in English Wikipedia, just as some languages have several different words for different types of what we call snow. So whether or not Islamic law makes a distinction, English readers can and do. A concubine, as understood in English, can have a far higher status than a slave would have.
It is possible that the concept of concubinage does not exist anywhere in Islam, and never has. But this is certainly not what the current article says. The term concubine occurs 71 times. Let me just quote the first of these: Many female slaves became concubines to their owners and bore their children. Others were just used for sex before being transferred. The allowance for men to use contraception with female slaves assisted in thwarting unwanted pregnancies. (A reference is given and the abstract is available online but the text is behind a paywall... Or does Wikipedia have an account to access it?) This seems to be saying that a sexual slave could improve her position by being allowed to bear children, which is compatible with the Judeo-Christian tradition as well, and if that is not what is intended then it should be rephrased. Notable concubines in the Judeo-Christian tradition are of course Hagar, Zilpah, Bilhah, and the three hundred lesser wives of Solomon who ranked below his seven hundred senior wives or princesses. Mention should also be made here of priestly concubinage (currently a redlink but we should have an article) as condemned by the Council of Trent.
If on the other hand it is true that no such concept has ever existed in Islam, then there is indeed no need for a separate article. Instead we need to source that information, and have a section of this article that says something like Although the term "concubine" has sometimes been used to translate the Arabic term of (whatever it is), such women have always had identical status to other slaves used for sexual purposes, and probably eliminate all of the existing 71 mentions of concubine. As I said, that is not what the article currently says at all, or ever has so far as I can see, and it seems unlikely to me. But we go by sources, not guesswork.
Either way there is work to do. Andrewa ( talk) 04:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The Quran also promotes marriage to slaves and abstinence as alternatives to right of intercourse by possession. By contrast, there is no evidence of ISIL ever advocating for "marriage" and "abstinence" in its sexual slavery, quite the evidence to the contrary. Then AnandaBliss pointed out that Islamic concubinage grants legitimacy to the concubine's children. We see something totally different when it comes to ISIL's sexual slavery. And AhmadF.Cheema pointed out that even the status of the concubine changed if she had children. Andrewa brought up the point of a concubine having a higher status than a sex slave. This is true: Muhammad's concubine Mariya is referred to in Islamic scriptures as " Mother of the Believers". Concubines even indirectly ruled the Ottoman Empire during Sultanate of Women. This is rather different from ISIL's sexual slavery. These are just some of the very many differences between concubinage and sexual slavery.
“And what happened to Hindu women on the Pakistani side also happened to Muslim women on the Indian side”: Enslaving women and selling them to Islamic harems definitely pertains to this article. If you believe that Sexual slavery in Hinduism was an important phenomenon like Sexual slavery in Islam was, you could propose a dedicated page; and if the Pakistani women were also used as sexual slaves in anything related to to the new page (like the harems here), you can mention the same fact in the new page. During wars people commit horrible facts, and I do not think that who rapes women does it in the name of religion (they can at most justify it). But I do believe that if harems did not exist, or if the population willing to pay for enslaved around was scarcer, there would be at least an incentive less to enslave women. Religious acceptance of sexual slavery can play an important role in preserving it. If you have a look at Slavery and religion § Christianity, there are mentioned also relatively recent events that were not born in the name of the religion, and nevertheless the religion's acceptance is (correctly) considered enough for mentioning them in the paragraph. -- Grufo ( talk) 15:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I invite any interested to indicate whether they are for or against the split, and briefly why. One sentence should do. This is not an RfC or anything so formal, although it might at some stage be closed by an uninvolved editor if they assess that there is a rough consensus. I will go first. No discussion here please, that belongs in other sections, and it all should follow the talk page guidelines of course.
My thoughts have changed somewhat during the various discussions, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. See wp:creed#wrong, particularly the bit in brackets, and the very first bullet point in User:Andrewa/How not to rant.
Here is the position as I now see it. In particular, I am now sceptical that use of the term concubine in any sense is helpful at all.
Have I got that much right?
The challenge as I see it is to come up with a well-sourced, NPOV article or articles that will be informative and not confusing to the general reader. The term concubine is currently used with so many different and conflicting meanings that it is best simply eliminated.
Or if not, I think it is now up to those who wish to retain it to demonstrate its use in reliable English-language secondary sources. That use need not be consistent, but if inconsistent the usage in articles should be restricted to discussions of direct quotations from sources (and those quotations themselves of course), and the inconsistency in terminology should be noted.
These inconsistencies arise at least in part from changes in meaning of the Arabic terms being translated over time. This is no help. It would be far clearer to use these untranslated Arabic terms, and note their changes in meaning, rather than use an English term whose meaning has not changed to match.
Comments? Andrewa ( talk) 08:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Andrewa and Grufo most English language sources use the term "concubine", see #part1. However, one English language source says this:
[The Quran] permits the male owner of a female slave to take her as a surriyya (plural sarari) a female slave whose master has a sexual relationship with her (the term concubine is generally used in Western scholarship, but in this book I will use the term ‘slave-concubine’).
In that case, would "slave-concubine" be a term that we can all agree to? If not, what would be the objection of using that term? Another acceptable alternative would simply be "female slave". VR talk 14:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Most sources, including the sources proposed by Vice regent, are very clear in using the right words: slaves, enslaved, captive, sexual use, etc. etc. – fact that you keep not acknowledging. Once a source has made it clear that it is talking about slaves it can even call the sexual slaves “lovers”, “concubines”, “lower wives”, etc.: the reader won't forget that it is talking about slaves. In the same way, if a source were talking about other kinds of slaves whose main task was a different one – let's say house holding – it could perfectly start calling such slaves the “householders”, as long as it has made clear at least once that it is talking about slaves.
In other places, the terms slave concubine or slave-concubine are used. Does this imply that there were also free concubines?I think you are interpreting "slave" in "slave-concubine" as an adjective. Instead I think "slave" here is used as a noun. So a "slave-concubine" is someone who is both a slave and a concubine. VR talk 14:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Does contemporary human trafficking in Muslim-majority countries fall within the scope of this article? A user recently such related information to this article. VR talk 19:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I am trying to copy the sources from this article and add it to other articles but I observed that I only just get the name of the author and year of publication - I don't get the full details as can be seen here. How do I add all those details when I cite sources that I copy from this article to other articles? Please let me know. Please also let me know how to read what those sources say.—
Dr2Rao (
talk)
13:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Female captives were frequently used as sexual partners sanctioned in the Quran "ma malakat aymanuhum/kum (what your right hand possesses)". How do I cite it?— Dr2Rao ( talk) 06:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Currently the article contains {{POV section}} and {{POV}} tags referencing to discussions in this Talk page, but no discussion about neutrality is currently open. There are two possible scenarios in this case: either someone starts discussing about POV or we remove the tags – they can always be re-added in case a new discussion is opened. -- Grufo ( talk) 14:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I know, the text is quite poorly written. However it bloated the Concubinage page more than any other section, and this is the place for it, as it is basically a duplicate of this page that looks at sexual slavery in Islam from a slightly different perspective. Meet the new section: Sexual slavery in Islam § Discussion. I hope we all won't mind reviewing and improving it, I am sure there will be interesting things to read. -- Grufo ( talk) 17:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Toddy1: I have seen that you have reverted the merge of the new section from Concubinage. Could you please explain? As things stands now this section goes either here or there. It is poorly written in both places, but chances are higher that it will improve by remaining here. -- Grufo ( talk) 19:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I am replacing this: Sexual slavery in Islam results from the permission in Islamic law for men to have sexual intercourse with the female slaves they own.
with this:
Classical Islamic law allowed men to have sexual intercourse with their female slaves, subject to certain conditions.
There are plenty of sources that mention that medieval Islamic law allowed men to have sexual relations with their female slaves (subject to conditions). But I couldn't find any source that says it resulted in " sexual slavery". And if "sexual slavery" means the exact same thing as "having sex with slaves" then the sentence is redundant anyway. VR talk 14:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Vice regent:
You
keep changing the first sentence of this article despite four three editors have told you to stop (@
TryKid: @
Vpab15: @
JorgeLaArdilla: and myself).
Please self-revert your edits.
-- Grufo ( talk) 12:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
An IP editor has deleted or changed cited paragraphs. [12] The editor has also added some cited paragraphs. I think these need checking.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Its about slavery not about what goes on in the marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.182.165 ( talk) 13:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)