Talk:History of concubinage in the Muslim world

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of useful references[edit]

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources. They are useful for verifiability, but they can't establish notability for "sexual slavery in Islam [for all time]", as each of the sources is focused on a particular region and time period.VR talk 14:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A 'list' article will help ?
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLIST says "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources".VR talk 14:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay over all that means what remains is matter of time and how to provide encyclopedic space. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Toddy1: If there are any useful talk page discussions, just replying to them will keep them live and prevent automatic archiving. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts[edit]

Pathawi, You removed this sentence but it has been added and accepted at Rape_in_Islamic_law#Consent_of_slaves, so why should it not be acceptable here at History of concubinage in the Muslim world? Copying a sentence from another article is allowed!-1Firang (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will you let me link the term "non-Muslim" to the Kafir article if I cite the source used in the Kafir article which says that Kafir means "non-Muslim" too?-1Firang (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want to add the term kāfir? The point of the cited source is that only non-Muslims could be enslaved. That term is comparatively clear. You want to use a term that is not in the source and which is open to interpretation. By one very common understanding, People of the Book are not kuffār. Yet people who were definitely among People of the Book—Jews & Christians—were considered acceptable slaves in the historical contexts the sources address. (&, of course, there's one stream within Islam in which other Muslims are regularly subjected to takfīr.) There's not benefit to linking to this term & it introduces unclarity that's not in the source. Pathawi (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copying sentences from other articles is actually a little tricky, & that's really not what's at question. It is unacceptable for reasons discussed at Rape in Islamic law and which led to your getting an administrative warning, and which I included in the edit summary here. Pathawi (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marrying a slave off isn't concubinage, that's just marrying off a slave. History of slavery in the Muslim world more generally is a separate article. This article here is highly specific to the institution of concubinage. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert war[edit]

Barbardo I have been repeatedly adding text with a reliable source, the last of which was with this edit but you have been removing it repeatedly - see this, this and this edit. Please explain why you are removing sourced content? -60.243.252.254 (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC) Obvious sock. M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my bad I thought you were from a different wikipedia page edit.
As explained in my edit summary Kecia ali hasn't given evidence for such claim that it wasn't historically considered or provided primary evidence for such a claim. Barbardo (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barbardo, wikipedia does not ask us to verify if the source gives evidence for what it says/claims. The reliable source used does say whatever the text says which is enough to add it here.-60.243.252.254 (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Obvious sock. M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the issue how can it be deemed reliable if the author doesn't give or show proof for such a claim. Barbardo (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not my problem.-60.243.252.254 (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Obvious sock. M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may ask others what a reliable source is. I believe that source is reliable.-60.243.252.254 (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Obvious sock. M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But on what ground's is the source reliable since the author hasn't listed proof or gave any primary text to prove it Barbardo (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it is as your using kecia ali's source Barbardo (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anachronist, Barbardo has repeatedly been removing text added with a reliable source (which he agrees is reliable, as can be seen above), the last being with this edit. Please suggest what to do next.-60.243.252.254 (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC) Obvious sock. M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you are pinging me, or why you think it is important to include that statement in the article. The passage you added is a copyright violation, pulled verbatim from the source, and would be removed anyway on that basis. I don't have another opinion. I suggest you read WP:BRD and after you do that, you might try Wikipedia:Third opinion. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I asked many times to give a more accurate source which lists the proof yet your still not doing that. Barbardo (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text has been paraphrased and added using a reliable source - please suggest if it can be added back after reading all the arguments above. The text added can be seen here and the unparaphrased original is mentioned in the summary of changes in the same edit. 2406:7400:98:1D35:9B60:B127:DACD:3F66 (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC) |}[reply]

Both these ip address came from India mostly the same person Barbardo (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barbardo some primary sources can be seen here. I am mentioning this just to show you that the text added was not false. However, we cannot use primary sources here.-49.205.144.136 (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence used is from kecia ali yet again and no primary source from the quran or hadith suggests consent is not needed Barbardo (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the primary sources I posted a link to above, the Quran says, "... lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war".-2406:7400:98:1D35:E838:AB27:3E93:5CDE (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lower down in that article, a secondary source, Kecia Ali says, "Her master's right of possession granted him licit sexual access to her"-2406:7400:98:1D35:E838:AB27:3E93:5CDE (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The primary sources in that link like the Quran verses used don't say that consent is ignored it just legalize the relationship between the two which kecia ali confirms.
The issue we had before is kecia ali said consent wasnt needed historically which has no basis or proof. Barbardo (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can also paraphrase and use this: "The legal relationship between a master and concubine, which made sexual intercourse lawful, was exclusive to them alone, as if it were a marriage.[1]"-2406:7400:98:1D35:96F0:F8BA:54D4:3584 (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC) 2406:7400:98:1D35:96F0:F8BA:54D4:3584 (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point I am trying to make, with reliable secondary sources is that the consent of a female slave for sex was not necessary. -2406:7400:98:1D35:96F0:F8BA:54D4:3584 (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Which I disagree with kecia ali that's not stated in the primary text but thats her own opinion which lacks bases nothing in the primary text says consent is not needed. Barbardo (talk) 08:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's already stated in the article, that such relationships were legalized between them there is no need to add what's already mentioned. Barbardo (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Response to third opinion request:
The cited source, "Islam and Slavery" is published by Brandeis University and does meet the Wikipedia standard for reliability. The author and publisher are the main aspects to consider when determining the reliability of a source for Wikipedia according to WP:SOURCE. A source is not required to have footnotes to meet the reliability standard. Furthermore, digging deeper and challenging the content of a source that meets reliability based on both author and publisher gets really close to original research which should be avoided per Wikipedia's guidelines as stated in WP:NOR. Regardless, I believe this content is appropriate to include in this article based on the quality of the source and its author. I also think this is helpful content as it more fully explains the relationship between master and concubine. My only caution is to make sure you either paraphrase or use quotation marks when restoring the content. > Rublamb (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the source in question doesn't provide evidence for such a claim? Neither is it mentioned in the article kecia wrote neither is any proof given from the primary text Barbardo (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barbardo, You are asking the wrong questions. Is the author reliable? Is the publisher reliable? If the answers are "yes", then this content meets the standard of reliability for inclusion in Wikipedia. An expert does not have to cite sources, although that is one way to determine the reliability of an article that has an author with an unknown background and/or an unfamiliar publisher. When you try to dig deeper, you appear to be conducting original research in an attempt to disprove this source because it does not match your opinions. I am not sure if you saw my earlier comment, but there are numerous scholarly sources that say the same thing in the article Islamic views on concubinage in Wikipedia. Their existence supports my position that the inclusion of the content in question in this article is not undo weight. In fact, given the coverage provided in the other article, it seems more than correct to have a single mention here. The presence of so many other sources on this topic also explains why the author in question is comfortable making a statement in her essay without citations--the information she is expressing appears to be an accepted fact with regard to concubines. I encourage you to read the other Wikipedia article before continuing this unnecessary battle over a single sentence in this article. I found it to provide much clarity with regard to this matter.Rublamb (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coukd you list these numerous scholars that suggest consent is not needed? My objection is Kecia doesn't list Evidence for her claim in that article Barbardo (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barbardo: Kecia doesn't have to list evidence (i.e. citations)--she is the expert publishing through a highly credible university. I appreciate your desire to be thoughtful when reviewing content (evidence of a good editor IMO), but you continue to focus on your disagreement with the statements being made, rather than whether or not the author and publisher are reliable. Since there are ample sources in the Wikipedia article (Islamic views on concubinage that discuss the relationship of concubinage to slavery, it becomes clear why Kecia makes her statements regarding consent and also why it is relevant content to include in this article. The interpretation of the power dynamic between a slave and master is well established within academia, with the slave lacking the power to decline service of any type. As with American slavery, I suspect that there are plenty of revisionist historians who wish to temper the reality of Islamic slavery with romantic visions of the master - consubine relationships. Some of these stories are probably true, and it is also possible that the nature of these relationships changed over historical time--something that is perfect to discuss in an article such as History of Cuncubnage in the Muslim World. To me, to deny the inclusion of this content by Kecia is akin to trying to rewrite history, certainly not the type of bias that should be introduced in a Wikipedia article. For what it is worth I try to provide third opinions for topics that I have no expertise so that I can enter the discussion as neutrally as possible. I am a bit uncomfortable with how deep I am into its substance at this point but am doing so because I really want to calm this edit war. I hope my feedback is helpful to you. The only other step I can recommend is to start a new topic on this Talk Page that is to vote on this content and let the majority decide. There is no point in continuing to comment back and forth when all parties solidly believe they are right. And unless someone is actually vandalizing an article, I am really against edit blocks as that is another way of forcing one editor's beliefs over another. Just my opinion; I know others will disagree. Rublamb (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rublamb: Two sources can be cited, with the text, " - the female captives/slaves did not have the right to deny their owners sex according to scholars,"[1][2]-2406:7400:98:1D35:F58B:45E4:FC84:598 (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC) 2406:7400:98:1D35:F58B:45E4:FC84:598 (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both from the same author. Barbardo (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went through that page and two other people disagreed with here and why should her assertion be added in the lead she doesn't back her claim with evidence from primary text all she stated she couldn't find proof from legal text which doesn't mean it was allowed either thats not a good justification. Barbardo (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For your information, the second source is by a different author.-2406:7400:98:1D35:B58E:1723:AED1:CCB2 (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From a stack exchange thats not credible if want websites like that why ignore what written in the abu amina website which found sources that required consent? Barbardo (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist @Pathawi Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1Firang The IP was indeed linked to 1Firang Barbardo (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barbardo, thank you for letting us know. This is disappointing, but not surprising given the similarity of edits, argument tactics, & misuse of process. Pathawi (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Brandeis University.
  2. ^ "sex — Is consent necessary for sexual relations with a concubine?". Islam Stack Exchange. 2021-07-14. Retrieved 2023-09-21.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2023[edit]

This article has been extended confirmed edit protected. The third opinion has been given (see above). I therefore request someone to read the above and add this now in the same place: " - the female captives/slaves did not have the right to deny their owners sex,"-2406:7400:98:1D35:6959:5BFB:582F:B985 (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC) 2406:7400:98:1D35:6959:5BFB:582F:B985 (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rublamb: I protected this article due to the dispute above. Reading over the arguments, your opinion, the source, information about the author, etc., I am wondering if this is a WP:UNDUE situation. We need to report consensus opinions from scholars. It is pretty clear that with this particular passage, the author of that book is expressing her own personal interpretation of a primary source, and that opinion may be colored by her main area of work, which is about feminist topics. Are there other sources that also draw the same conclusion? It isn't like she is the only scholar who has ever written about it. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: According to the primary sources I posted a link to above, the Quran says, "... lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war".
Lower down in that article, a secondary source, Kecia Ali says, "Her master's right of possession granted him licit sexual access to her"
We can also paraphrase and use this: "The legal relationship between a master and concubine, which made sexual intercourse lawful, was exclusive to them alone, as if it were a marriage.[1]"
This also says that consent is not needed.-2406:7400:98:1D35:7280:E2DE:71C6:E973 (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

I do not find this to be an example of WP:UNDUE. Nor is this a case of excessive bias. Even if the writer in question is biased by her field of expertise, this article can still be used as a source according to WP:BIASED. WP:BIASED states that it is the Wikipedia article that is supposed to be neutral, not necessarily the reliable sources used. Look at this way, the included content meets all criteria for inclusion. If you think this content is historically wrong, it is on you to find a reliable source that says the opposite (that concubines did have the right to deny sex to their masters). Then, you could expand on this topic within the artice citing the new source or add an explanatory footnote indicating that not all scholars agree or start a discussion on the Talk Page to compare the two sources. However, you are not supposed to remove information that has a reliable source because you don't agree with the scholar/author in question. Rublamb (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed it was okay Kecia makes a blanket statement what makes her a reliable source on the issue when in that reference she doesn't include evidence. Barbardo (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rublamb, Anachronist or anybody else who comes here to carry out the edit request, so please add this in the same place as asked in the previous section: " - the female captives/slaves did not have the right to deny their owners sex,"[1][2]-2406:7400:98:1D35:9B2B:F8D5:12E6:C28B (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus is needed first to place such a edit. Barbardo (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Brandeis University.
  2. ^ "sex — Is consent necessary for sexual relations with a concubine?". Islam Stack Exchange. 2021-07-14. Retrieved 2023-09-21.
@Rublamb: The thing is, however, that the request is to state someone's personal interpretation in Wikipedia's narrative voice. If she's the only scholar who makes this claim about female captives, then it could be added with attribution in the Wiki prose -- especially if she is equating concubinage with slavery, which to my understanding isn't a mainstream view. BTW the protection level of this article allows you or any other extended-confirmed editor to add this as you see fit. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the role of a third opinion editor to make changes to the article, nor is my opinion binding. Rather, a third opinion tries to resolve the existing disagreement, not based on connection to an edit or the article, but based solely on Wikipedia's guidelines. Although it is not my role for find additional sources to counter your aurgument, I will refer you to Islamic views on concubinage, another Wikipedia article that cites a different scholar with the same perspective. Hope this added information is of use. Rublamb (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus is needed before that can happen. Barbardo (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: I request you to now unprotect this article so that anyone can edit it and impose sanctions on Barbardo if he removes sourced content again - he seems to have misunderstood what consensus means (he does not have any veto about what text should be in the article).-2406:7400:98:1D35:AEC3:3AFF:FE2C:9622 (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This still under discussion hasnt a consensus before you try readd anything after the article is unprotected. Barbardo (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This same discussion was mentioned a month ago by a user named 1Firang who was banned due to their edits looking through the edit history of 1Firang they seemed to be Indian especially with the topics chosen and this IP is from India is this you? @Anachronist this might be a coincidence but could they be reported or not? Barbardo (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barbardo: For your information, there is already some text to neutralise this statement which says, "most modern Muslims and Islamic scholarship consider slavery in general and slave-concubinage to be unacceptable practices." and no, I am not the user you have doubts about.-2406:7400:98:1D35:AEC3:3AFF:FE2C:9622 (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not the issue here the issue is Kecia's views that lack proof here even in the article she wrote and published she gives no proof for her claims which is the issue here. Barbardo (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking to add this in the same place as asked in the previous section: " - the female captives/slaves did not have the right to deny their owners sex,"[1][2] - a source other than Kecia Ali has also been cited.-2406:7400:98:1D35:AEC3:3AFF:FE2C:9622 (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The answer taken from primary text doesnt state what the user had posted:
Allāh presents an example: a slave [who is] owned and unable to do a thing and he to whom We have provided from Us good provision, so he spends from it secretly and publicly. Can they be equal? Praise to Allāh! But most of them do not know.
https://quran.com/16/75?translations=20 Barbardo (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You must also read and follow the third opinion provided above (which says, "Even if the writer in question is biased by her field of expertise, this article can still be used as a source according to WP:BIASED which states that it is the Wikipedia article that is supposed to be neutral, not necessarily the reliable sources used") or you will get blocked from editing here.-2406:7400:98:1D35:AEC3:3AFF:FE2C:9622 (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.abuaminaelias.com/custodianship-of-the-right-hand/
Here it says he can't rape opinion pieces don't matter. Barbardo (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the 3rd opinion above and abide by it.-2406:7400:98:1D35:AEC3:3AFF:FE2C:9622 (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amorchist also gave his view and said no and a consenus is still needed. Barbardo (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinions are not binding, so there is nothing to "abide by". A third opinion typically provides an alternate viewpoint based on Wikipedia policies, and the those cited by the person who gave the third opinion do support inclusion of this line. Other policies such as WP:UNDUE don't support inclusion. The third opinion did not address the fact that there is no requirement to include a statement just because one source said it. I looked at the passage the author interpreted and found her interpretation to stretch credulity to reach the conclusion she reached. I am also not convinced by Barbado's insistence on "proof" from an unquestionably reliable source. Remember, not every statement made by a reliable source is reliable. If you want more opinions, you can start an RFC. One way to approach this would be to include the statement with attribution to who said it, so it isn't stated in Wikipedia's voice as fact. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: This also says that consent is not needed which is why I cited this and the Brandeis University/Kecia Ali source so that it can be, " - the female captives/slaves did not have the right to deny their owners sex," but if you insist that it should not be in wikipedia's voice, it can be changed to, " - the female captives/slaves did not have the right to deny their owners sex according to Kecia Ali,"-2406:7400:98:1D35:AEC3:3AFF:FE2C:9622 (talk) 07:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a reliable source but a opinion piece. Should I start doing the same now? Kecia in the source gave no primary text proof this the current issue. Barbardo (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If both sources can be cited, it can be, " - the female captives/slaves did not have the right to deny their owners sex according to scholars,"[1][2]-2406:7400:98:1D35:AEC3:3AFF:FE2C:9622 (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: You must now give other extended confirmed editors a green signal to add one of the above (as they may feel that you're against it) or do it yourself.-2406:7400:98:1D35:AEC3:3AFF:FE2C:9622 (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DuncanHill believes that the reference "Brandeis University" should be renamed "Ali 2004" (see this), so perhaps you or the editor who adds that text can rename it.-2406:7400:98:1D35:AEC3:3AFF:FE2C:9622 (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Brandeis University.
  2. ^ a b "sex — Is consent necessary for sexual relations with a concubine?". Islam Stack Exchange. 2021-07-14. Retrieved 2023-09-21.
@Pathawi and @Iskander323 what do you guys suggest you had this same debate a month a go with a banned user by the name of 1Firang who I also have a suspicion that this IP is them since they are both from India and talking about the same topic and have similar mannerism's from looking through 1Firangs edit history. Barbardo (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sure looks & quacks. I'd request a CheckUser. Pathawi (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't what that means could you explain the quack part and explain could you do the check user not sure how to apply for it.
Also could you share your views on this as you did last time as we need a consensus. Barbardo (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I was using Americanisms & I really oughtn't to have on an international site. ('If it looks like a duck & quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.') The IP editor does indeed seem very similar to 1Firang, & I suspect that your suspicion is right. For health reasons, I am unable to participate in the debate right now. I'm very sorry. Wikipedia:CheckUser Pathawi (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine I'll apply for it. Barbardo (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss the part out where a conensus needs to be reached? Barbardo (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. — Kaalakaa (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: request by a confirmed block evading sock of 1Firang. M.Bitton (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Condensing text and adding it to the lead[edit]

@Aciram and Kautilya3: I have added 2 sentences to the, "Enslavement" sub-section of the, "Islamic legal positions" section. See this and this diff. If you feel that it can be condensed and added to the lead, please do. I do not think I can do a good job!-Haani40 (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_concubinage_in_the_Muslim_world&oldid=1220530331"