Talk:Ma malakat aymanukum/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Germen's edits

Germen, I see the point you are trying to make... and I do agree that many people have different views on this issue that should be mentioned, however, the way you went about it is not sound. I see no reason to believe that what Mustaafa put was definitely not the traditional view. It is your point that it is not traditional (and I don't believe he makes claims that it is traditional - not sure). Therefore, adding blank sections claiming that his view is different from the traditional view is just trying to discredit his work unjustly. Now, if you can find me a citation that Hanafi, Malik, Shaafi or Hanbali are markedly different then you will have a good leg to stand on, however you have not. As far as I can tell you believe that his interpretation is "Islamophilic", as you might use, and want to show the traditional view to show what Islam is more like... So, by all means research and show us good sources, I would have no problem with that... and we do need Shia / modern liberal / traditional / etc. views to make this article better, however, you didn't really further that goal with your edits. gren 12:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Gren, of course I welcome changes in harsh elements of islamic theology and I wish Mustafaa all the best in achieving this. As you can read in my comments and the fact that I do mention the source of Mustafaa's work. The fact is, nevertheless, that the vast majority of all Sunni and Shi'a scholars is following the traditional interpretation. This should change of course and the way is confronting the Muslims with their scholars stupidity and cruelty, e.g. by contrasting the Quran-only view by the traditional view. It should be clear that Mustafaa's view is the most rational interpretation, but that traditionalists do not follow it.

--Germen 12:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) PS: quote from Malik: Maliks Muwatta, Book 31, Number 31.2.2:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi from Abdullah ibn Umar that Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "If a slave who has wealth is sold, that wealth belongs to the seller unless the buyer stipulates its inclusion."

Malik said, "The generally agreed upon way of doing things among us is that if the buyer stipulates the inclusion of the slave's property whether it be cash, debts, or goods of known or unknown value, then they belong to the buyer, even if the slave possesses more than that for which he was purchased, whether he was bought for cash, as payment for a debt, or in exchange for goods. This is possible because a master is not asked to pay zakat on his slave's property. If a slave has a slave-girl, it is halal for him to have intercourse with her by his right of possession. If a slave is freed or put under contract (kitaba) to purchase his freedom, then his property goes with him. If he becomes bankrupt, his creditors take his property and his master is not liable for any of his debts."

I'm not sure that makes the distinction between Ma malakat aymanukum and normal slave... This is a rather traditional (as opposed to historical) view as you have shown. Mustaafa's writing, is not like free-minds... it draws some parellels but... it is different and not a Qur'an view rejection of traditionalism as you make it out to be. My problem is there has been a plethora of viewpoints (and Malik is known to be strict interpretations, there are many other historical authors that should be explored) and you seem to make Mustaafa's content out to be complete revisionism which it isn't from my understanding... I am wary of your edits... but I'm sure Mustaafa will look at them and have his say. gren 13:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fascinating quote - who'd have thought that slaves were allowed to have slaves themselves? However, it doesn't even use the term ma malakat aymanukum. Any edits should be sourced (as all of mine are in this article), and a good start would be providing some sort of documentation for the claim that the rather unusual term ma malakat aymanukum was used in fiqh outside of Qur'anic quotes. I am aware that jurists and commentators traditionally equate the term to various commoner and shorter words like "captive" or "slave-girl", but that doesn't mean they use it themselves. This article is about the word and its usage, not about the general issue of slavery in Islam. - Mustafaa 19:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, good point. I have added some fatwa's in which 'ma malakat amaynukum' both is interpreted and used. Please convince your pal Yuber to stop his endless unmotivated vandalistic reverts. Germen 09:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To avoid constant reverting... To me it seems rather apparent that Germen wants to portray Islam as historically something the modern man would find detestable. Granted, there are definitely some aspects in some places that would, however I am not exactly sure I think the great emphasis on the difference between "traditional" and "objections to traditiona" that he adds is quite warranted. I do think that some of the external links he has placed should remain even if under different headings. I do agree with Mustaafa that the dichotomy of traditional / objections to traditional is not as much well cited as it is how he thinks the issue goes. So discuss what you think should be the version so maybe this page won't have to be protected as well. gren 12:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gren and Mustafaa, this not true in general. Traditional islam as in its Sunni and Shi'a incarnations is quite detestible in my eyes but there exist reform movements such as Quran-only islam, Ahmadiyya and Sufi which have my warm sympathy.

I know especially the Ahmadiyya and Quran-only gruops such as the Submitters are fierce opponents from the slavery concept on Quranic grounds. In this article I saw that the same was held for mainstream Sunni and Shi'a islam. I wish this was true. Only by addressing this issue the reform movement within mainstream islam will increase in strength. --Germen 13:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You finally got around to addressing the talk page, for which I congratulate you. However, all you did was add links which are certainly relevant, but don't actually corroborate your edits. - Mustafaa 19:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Germen, I think there are a few problems with your view of traditional vs. reform. Firstly, Sufism was around from very very early period of Islam and has so many different incarnations (al-Ghazali was very traditionalist, as we think of the term, with strong ties to sufism) that I don't think we can really differentiate it from traditional in some aspects. There was a lot of exchange. Also, Sunnism and Shiism have great variations within them, and truly have throughout history. It's also hard to make the Sunni distinction in a non-pejorative manner. Muslims tend to call the Mu'tazlite a cult out of the realm of ordinary Islam, but, they were the main group during a point of time under the Abbassid court. There has also been much evolution in thought in Islam like there was in Christianity and because some Anglicans supported slavery (I assume some did) doesn't mean that the modern "traditional Anglican" supports slavery. Same goes for this issue. And, as Mustafaa said, you have not corroborated your edits with sources. So, try to find some sources and then bring them to the table so they can be looked at. gren 20:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let me just clarify a few points:

• Traditional Islam (by which I mean the 5 madhhabs) does not "support" slavery; rather, it unanimously considers the liberation of slaves as a praiseworthy act, following many verses in the Qur'an.

support is a loose translation of mustabb: not recommented, not forbidden, the middle category of five levels of behaviour: obligatory, recommended, neutral, warned against and forbidden.

http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2005/06/Article01.shtml --Germen 5 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)

• Traditional Islam unanimously does recognize slavery as a legitimate practice in some circumstances. This has some limited Qur'anic precedent (insofar as the verses urging the voluntary liberation of slaves presume the prior existence of slavery.)

That is exactly my point. Additionally, traditional islam does approve of enslaving captured kafirs, see my reference to fatwa's of Al-Islaam.org --Germen 5 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)

• Traditional Islam interprets the term ma malakat aymanukum as referring to people captured in legitimate wars and enslaved. (This is the first of these points with specific relevance to this article, I should note.)

Indeed. Your POV differs from traditional islam, so I think it is a good idea to make this clear. --Germen 5 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)

My POV plays no part in this article. - Mustafaa 13:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)`

'Be that as may'?

• Based on this interpretation, they regard the verses in the Qur'an cited here as, among other things, legitimizing sex with slaves. They support this claim with precedents in the actions of Muhammad and of the earliest Muslims. They certainly do not regard these verses as contradicting their position, though others, as noted, disagree.

As you pointed out in your Quran-based analysis, they made some errors. --Germen 5 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)

As I pointed out where? - Mustafaa 13:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

You said, "be that as may", which implies a silent criticism on the traditional interpretation. --Germen 17:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

"Be that as it may" expresses neutrality in the face of two different interpretations, not a "silent criticism" of either. - Mustafaa

• And finally, most Muslim scholars agree that slavery is legitimate in some circumstances, while claiming that it is not legitimitate in modern times, now that people are rich enough to afford such measures as POW camps. IslamOnline is representative of the modern traditionalists' view. - Mustafaa 22:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many poor Muslim countries, like Sudan and Mauritania, cannot afford POW camps. According to this fatwa, it seems keeping slaves is thus legitimate in this countries. --Germen 5 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)

They can afford POW camps (not that Mauritania has any wars to be involved in anyway.) Even the poorest countries today are richer than all but the very richest countries of a millennium ago. - Mustafaa 12:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Ehm... did you hear about any POW camp of rich islamic states in the past? And if we are looking to nutritional status of Sudan and Mauritania, those countries cannot be considered very rich, even not in a historic context.--Germen 17:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but you have to come up with an idea first - and get your enemies to reciprocate. Wealth is a necessary condition to end the enslavement of captives, but not a sufficient one. - Mustafaa 23:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

"Shi'a muslims have suggested to equate 'those whose one right hand possesses' with Muta marriage partners"? This sounds plausible, but as always, can you please provide a source first? - Mustafaa 4 July 2005 17:02 (UTC)

I was not able to find a source. --Germen 5 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)

So don't put it in, then. - Mustafaa 5 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)

OK. --Germen 17:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

used most often with reference to women?

The term is used 14 times in the Qur'an , on what basis it is claimed that it is "used most often in reference to women"?

lets count the verses mentioned the article : An-Nur 30-33, in the course of laying down the familiar dress code of Islam, explains that women "should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty" except to various familiar people, including those "whom their right hands possess". Al-Ahzab 55 makes it explicit that the same liberty is given to the Prophet's wives. 2 references , male

an-Nur 58 says that "those whom your right hands possess" and underage children should ask a believer's permission (before they come to their presence) at the three times of day when one is likely to be undressed. neutral , suggestive of male because female slaves were permitted to see all of the body of their male master , but male slaves were not permitted to see the body of their female or female master

The behavior of the fortunate towards them is a metaphor for God's towards man. an-Nahl 71 and ar-Rum 28 both use the same metaphor 2 references neutral

An-Nisa 36 reminds us that a believer should do good to a variety of people, including "what your right hands possess" neutral

Verse 24:33 of the Qur'an states "...if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you." neutral

So at least 7 times it is not specificly refering to women.In fact ma malakat aymanukum is an Islamic term meaning "slave" regardless of gender.More precisely it referes to slaves that are considered by the Qur'an as such.Pasha 06:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Minor point. I changed 'ode's' to 'one's' Jim

headings make the article tricky to read

because the word "they" keeps on swapping in meaning from the believer to instead "what your right hands possess" and then back again etc... Could somebody change them so they are consistent throughout the article? cheers! Mathmo 16:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ma malakat aymanukum as a Concubinage concept

Ma malakat aymanukum: "If the female captives are not ransomed or killed or set free, then they are allocated to soldiers as concubines." Yamin Zakaria, Al-Jazeerah article [1] amd the original [2].

Please let us stay sensible and edit in good faith. I'm not here to bash islam, but will expose certain problems when I identify them

FrummerThanThou 06:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If the female captives are not ransomed or killed or set free, then they are allocated to soldiers as concubines. This also depends on the actual international situation, how the enemies are behaving with the Islamic State and how they are treating Muslim prisoners. In the case that the women prisoners are distributed as concubines there are very clear and detailed rules regarding how they should be treated, definitely not left to the whims of the soldiers to do as they please. What commentators need to realize is that in Islam a captive woman as a concubine, has essentially same legal rights as a wife

The reservation "definitely not left to the" voids the unqualified equation to concubinage. Ill give you a while to correct the misinformation introduced. If it is not corrected, i will revert it. --Striver 10:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

please read "as a concubine". nuff said. FrummerThanThou 18:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Total Rewrite

I am at loss for words, I think me and you should start cooperating a little more Striver, I'm sorry but there are major probs with the way this article is evolving. FrummerThanThou 18:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Bro, i don't mean to be counterproductive, but i have a serious issue with how you formulate the text. I get the impression that you want to insert the "concubine" all over the place, a term that i feel is misleading and objectionable, specially when it is not qualified. I am not telling this to accuse you of something, i am telling you how i feel. --Striver 18:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, i only ment to put it in once. About copyediting, you can trust me to copyedit without twisting meanings, you can revert terms i put in or leave out, but in the general when i copyedit and say so in the edit summary, take me for it. FrummerThanThou 21:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ill try to be more cooperative with you, maybe it's past experiences that made me being defensive. In that case, sorry. --Striver 15:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ma malakat aymanukum and sex

Why was most of the content regarding "Ma malakat aymanukum and sex" moved into it's own article? Even with the content from that new article included, this article is still quite shot, when compared to many other articles. -- Karl Meier 20:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The section was receiving Undue weight. A section unbalancing the article can according to policy (or was it guidline?) be split out. --Striver 15:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The "They should not be forced into prostitution if they desire chastity" section belongs to Ma malakat aymanukum and sex and is thus moved there. --Striver 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Traditional Sunni and Shia viewpoint

Please provide the exact quote here. Arrow740 06:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

re:[3]

ma malakat aymanukum does not refer exclusively to female captives. it refers to female slaves in general. "No mention has been made requiring the women captives to consent to the sex.", is original research. "Historically, children of such women could also become slaves", is a misrepresentation of Schimmel. she comments, as does the Encyclopedia of Islam, that attainment of slaves was restricted to two instances. i think you have assumed that this means that all children of female captives/slaves will also be slaves. not quite: for if it is the master has intercourse with the captive/slave, then any children that result are free by default. the only instance in which a slave's children will also be slaves is when the father is not the master (e.g. another slave). as such, i have removed the last two sentences. ITAQALLAH 17:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Primary Source

The use of primary sources are okay according to Wiki policy as long they are used for description. That is what the text does, it describes what the primary sources (translations) say. Please do not change the text on the basis that it is a primary source. NN 04:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

you did not respond to my comments above concerning this, nor the baseless specification to captives only, nor the misrepresentation of Schimmel. yes, primary sources may be used to make extremely obvious positive inferences, we cannot use them to make negative inferences (meaning, we represent what it does say, not muse about what it doesn't say). i'm sure there are 1001 things we could invent as to what this verse does not mention. ITAQALLAH 05:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course if a primary source does not say something, it does not say it. There are indeed 1001 things that a primary source may not say, however the 1 thing being mentioned is the 1 that concerns sex with women captives, which is what the section is about. If you believe this is inaccurate and the primary source indeed says that the consent of the women is needed, so tell us where and it will be corrected. Which comments of yours did I not respond to? NN 05:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

right above, dated 10th March. why is it relevant if no mention is made in this particular verse? what exactly does it mean? there are plenty of things, related to Islam and concubinage, not specified in this verse. currently it just looks like original research intended to forward a specific point of view. we use primary sources to make positive inferences, not otherwise. ITAQALLAH

If there are things not mentioned about "Islam and concubinage" that you would like to include, you are welcome to. If the text provides an accurate description of the primary source, it is okay. Sex and consent of the woman are intrinsic to each other. To say otherwise is to say that there isn't much difference between consensual sex and rape. Also "concubinage" may not be the best term to describe women captives. NN 05:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

please respond to my above comments. ma malakat aymanakum does not refer exclusively to captives. i am to remove the patent original research and misrepresentation of Schimmel. we relate what the primary source asserts, not what it doesn't assert. ITAQALLAH 06:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to make a distinction between female captives and female slaves that is fine with me. The description of the primary source is accurate. NN 06:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

as i stated: we relate what the primary source say, not what they don't say. ITAQALLAH 06:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be verbatim, it does have to be accurate. NN 06:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

our usage of primary sources is restricted to describing what the source says. anything else, you'll need a secondary source. see WP:OR and WP:V. ITAQALLAH 06:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be an accurate description of the primary source that can be verified by looking at the primary source. NN 06:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that religious texts have many contested meanings and therefore just because you think some ruling obviously flows from Qur'an doesn't mean it is proper. I would definitely say that saying "In these translations no mention has been made requiring the women captives to consent to the sex." is very problematic. It's leading the reader to certain conclusions which may or may not be scholarly interpretation. You're also presenting Qur'an as Islamic law which is far from the case--rulings are filtered through processes which throughout most of Islamic history has been fiqh. That's why it's problematic to just interpret primary sources yourself... because interpretation is such a political endeavor a whole system arose around it. gren グレン 07:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Scholarly interpretation" has no special place in Wiki as far as I know, if it does please provide the link. Also how is it defined?

"You're also presenting Qur'an as Islamic law". No. What made you think that? If it was the use of the word "lawful" then note that it comes from the translations, it is not my interpretation.

"it's problematic to just interpret primary sources yourself" Again no, I am not interpreting primary sources. I am describing them.

NN 07:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Description can be a matter of interpretation. In this edit you state that it doesn't mention consent. That is problematic because it is leading the reader to the conclusion that consent is not needed. Now, if you have a scholarly source that mentions consent not being necessary then that is important. However, using the negative to imply that consent isn't needed because it's not specifically mentioned is not a proper way to use primary sources. By scholarly interpretation I mean reliable secondary sources which have assess what ma malakat aymanukum has meant in Islam and explains it, rather than us trying to explain what it means in light of Qur'an and hadith. I state you were presenting the Qur'an as Islamic law because the implication of your edit is that something is allowed because the Qur'an doesn't disallow it in that section. While you may be innocently doing this... you must understand that it is original research to present 'fact' in a way that leads the reader to certain conclusions. gren グレン 07:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Gren said "It's leading the reader to certain conclusions which may or may not be scholarly interpretation." What the reader may or may not conclude is beyond our means to know. Can you cite any Wiki policy that mentions reader's conclusions? If reader's conclusions are to be the basis, we promptly lose all objectivity. I can start claiming everything you say is leading the reader to a false conclusion. That is why use of primary sources is allowed and encouraged, as long as the use is descriptive. It is an objective standard. NN 16:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It says right in the same place you're citing, [[WP:RS#Primary_and_secondary_sources]. "The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted". This is an analogous situation. Muslim theologians do greatly differ therefore we cannot present the Qur'an as a straightforward reality. As they say it is easy to "misuse primary sources". gren グレン 08:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Schimmel

I reverted that phrase which attempts to interpret primary sources... but I'm not sure of the "misrepresentation" of Schimmel that Itaqallah talks about. Can someone explain? gren グレン 07:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Schimmel states:

"Only children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners of war can become slaves, never a freeborn Muslim; therefore slavery is theoretically doomed to disappear with the expansion of Islam" p. 67

as i explained above, Schimmel is saying how enslavement was restricted to two instances: being born a slave from slave parents; and as a prisoner of war. Schimmel doesn't assert that the "children of such women [i.e. prisoners of war, in the context is was previously presented] could also become slaves", - meaning, children of the enslaved prisoners of war as a result of intercourse with the master. that is because as the EoI and other publications state: the children resulting from intercourse between the master and his slave are born free. the instances when a child of a slave does become a slave, is when the father is not the master, and this scenario is not relevant to ma malakat aymanukum. ITAQALLAH 07:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying sounds reasonable according to the source. NN, please explain why your sentence works... is there something on the page that Itaqallah didn't mention? gren グレン 07:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing for me to explain. I am quoting a primary source. It is not my interpretation. It is a description. You can read the source, it is easy to get to. Here is the relevant Wiki policy about primary sources yet one more time "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge". These translations are in English, they can be checked by any who can read English. It does not need "specialist knowledge", it only needs an ability to read English. I don't understand why this simple point does not get through, I have said it a dozen times by now. I will be traveling for the next few weeks. I hope Wiki policy about primary sources is understood. Primary sources are not disallowed. What is disallowed is making inferences based on primary sources. NN 08:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

just for the sense of completion, here is everything Schimmel says on the topic of slavery:

"Slavery was not abolished by the Koran, but believers are constantly admonished to treat their slaves well. In case of illness a slave has to be looked after and well cared for. To manumit a slave is highly meritorious; the slave can ransom himself by paying some of the money while conducting his own business. Only children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners of war can become slaves, never a freeborn Muslim; therefore slavery is theoretically doomed to disappear with the expansion of Islam. The entire history of Islam proves that slaves could occupy any office, and many former military slaves, usually recruited from among the Central Asian Turks, became military leaders and often even rulers as in eastern Iran, India (the Slave Dynasty of Delhi), and medieval Egypt (the Mamluks). Eunuchs too served in important capacities, not only as the guardians of the women's quarters, but also in high administrative and military positions."

-ITAQALLAH 08:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation

11th page of 'Abd in eois. Arrow740 23:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

could you quote the passage please.. ITAQALLAH 23:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I already quoted it in greater length in the other article, I thought you were aware of it.

The concubine who has born a child is not automatically freed on her master's death unless her child is still alive; her value is then deducted this child's share of the inheritance.

It appears to be referring to Shia only, however. I'll note that in both places. Arrow740 01:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

yes.. i was thinking that may have been so. ITAQALLAH 11:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: "female captive consent to sex" section

===Female Captive's Consent to Sex=== There is no mention in the Qu'ran for the master to require consent of the female captive for sex.<small>[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran]</small>

First of all, this contradicts the other part of the article which says:

===They cannot be forced into prostitution if they desire chastity=== [[An-Nur]] 24:33 states, "But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),"

And second, the source is pointless, as it is just a link to an online Quran. How will that help someone verify the (obviously OR) claim? WP:SOURCE states that primary sources can only be used to make descriptive claims. But this isn't a descriptive claim, because unlike all the other citations, it says something isn't in there. How can the Quran say that something isn't in it? It can't. That's the whole point. It's OR.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 16:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

all editors seem to be in agreement that these types of negative derivations are totally inappropriate. we represent what the source says, not what it doesn't say. it seems to be just one editor who is determined to act in violation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and other associated policies. ITAQALLAH 16:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, "all editors" are not in agreement. It is a description and hence a proper use of a primary source. How will the link to the online Koran help the reader? Try reading it. NN 05:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

descriptions can be original research. you are misrepresenting a primary source through negative deduction. please cease this disruption. thank you. ITAQALLAH 15:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is an accurate description and not a misrepresentation. Thanks also, NN 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you prove it? Please show me every single verse in the Qur'an, and then show me that they don't say that consent is required. And then explain to me how that isn't original research.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 20:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, the link to the Koran is provided. There indeed is no verse saying consent is required. NN 07:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"It is an accurate description and not a misrepresentation", that is your subjective conclusion, and it is still original research and a total misuse of the source to forward a POV. ITAQALLAH 00:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, my assessment isn't "total misuse of the source to forward a POV", yours is. NN 04:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

in what way? please stop your disruption. ITAQALLAH 12:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have explained many times the proper use of primary sources. Your reverts are disruptive, not my edits. NN 13:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

every editor barring yourself has rejected such original research, and have explained to you "many times" your fundamental misunderstanding of policy, on this page, on your talk page, and in the article history. also see the relevant policy talk page. ITAQALLAH 13:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT

I really wanted to violate it... and here is how I would have done it: "There is no mention in the Qu'ran for the master to require consent of the female captive for sex and there is no mention that a master doesn't need to require the consent of the female captive." Pretty stupid, eh? You cannot use a primary source to attempt to prove a negative. Firstly, this article sucks. It needs juristic sources because the Qur'an is meaningless. Islam has specific ways in which the scared texts are interpreted which are not readily apparent and your interpretations are original research. I would not doubt that there are jurists and probably major ones that do not feel that consent is needed, but that does not mean you have license to quote the Qur'an and use your own interpretation of it. Take the effort to do the research on this subject instead if you want to be an editor of this article. As of now you are being disruptive and you will be blocked if you keep it up. gren グレン 13:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"you have license to quote the Qur'an and use your own interpretation of it" Sorry, no. I am not giving any interpretation, just a description. No personal opinion, no original research etc. Instead of making allegations about disruptions and threats you are advised to follow Wiki procedures such as RfC, consensus, mediation etc. NN 17:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

" It needs juristic sources because the Qur'an is meaningless". This is surely your opinion, and not acceptable to all. NN 18:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The Qur'an being meaningless was obviously flippant. The easiest way to solve this, I believe, is to quotes straight from policy.

• Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident published in a newspaper, and the White House's summary of a president's speech are primary sources. Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources. The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted. Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.

You are making a (juristic, not theological in this case) conclusion from the Qur'anic test which does not show in any way that Muslim jurists (because theologians are historically less important) agree with the selective quoting of the Qur'an. I 'threaten' you because this is a fundamental issue. This is not about whether a source is reliable or not it's what do Muslim scholars think. If you or anyone want to quote a reliable source about the issue that is fine. As I have mentioned I wouldn't be surprised if many didn't find consent to be necessary--but that does not follow from saying the Qur'an doesn't say consent is needed. You will agree that quoting 'facts' about the Qur'an are not always relevant nor do they represent what the traditional Muslim belief is. Qur'an 2:256 states something like "let there be no compulsion in religion". So, there is freedom of religion, right? No apostasy law in Islam, people are free to be what they want as it is sanctioned by the Qur'an. Of course it doesn't follow. There is apostasy law, there have been historically strong consequences for not converting. There are hundreds of verses that we could use to prove some point about Islam but it does not mean it represents the fiqh which creates the Islamic vision of sharia. gren グレン 19:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I too looked at the Wiki Policy about primary sources carefully. The part which discusses the proper use of a primary source is "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." Now if I say "the Koran makes no mention of consent", then that is both a "descriptive claim" and one that "can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge". I understand that you and some others are arguing that it is a "negative" inference, but once again in the Wiki policy it says nothing about "negative" inferences.

As for your example about the apotasy law, note that in the text I am not saying "Koran does not mention the requirement of a woman's consent hence we conclude that Islam allows rape". That would be a description plus and interpretation. Obviously the second bit is explicitly forbidden by Wiki policy. But in my opinion "Koran does not mention the requirement of a woman's consent" is merely descriptive. Obviously it could lead the reader to a particular conclusion, and I think those objecting to the text are saying that I am actually reaching that conclusion. If we provide facts to readers there is always the possibility that they will arrive at conclusions. We can't be responsible for what conclusions readers reach, we can only abide by the restriction of providing only facts and not interpretations.

As for "nor do they represent what the traditional Muslim belief is" note that the text did not say "Koran does not mention any requirement of consent and that represents what the traditional Muslim belief is". As I see it, there is no need to confine the article to "traditional Muslim belief", besides that is something hard to identify.

The Koran is not an unimportant part of Muslim lives. Many Muslims read it daily, and most probably have been taught what is in it at some point in their lives. Scholarly opinions on the other hand change with time, and I would say that the Koran retains more influence than any scholarly opinion. Hence I believe that describing the Koran to the reader is important.

Obviously this is an important question that can impact many articles. I am not claiming that my view is necessarily right. I would however like us to reach the right answer and am willing to spend time to get there. NN 06:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not denying that it is descriptive, but the whole second part talks about how descriptive can be misleading and doesn't represent religious (in the example, Christian) tradition. It is clear that you are doing exactly what they warn you against in that section

My example with apostasy law may have been confusing so I will restate. Say I put "The Qur'an says 'let there be no compulsion in religion' (2:256)." in some Islam related article. Is that proper? It is descriptive, yes. I have added none of my own interpretation. The question is, does it represent "Islam" in the sense that it has understood by most Muslims over time? You seem to argue that quoting a verse is descriptive and therefore can be done. 1) I believe you can easily misrepresent the religion by doing that and 2) you violate the Wikipedia policy above that states you should note quote religious texts as law since theologians/jurists do not just form their opinion from one verse (or lack-there-of in your case). The fact that you are using a negation is not the primary issue. My example tried to give an example that seems to cast a rosy light on Islam because yours goes the other way. It is to show that if you letting Wikipedia just "descriptively" quote verses in either direction you will not get a sense of Islam that a scholar who has studied Islamic teaching will give you. Below I will add a (completely fictional) example of what the section should look like and how to use the Qur'an:

"Attar Usmani an 18th century Hanafi scholar concluded that because jurists found no evidence in the Qur'an or hadith mentioning consent before sexual intercourse with ma malakat aymanukum that it is permissible as long as it is done in accordance with Islamic etiquette. C. E. Bosworth in the Encyclopedia of Islam notes that only a small sect of Shafi'i scholars disagree with the practice because of their concerns that this could make other wives jealous. The Shia demand consent in the form of a nikah muta for sexual intercourse otherwise it is considered zina and both parties are subject to hudud penalties." --There, a mix of prominent Muslim scholars and secular Islamicists describing the tradition of Islam. The Qur'an is referred to because it is how the jurists made their decision but to use the Qur'an itself as the decision violates out policy and is misleading. gren グレン 09:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You write "second part talks about how descriptive can be misleading and doesn't represent religious (in the example, Christian) tradition". Actually the way I read the second part [4] is that a primary source can't be used as "a source for the claim that X advocated Y" (or Jesus advocated eye removal as in the Wiki example). Note that is doesn't say that the description cannot be used, but that the description cannot be used as a source for a "claim". A sentence like "Koran does not mention requiring consent of the woman to sex" makes no claims, it is merely a description. A claim would be of the form "Koran does not mention requiring consent of the woman to sex, hence Koran advocates rape" (maintaining similarity with "X advocates Y"). The disputed text does not do this.

You write "The question is, does it represent "Islam" in the sense that it has understood by most Muslims over time?" If there was a Wiki policy that said "Articles about Islam should ONLY represent what is understood by most Muslims over time" I would accept that the disputed text should not be included. As such Wiki's requirement is that primary sources be used accurately and not used to make claims. You are of course more than welcome to add to the disputed text qualifications of the sort "This does not represent in the sense understood by most Muslims over time". Accordingly I would say that inserting "The Qur'an says 'let there be no compulsion in religion' (2:256)." is proper. Of course other editors may add more text to show in practice there is compulsion.

I don't think using the Koran violates Wiki policy as you conclude. I believe that the Koran is of great importance to Muslims and has great influence. Jurists come and go, but they base their opinions on the Koran, or at least claim to do so. The Koran endures in Islam but new jurists opinions arise. So for someone trying to learn about Islam, knowledge of the Koran is important and proper. If you feel an accurate description of the Koran is misleading, I would say you should add text explaining why it is misleading rather than deleting the disputed text. NN 13:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I can't 'prove' that you are wrong if you interpret it so narrowly. I obviously believe that you are wrong and that even if it's not explicit in policy then we should represent notable viewpoints. By using 'objective' description in an article you are making claims about what is important in relations to a subject. It's not that using the Qur'an violates Wikipedia policy, but it can easily be used to place emphasis on certain things that may or may not contradict what jurists say. I forget the exact number but only a relatively small percentage of verses were seen by jurists to be 'legal' verses. So, while the Qur'an is quite important to Muslims (it is God's word to them) it is not always important in the legal sense, and I believe that over time it has been read primarily for inspiration and prayer while the legal rulings have been taken from the ulama. (There is a breakdown in that with the Muslim Brotherhood, liberals and other groups trying to reclaim their power to interpret, but that's another issue.) So, if you don't interpret policy they that way then we can WP:IAR or something and taken it as how I believe an encyclopedia should be written. Describing verses if they were not important throughout history (or their absence was important) borders on original research and getting some good secondary sources is necessary. So, while describing the Qur'an is 'descriptive' it is also interpretation... but, I suppose in the end I've given up a lot of hope of having Wikipedia deal with Islam-related issues in an academic manner. gren グレン 13:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks once more for your reply. I read your post and need some time to think about it and reply. NN 16:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[de-indent] I would like to keep this discussion on track rather than let it digress. The issue as I see it is whether text that you (Grenavita) agree is "descriptive" of a primary source but also say it is "misleading" [5]. In the following I summarize my version of your latest post and my response:

• You say I interpret Wiki policy "narrowly". I submit that when there is a dispute, we can do no better than interpret Wiki policy accurately. Believe me, there is much material in Islam related articles that I would like removed because I believe it gives a misleadingly benevolent impression of Islam. However I do not do so as the material is referenced, and hence proper by Wiki policy, even though misleading. We all have to play by the same rules, hence we need to give both parties the same consideration.
• "even if it's not explicit in policy then we should represent notable viewpoints" The Koran is a "notable viewpoint" in matters Islamic.
• "By using 'objective' description in an article you are making claims about what is important in relations to a subject" Again, I believe Wiki policy has been designed to enable both sides to present their views as long as it is referenced. I would like to exclude much 'objective' material favorable to Islam because it presents a misleading impression, but don't because of Wiki policy. If there was a Wiki policy establishing a method to determine "imporatant in relation to a subject" then you could have appealed to it to exclude the disputed material. However in the real world as that is not possible, therefore I would say Wiki does not try to establish that standard. So we have to live with what we have, that is existing Wiki policy however "narrowly" it may seem to be implemented.
• "There is a breakdown in that with the Muslim Brotherhood, liberals and other groups trying to reclaim their power to interpret, but that's another issue." That really isn't another issue, that is almost the central issue. Like I said in my earlier post, jurists' opinions come and go but the Koran endures. So to say that only jurists' opinions should be presented, and the Koran not, is not tenable.
• "I believe that over time it has been read primarily for inspiration and prayer while the legal rulings have been taken from the ulama" That is your belief and in my opinion a rather rosy picture of Islam. Koran remains central to the religion, and quite easily leads to the rise of fundamentalist regimes like the Taliban. They did not get their opinions for reading the jurists, their jurists formulated their opinions based on what was in the Koran and what was politically expedient.
• "So, if you don't interpret policy they that way then we can WP:IAR" I am not sure I understood the meaning of this sentence. I hope you are not saying you are going to ignore other Wiki policy by appealing to IAR. That is hardly the recommended way to go when there is a dispute.

To summarize the disputed text is "descriptive" and "can be checked by non-experts". I believe you agree with that. Your objections are that it is "misleading", and not a "what is important in relations to a subject". I think these objections are subjective and cannot be established by Wiki policy. To come to a compromise I agree to change the text "There is no mention in the Qu'ran for the master to require consent of the female captive for sex" to "The Qu'ran does not address the issue of the master requiring or not requiring a slave woman's consent to sex". If this is not acceptable then we should move on to the next available means of dispute resolution, that is mediation and arb com. Thanks, NN 05:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is my short reply. I appealed to WP:IAR because I do not wish to get into a debate about the proper way to read Wikipedia rules. The goal is to write an encyclopedia and no work of any scholarly caliber would ever say the Qur'an doesn't mention that consent is necessary. They would look at whether consent was asked for throughout Islamic history and the various rulings on the issue. To say that jurists come and go but the Qur'an endures is silly. Yes, but the Qur'an is interpreted and is only understood through various methods. That doesn't mean scholars don't take a literalist approach and if some scholar says "the Qur'an doesn't ask for consent so it need not be given" then that is a notable viewpoint. But by trying to tell the reader what parts of the Qur'an are important you are trying to become a jurist. I seriously doubt the arbcom would ever take this case and I don't know what mediation will do. You may notice that I sporadically come and go from this article mainly because I believe there are many problems with the system and User:RadicalBender's opionion are in the ball park of my own. I tend to come back not because I hope Islam-related articles will ever be good under the current system but because Bollywood articles and other trivia-related things great and I can add to them. Wikipedia is the best-worst encyclopedia ever. gren グレン 15:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no mention in the Qur'an of ...

It's just descriptive! Should it be included in the article? Why don't we make a Category:List of things not mentioned in the Quran? Nonsense upon stilts.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 23:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You need to read previous discussion. Grenavitar agreed it is "descriptive". Also I have previously addressed the issue you raise. Essentially "slave woman's consent" is relevant to the issue, other things missing from the Koran are not. NN 09:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

So should we include every aspect of slave women that isn't explained in the Qur'an? "There is no mention of slave women to wear contraceptives". "There is no mention of slave women to orgasm". "There is no mention of slave women to consent to having nonsense written about them on Wikipedia". And so forth. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 22:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Islamic Viewpoint?

Those websites arent supposed to be there. first of all there not notable and there biased. but the arguement is that they say that Muslims Must Marry slaves to have relationships or sex with them, that is False, that just means that ma malakat aymanakum doesnt even exist, but it does exist. they say that muslims must marry them to have sex with them, and unless they marry them they cannot have sex or relationships with them, which is just false. If people had to marry slaves to have sex or relationships with them then why on Earth would Hazrat Muhammad (Sm) accept Maria al-Qibtiyya. What does that mean now? And everything that Muhammad did is part of the Sunnah, everything he did was Islamic and Halal. My argument is here, and thus im in wanting to remove those unverified, non-notable and probably even biased website links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.4.77.150 (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. They aren't "alternative" at all. The word "alternative" gives them undue weight. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 22:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please login. --Matt57 11:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the FFI links too. Both sites are relatively non-notable especially compared to IslamQA, Islam Online, and Al-Islam.org which are all large sites (if my Alexa mind serves me right). I had left it before because free minds was there but now that we've removed most non-notable links they all should go. gren グレン 02:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, apparently al-Islam.org isn't that big of a site... in any case I would claim it is rather authoritative Shia source as the others are authoritative traditional Sunni sources whereas FFI is not authoritative or scholarly. We could use a good scholarly discussion of the topic, but there don't seem to be any online. gren グレン 02:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

People: Notability of a link is NOT relevant when putting it in external links. These links are RELEVANT because they are explain the critical viewpoint. How is that putting "undue weight"? It is infact putting undue weight if you are not including any alternate viewpoints. Who is saying FFI is not scholarly? What makes one a scholar of Islam? They have to be a Muslim and be called a "Sheikh"? That doesnt work, sorry. --Matt57 11:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"What makes one a scholar of Islam?" a verifiable education in Islamic studies. try Schimmel, Watt, Bosworth, Wellhausen, Wensinck, Forward, Buhl, Crone, Esposito, Ernst; i could go on and on.. ITAQALLAH 14:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, FFI isn't scholarly... but neither is free minds. I removed it because another rather marginal and not so important view was removed. I realize the standards for this article is not high but I think we should keep uniform standards. IslamOnline and Islam Q&A are both important Sunni, sometimes different than traditional jurisprudence but still important sites. al-Islam (if I'm not mistaken) is the most important Shia website online. The removal was in the context of other removals... and my goal was to keep various marginal views or prune it down to just a few links. I'll let you all decide, but I think they come as a package. gren グレン 16:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you all explain to me: 1) How Esposito is more of a scholar than Robert Spencer (specifically), Ali Sina or Craigg Winn or any other critic of Islam? 2) If FFI isnt scholarly, why not? What makes a site "scholarly"? --Matt57 20:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

to address your first question: i think my above comment virtually answers that. Esposito has a PhD in Islamic studies, is a distinguished professor of the subject, and teaches it at universities. Spencer has no such educational pedigree related to Islam, and neither do Sina nor Winn. ITAQALLAH 22:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"Robert Spencer holds a Master's degree in Religious Studies" as well. Not all people who have PhD's in Islamic studies are scholars of Islam. Bottomline: there's no official ruling or criteria for who is a scholar of Islam and who is not. A scholar to one is a bigot or apologetic to another - its all relative.--Matt57 23:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"Robert Spencer holds a Master's degree in Religious Studies" - in fact, his specific qualification is in early Christianity or something like that, not in Islam. and thus, he isn't a scholar of Islam. ITAQALLAH 23:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I cant find any evidence that he did it in Christianity and didnt study anything about Islam. --Matt57 23:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

see his article. he has no verifiable qualification in Islamic studies, unlike Esposito and the other personalities i mentioned above. ITAQALLAH 23:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And like I said, there's no formal defination of what makes a person a scholar in Islam. People who go for PhD's in Islam usually are Muslims or have an existing favourable view of Islam already. According to the stuff Spender was doing, he can certainly be termed as a scholar of Islam: "According to the biography at one of his websites,[1] Spencer began studying Islam in 1980 during his first year as an undergraduate at the University of North Carolina. He wrote freelance articles for various publications between 1980 and 2001 on Catholic religious issues. In 2002, he became an adjunct fellow with the Free Congress Foundation. He wrote seven monographs on Islam for the Free Congress Foundation in 2002 and 2003. He is a regular columnist for FrontPageMagazine.com, and Human Events. His writings on Islam and other topics have been published in various other publications." -- --Matt57 23:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Spencer's MA was in early Christianity. Spencer has no qualification related to Islam: that's how we determine who is and isn't a scholar. academic Islamic scholar Carl Ernst opines similarly: "... he has no academic training in Islamic studies whatever; his M.A. degree was in the field of early Christianity." as such, he cannot be considered a scholar of Islam. "People who go for PhD's in Islam usually are Muslims or have an existing favourable view of Islam already" not one of those who i mentioned above are Muslim, and to suggest that they had positive preconceived notions on Islam is to disparage their scholarship. there's nothing more to say here. ITAQALLAH 00:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, there is no formal defination of a "scholar" of Islam. The same stuff you study while during a PhD, you can open the hadith and Quran and read Islamic history for yourself in other books. You may come out with a PhD but not be a "scholar" if you dont know enough about the subject. Its the actual knowledge of the people that is important, not their degrees. Again - there's no formal defination of a "scholar" of Islam. --Matt57 00:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

<r> Grenavitar, surely there must be some websites that should be in the External links section that are critical of this subject. I'll try to find some links, if not we will have to discuss the inclusion of the FFI or some other similiar link to balance the views on this section. There must not be undue weight for any viewpoint and having only approving websites is unbalancing the section.--Matt57 00:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

G, I have added 3 external links. Remember, the inclusion for external links is based on relevance, not notability. --Matt57 00:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Original research

Quoting the Qur'an is original research. Saying that "So and so Sura says X" is original research. Please find a notable scholar which has expressed those opinions. (Shakir, Pickthall, etc. are translators, not Islamic scholars)--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 01:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Narayan Nev and beyond (original research)

I haven't been reading this article. Someone asked me to comment about the argument Narayan's argument... so I don't know if this is new or not but "Ma malakat aymanukum" in the Qur'an" is a horrible messy original research section. I have been arguing that it's not permissible for Narayan to add "the Qur'an does not mention consent" and I stand by it but this whole section has only Qur'an quotes for citations. Ma malakat aymanukum and sex seems to have some better sources... but, this needs to be cleaned up... and I feel bad that I hadn't noticed it before and only complained about Narayan's edit when the rest of the article has similar problems. You can quote the Qur'an verses, but they should be referenced in terms of important scholarship on the Qur'an, not as an editor's interpretation of it. gren グレン 16:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"You can quote the Qur'an verses, but they should be referenced in terms of important scholarship on the Qur'an". Well, no... that's not what Wiki policy says. It actually says that the Qur'an can be quoted only for descriptive purposes, cannot be interpreted. Narayan 09:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

AmericanThinker.com - James

The author of that external linked article is James and is notable: "James M. Arlandson (PhD) teaches introductory philosophy and world religions at a college in southern California. He has published a book, Women, Class, and Society in Early Christianity (Hendrickson, 1997)." from [6]. He is also author of a book [7].

He qualifies as a Secondary source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Types_of_source_material

Any thoughts as to why he's not a RS? Please refer to policy. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Two quick comments, not intended to be the last word but just a quick personal reaction. (1) This author has a clear and declared anti-Islam POV, and declares his motivation clearly. He declares it as "heartbreaking" when a Christian converts to Islam etc (see http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/why_i_write.htm) (2) the author doesn't appear to be notable enough for example to qualify for his own article on Wikipedia. Reading his stuff (as a fairly main stream Christian, sorry) he makes me feel rather uneasy: I think he has an axe to grind, and therefore isn't a good secondary source since his subjective judgement may be iffy. However, he does try to give references in his articles, so perhaps (depending on the issue) it is worth tracking them down? --BozMo talk 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is about this conclusion : [8] then I would be strongly inclined to disallow it. He seems to be trying to interpret primary sources and reach a conclusion on which he doesn't have any notability as an authority: or am I missing something? --BozMo talk 19:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

having a PhD doesn't really make you qualified to speak about Islam if it's in another topic. it doesn't seem as if his work on Islam is endorsed by any reputable institutions. furthermore, the publisher of this article (i.e. the website) also seems to be unauthoritative, unscholarly, and rather biased. lastly, the unreliable author, writing on an unreliable website, makes tabloid-esque claims Islam not supported by academic opinion, which further magnifies his unreliability in this regard (see WP:REDFLAG). see also WP:ATT, WP:RS, and a number of sections under WP:NPOV. ITAQALLAH 19:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't knock PhDs. Mine was hard work. Seriously though you have a point that this is not a peer reviewed publication; and not an author who would stand up in his own right without peer review. --BozMo talk 19:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, I'm thinking we have so many critics of Islam writing books and we should hopefully be able to find sources from books that are not questionable like this. This is still a good and relevant external link in my opinion. If we disregard his reasons as to why he writes against Islam and just look at the article as it is, its a good article. There are very few External links on this topic critical of Islam. Anyone who is going to be critical on this issue would appear to have an axe to grind against Islam, thats unavoidable. He gives good references and draws conclusions. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

When we have too many high qualified sourced on Islam and slavery published by notable academic presses, I don't see any justification for using this source. I think Mr. Arlandson is not an expert on Islam. He has studied Islam on his own after 9/11. Let's take one comment of his: "But this Islamic tolerance has been questioned of late, notably by Robert Spencer in his book, The Myth of Islamic Tolerance." - Robert Spencer is only a writer for public on Islam. The real scholars of the field are Bernard Lewis, Mark Cohen, Norman Stillman, etc etc. Spencer is simply out of the circle. Sometime ago when I wanted to write something about Spencer in wikipedia, I contacted many professors including Prof.Norman Stillman. He replied back to me that he hasn't read any of Spencer's writings. Prof. Carl Ernst says that his writings are not scholarly. It seems that Mr. Arlandson is simply a beginner in this field. --Aminz 20:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you know of any scholars who are critical of Islam? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the important thing to remember is that Wiki articles are subject to Wiki policies like WP:RS and WP:ATT. By these policies Arlandson qualifies, and his published work in American Thinker qualifies too. It is not a blog, and articles in American Thinker go through a process of review before being published. Whether he is pro or anti Islam is besides the point. If we were to exclude his work because he is unsympathetic to Islam, we would have to exclude those sympathetic to Islam too, and soon there would be no articles. Also requirements like "PhD from a reputable institution" are beyond Wiki policies. If editors insist on imposing these standards, they should either take action to change Wiki policies, or the matter should end up in mediation or arb com. NN 07:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

from WP:ATT: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." this is a specification which facilitates that we use those authors who are authoritative in the field of Islam. this has been explained in great detail on the talk page of WP:MOSISLAM. ITAQALLAH 20:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You missed the "or" in the bit of Wiki policy you quoted. There is no reason to assume that Arlandson is not "trustworthy". Given that he has published quite a bit about Islam, I would even say he should be regarded as "authoritative". "American Thinker" attracts well known authors, is not a blog, and appears to have "a reliable publication process". If you disagree with any of these assessments please provide reasons. NN 09:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Arlandson is not trustworthy with respect to articles on Islam. He is not a scholar, doesn't have any credentials relevant to the field, yadda yadda.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 11:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

trustworthiness is proven, with reasons of substance. trustworthiness is not declared, for people to then refute. see negative proof. Arlandson doesn't appear to be trustworthy, his theories amount to WP:FRINGE. his works don't appear in scholarly peer-reviewed papers, they appear on unreliable websites. furthermore, ATT says "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand", and it has been demonstrated what that means ad nauseum. ITAQALLAH 19:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a very notable author for Islam. Check his Google search. Arlandson wouldnt be trustworthy if he wasnt so popular. By what standards are we evaluating "trustworthiness" anyway? Most of the sites linked are not unreliable. Is AmericanThinker unreliable? How is that proved by using Wikipedia policies? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

a lot of people are 'notable', it doesn't mean that they deserve to be quoted on Islam or even marine biology. see WP:RS, WP:ATT and other basic content policies which demonstrate what is understood to be a reliable source. ITAQALLAH 22:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Author qualifies as a secondary source. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Types_of_source_material --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

a secondary source need not be reliable. ITAQALLAH 23:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources can be used as RS. Thats the reason they're explained in the RS section I linked above. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"secondary source" is a term used in historical nomenclature to describe sources which comment on primary sources. if you're a secondary source, which even you can be when you are discussing something else, that doesn't automatically make you a 'reliable source' ITAQALLAH 23:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

In this case, he is. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

that is for you to establish, using Wikipedia policy and guidelines. WP:RS and WP:ATT suggest that he is not reliable. ITAQALLAH 00:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

According to RS, he is a reliable source and infact a recommended source: "The informed and expert interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration of primary sources to synthesize a conclusion. In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources." - By the amount of study he has done on Islam and involved himself on the internet, he has made a name for himself as an expert. Look at this article for example. It is extremely well-sourced and well written. It contains every aspect of a scholarly study of Islam, and has a lot of deep study on Islam. This is just one of his articles. He also has a PhD and teaches World Religions at a college in Southern California. Look at one of his collection of articles here. By all means, he is a reliable source. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

see WP:RS. a reliable source is one who is considered a scholar on the subject. do not cherrypick from guidelines and policy, study the policy as a whole. take a look at WP:RS#Aspects_of_reliability. Arlandson is not a scholar of Islam (and it doesn't matter what his PhD unless its in Islamic studies), and his writings appear on non-scholarly, right-wing websites. attempting to avoid this by arguing that his writings are "extremely well sourced" (merely your opinion), or pointing to the apparent quality of his articles (again, your own opinion) is not, on its own, any basis for arguing that he is a reliable source. several editors have told you this, including an administrator, and it would be wise for you not to continue forwarding silly arguments ad nauseum. ITAQALLAH 15:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[de-indent] There is nothing in existing Wiki policies that suggest Arlandson is not "authoritative" or not "trustworthy". I understand that some editors are referring to his apparent lack of academic degrees as proof of his not being authoritative and untrustworthy, however Wiki policy does not say academic degrees are essential. I am sure that Wiki policies were written with a lot of thought and debate, and we should respect them as they are. If you believe that Wiki policies are imperfect then you should agitate to have them changed, rather than trying to impose ad hoc policies. I would accept Arlandson was not authoritative and untrustworthy if it could be shown that he was in the habit of lying, providing false information, etc. As none of this has happened and his work is notable, it is acceptable by Wiki standards. NN 09:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nayan Nev, trustworthiness and authoritativeness must be proven, not assumed until disproven. the fact that your use these words as you have suggests that you know very well that these words may be ambiguous and subjective on their own, which is exactly why these very pages then substantiate what is meant by these words. your conditions for what must occur to prove Arlandson to be inappropriate are irrelevant, as it would simply result in debate over whether he is right or wrong, which again is a subjective conclusion. suffice to say this: none of his absurd and polemical assertions are supported by academic scholars, who are actually qualified in Islamic studies. in fact, we have already discussed that one can only be authoritative on a subject if they possess the appropriate scholarly qualifications, which is exactly what WP:RS says, so there is no imposition of 'ad hoc' policies as you say. the quality requirements of the source, in the case of the POV-pushing he is being used for, happen to be higher as per WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE. the bottom line is this: we have a non-scholar making accusations not endorsed by the scholarly academic community. his lack of scholarship makes him unreliable, and his fringe arguments make him even more so. if you disagree with this assessment, we can always take it over to the talk page of WP:RS to obtain further comments. ITAQALLAH 15:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have asked you before to name one "academic scholar" who you think is significantly critical of Islam. Am I right in saying that all the people you believe who are scholars of Islam hold favourable views of Islam? His assertions are not "absurd", as you claim. They are well researched as I have pointed out. He has a PhD and teaches World Religion - what more qualifications do you want, ItaqAllah? He is more than qualified to be a Reliable Source and a scholar of Islam. REDFLAG and FRINGE do not apply. There are no claims that he is making that are not accepted by the community and such. This is your usual criticism of Islam. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, I clicked on the link you provided about a negative proof expecting to find something about Wiki policies but ended up reading an article. It is absurd to think I don't understand the meaning of the words "trustworthiness and authoritativeness must be proven", please don't clutter your replies with unnecessary links. You need to provide quotes from actual Wiki policies, I repeat policies, and not links to articles explaining what "negative proof" means. As for the "scholarly academic community", unless you provide evidence for such a creature, further evidence about what this creature believes, and conclude by quoting Wiki policies showing the supremacy of this creature, its relevance remains rather like an Unicorn. NN 17:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well said, thanks NN. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nayan Nev, i have relayed those links which you should read in order to understand the faulty nature of the logic you are applying. you have constantly requested citation of policy, yet when it is shown to you, you seem to ignore it - as you did on WP:MOSISLAM, and as you did on this very page concerning your original derivation the Qur'an. policies and guidelines have been cited multiple times in the discussions we have had, please refer back to them. as for this strange denial of the existence of an academic scholarly community, see WP:RS (The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.)

Matt57, your contributions in this discussion consist mainly of a series of unsubstantiated claims, and thus obstructive to the progression of this discussion. what is Arlandson's PhD in? you refuse to prove that he has any qualification related to Islam. he teaches "Introductory philosophy and World Religions" at an unnamed college. that's too ambiguous for us to ascertain whether or not he is an expert on Islam, and it doesn't help us uncover what he is apparently qualified in (his PhD could be in Christianity, or in Ancient philosophy, and so on - the former is far more likely considering the topic of his only published book- "Women, Class and Society in Early Christianity"). "what more qualifications do you want, ItaqAllah?" - all that's needed is a verifiable qualification, in Islam or Islamic studies, which is what all scholars and experts of Islam have - in the same way you must have a qualification in medicine or medical sciences to be a RS on medical knowledge. his works on Islam don't seem to have attracted any attention in academic journals (and thus the scholarly community which NN seeks to deny) at all, and these works do not appear in academic peer-reviewed sources (americanthinker.com qualifies as partisan), let alone the requirement of his work having been 'thoroughly vetted'. ITAQALLAH 22:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Itaq, 1) there's no such thing a scholar of Islam 2) Even if there was, a PhD in Islam is not required to be considered a RS on Islamic issues. He teaches World Religion, so obvoiusly that is related to Islam and that does make him a scholar, judging by the high quality of articles he writes on Islam. What are the "academic journals" you speak of? I dont know of any. Please point them out. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As for Itaqallah's allegation that Matt's contribution is "mainly of a series of unsubstantiated claims", the very author we are debating, that is Arlandson, was discovered by Matt. I would like to thank Matt once again, NN 03:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Aminz wrote, "The real scholars of the field are Bernard Lewis, Mark Cohen, Norman Stillman, etc etc." I endorse this completely. Of course this list is hardly complete, but it is illustrative of the standards we should be applying.

Matt57, you asked Itaqallah, "Am I right in saying that all the people you believe who are scholars of Islam hold favourable views of Islam?" I imagine that Itaqallah would accept all of these as impeccably qualified sources; I rather doubt that either Lewis or Stillman holds a particularly favorable view of Islam. What you won't generally find is anti-Islam polemic, because this falls outside the scope of the academic historian's job description, and would detract from the credibility of their work.Proabivouac 06:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Blog?

I restored a summary of the disputed material, but I am not sure about this source being reliable for the subject. Seems that the website in question is a blog, and as such may not be considered a RS for the assertions made. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed that text, as it is just the unqualified opinion of a person in a blog. I would also delete it from the EL section, on that basis. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If editors do not accept this, please pursue dispute resolution rather than editwar. The first step would be to place a Request for comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with Jossi. I'm not sure that I would necessarily remove AT from external links; the existence of this opinion may well interest readers of this article. Arlandson would be a reliable source on feminism in the New Testament, or even on the New Testament; but I see no reason to believe that he is reliable here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Repeating what I said at Reliable Sources, James's PhD is is "Comparative Literature, emphasizing the analysis of religious texts". I believe he is well qualified to comment on Islam. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt57, I must concur that Arlandson, relative to this topic, falls short of the high sourcing standards we should aim to uphold in this space.Proabivouac 06:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

sorry

ok my edit summary was rude. Can I take it back or something? Unflavoured 07:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC) But checking the history, IP corrected this glaring error TWICE and it was reverted. Wonder why? Usually corrections are praised, not reverted and labeled as vandalism. Interesting... Unflavoured 07:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

So what does aymanhun mean? Arrow740 07:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

aymanukum: the speaker is talking directly to a group of males (men/boys)

aymanuhun: the speaker is refering to a group of absent/faraway females (women/girls)

but that is not the only error: its a common thing for a person to change a few letters in a arabic to corrupt the meaning or defile it. This is especially true of non-Muslim people who speak arabic, and the term comes from the Quran. Here the sentence is changed to either make it lesbian-istic (?) or just simply to have fun altering an Arabic sentence from the Quran and knowing that they can get away with it cause no1 will check. Unflavoured 08:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do I need to write so much? The term now is the correct one used in the Quran, the one before was an insult/clever piece of vandalism.Unflavoured 08:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Mistranslation. The wrong translations of the word Ma malakat aymanukumwrong

The word ما ملكت أيمانکم Ma malakat aymanukum is what your right hands "Had possessed" NOT what your right hands Possess.

11:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalization

I am not vandalizing or reverting (3RR) for the sake of reverting. I have always pointed out in the discussion why I am reverting, but when you have pure vandalizing such as many people coming (it could be one, the number does not matter indeed) and changing without any discussion, even without a summary, then this is not correct. It is called "vandalizing". If you have something to change or undo, say 'why' and we can discuss. Otherwise, when you change and you say nothing, I cannot discuss anything because you said nothing and you force me to label it 'vandalizing'. (Studentoftruth 18:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC))

Alternative Interpretation

Regarding the following:

_________________________________________________________________

Regarding verse 50 of Surah Al-Ahzab (The Clans, Chapter 33),

O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her...

Muhamad Asad notes that this is a question of giving the dower: one may marry by giving dower to the free woman, and in the case of the slave-girl, the freedom is her dower for marriage, and there are other cases where the free woman can be married without dower to the prophet. [1]

This is in accordance with the tradition,

Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz bin Suhaib: Anas bin Malik said, "The Prophet took Safiya as a captive. He manumitted her and married her." Thabit asked Anas, "What did he give her as Mahr (i.e. marriage gift)?" Anas replied. "Her Mahr was herself, for he manumitted her."(Sahih Bukhari, Book 59 "Al-Maghaazi", Hadith 513)[6]

Narrated Sahl bin Sad As-Sa'idi: A woman came to Allah's Apostle and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have come to give you myself in marriage (without Mahr). ..."(Sahih Bukhari, Book 62 "Marriage", Hadith 24)[7]

Ibn kathir also comments "also lawful for you, O Prophet, is a believing woman if she offers herself to you, to marry her without a dowry, if you wish to do so." _________________________________________________________________

You are deleting a commentary of Ibn Kathir wich goes along with the hadith from Sahih Bukhari and the standard used by these two commentaries are parallel to the "right hand possesses", which is parallel to the other women who Ibn Kathir says "without dowry". Basically not only you are creating double standards of logic, but you are refusing well-known explanations because it does not fit your POV. If we go with your so called "logic/POV" some women which are free can have free sex with prophet without marriage and you basically ignore the wed explicitly written in the verse. And so you deleted a Sahih Bukhari hadith which agrees with Muhammad Asad's explanation, which goes along with Ibn Kathir.

You are deleting multiple-sourced information based on your POV, of the kind of POV that contradicts every logical saying in the sourced information coming from many scholars (not just one). I want to see how the explanation of what is just posted above became a minority. You clearly have deficiency in reading English, analyzing parallel structures and reading multiple-sourced articles. Not to speak for logical contradictions and double standards you want to apply to the verse(s). (Studentoftruth 05:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

To say the least you are "half-quoting the verse", explicitly deleting sources and you tell me "Neutral Point". It is you who should not be biased and not delete alternatve. If I was to be biased I would have made your so called quoting a verse an "alternative" because it is implicitly implied by half-quoting the verse. Be fair to the sources from the publications coming from at least three authors. (Studentoftruth 05:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

Asad is a partisan source espousing an apologetic extreme minority view. Read WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Arrow740 05:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Arrow,

Let's assume per say that 'he is', but as a consequence then Ibn Kathir must be too and so must be Bukhari wich relate the same meaning to the verse. Unless you can prove to me that the dowry is not the point of the verse such as Ibn Kathir states, then you are creating your POV. Then Tabari must be too and Ibn Abas....on which Muhammad Asad relies on the meaning you want to delete.(Studentoftruth 05:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

I only removed Asad. Arrow740 06:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You removed the whole "Alternative"(Ibn Kathir, Bukhari and Muhammad Asad) + "other meaning" (Ibn Abas, Tabari, Muhammad Asad). Explain because they have different names.(Studentoftruth 06:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

The arguments all come from Asad. Asad is the person discussing all that. Arrow740 06:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Asad does not include Bukhari...read it better. Asad does not include Ibn Kathir. Look at the sources, they're different. Unless you read Tabari and say that Asad is lying, then you are relying on your imagination. I want to know how "dowry" came out of the picture in this verse even though it is explictly stated by Ibn Kathir in his tafsir, not in Muhmmad Asad's one.(Studentoftruth 06:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

It is all quoted from Asad. Asad quotes the rest to advance his own ideas. Arrow740 06:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats your POV along with the assertion that it is a minority view unless theres any indication of that in his article or even by multiple other scholars so you can't just simply pass it off as such. And again, even if he is, he still appears to be someone of notable mention and theirs nothing wrong with posting his interpretation, especially since in reality his interpretation would actually keep the topic NPOV. The alternative interpretation sources the Quran but gives no sources indicating that majority people or any notables interpret it that way. Jedi Master MIK 16:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That Muhammad Asad is apologetic, that is your opinion.

Even if I were to agree with you, by default everyone else becomes apologetic except you. Are you blind? Ibn Kathir has its own book and came before Asad, so did the rest. If Asad quotes someone, that does not make that someone invalid, especially when it comes to well-known scholars and well-known publications.

Also explain me the other verse and explanations of Ibn Kathir who qoutes well-known Sahaba etc..., Not Muhammad Asad's:

Ibn Kathir comments "(not fornicators) referring to dishonorable women, who do not refrain from illicit sexual relations with those who ask. Ibn `Abbas said that the fornicating women are the whores, who do not object to having relations with whomever seeks it"[5]

Ibn Kathir comments "(nor promiscuous) refers to taking boyfriends. Similar was said by Abu Hurayrah, Mujahid, Ash-Sha`bi, Ad-Dahhak, `Ata' Al-Khurasani, Yahya bin Abi Kathir, Muqatil bin Hayyan and As-Suddi."[5]

What is "boyfriend", what is "fornication"...??? Are these people apologetic too?(Studentoftruth 06:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

SoT never admitted to your allegations or reasoning to be correct and I've considered and very clearly answered your posts above, right before SoT's post above this one. Please don't be dishonest here and simply answer my rebuttal, otherwise I will change the reverts back. Jedi Master MIK 06:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Asad is a highly partisan, unqualified source. That's why I'm again removing his apologetics. I am also removing excessive quotes from Ibn Kathir's tafsir. This isn't the place to copy all of that. Arrow740 19:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats all you keep saying but you have to my knowledge not provided any evidence for it and his page says nothing of what you say.

Also, the first interpretation given on the subject has no author/scholar/whatever to back it up, at least this one does. Jedi Master MIK 20:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You want a defense? Here's a defense. I've looked more into Muhammad Asad. Nothing I have found so far, not even his wikibio, show that he is by definition of the word partisan. Pretty much everything I've found so far, including his wikibio, shows he is more than qualified to give an opinion based on his studies. The page List of Islamic studies scholars does not even list him as unorthodox, partisan, controversial, etc. He's written a number of in depth study of Islam books and apparently even translated the Quran. Now if you don't have anything else to excuse a proper rebuttal, I ask you give one before changing the page again. Jedi Master MIK 01:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to give specifics. I will provide evidence of his partisanship, but you must provide evidence for his reliability. Thanks. Arrow740 03:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

His specifics are on his wikibio page, I mentioned a few of them including that he wrote a number of books on Islam and a Quranic translation after converting, studying Islam for many years, etc.. There is nothing however on his wikibio or the List of Islamic Scholars page however that supports he is partisan or anything else you allege so I suggest you be courteous and finally provide something to support your allegations. Jedi Master MIK 04:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As you should be aware, wikipedia is not a reliable source. His article is without citations. Further, it does not list any qualifications. Robert Spencer has also written multiple books on Islam; that does not make him a reliable source. Asad appears to be merely a zealous convert. Arrow740 07:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I can therefore assume none of things posted here can be too reliable either, especially since the alternative interpretation you agree to doesn't even have any sources to begin with. The purpose of us editing is so we can make wiki more reliable. And there are citations at the bottom, just they aren't implemented within the text of the article and instead say "if you want to double check this whole article, go here"; I'm not saying thats right but it doesn't negate that there are sources. And thats the key word, "appears"; so far you've only showed a personal POV to these allegations so according to that POV, any Muslim convert who studies Islam and writes books on it is zealous. Even allegations require support so the defender has something to work with in his defense, its innocent until proven guilty. Jedi Master MIK 15:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring....

... accomplishes nothing. If editors continue reverting each other, the article will be protected until such time in which you can find common ground and collaborate. 03:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately we're having some trouble regarding a source. From all that I've read, he is regarded as a very knowledgeable scholar on Islam. Arrow however considers him partisan, unqualified, etc. but brings no support of such allegations. When I ask for them, he tells me its my job to prove that he is a qualified source. However, the problem I see with that is if I give sources giving credence to Muhammad Asad, he'll most likely start on attacking those sources and forget about giving any support for where his own allegations came from in the first place and of course if I go back to asking him what supports his personal POV, he'll go back to telling me its my responsibility to give credence to the source and it'll cycle. Jedi Master MIK 21:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Provide "those sources" like you've been requested and we'll see. This article is not a place for apologetics. Arrow740 21:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, anyone who explains/defends Islam by your definition is an apologetic which technically is every and any Muslim scholar. Jedi Master MIK 04:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This is why it is important to read things more closely: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

They say nothing about the person providing the source having to prove the source's reliability, they're saying the person adding information has to provide sources to verify that information. I knew there was a very inherent Catch-22 and contradiction to modern prosecution in general to what you were purporting about wiki-policy.

So once again I ask you, please provide evidence to support your allegations against Muhammad Asad. Jedi Master MIK 05:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Intercourse

Arrow,

I added the following wich deals with sex, yours are translations and do not mention sex at all. This on the other hand is scholarly based and referenced and not original reasearch as yours seems to be.

---

If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. [Qur'an, Chapter (Surah) An-Nisa (Women)(4):25][9]

(This is for him among you who is afraid of being harmed in his religion or in his body;) indicates that marrying slave girls, providing one satisfies the required conditions, is for those who fear for their chastity and find it hard to be patient and refrain from sex. In this difficult circumstance, one is allowed to marry a slave girl.

Ibn Kathir comments "(not fornicators) referring to dishonorable women, who do not refrain from illicit sexual relations with those who ask. Ibn `Abbas said that the fornicating women are the whores, who do not object to having relations with whomever seeks it"

Ibn Kathir comments "(nor promiscuous) refers to taking boyfriends. Similar was said by Abu Hurayrah, Mujahid, Ash-Sha`bi, Ad-Dahhak, `Ata' Al-Khurasani, Yahya bin Abi Kathir, Muqatil bin Hayyan and As-Suddi."

Regarding verse 50 of Surah Al-Ahzab (The Clans, Chapter 33),

O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her...

This is in accordance with the tradition,

Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz bin Suhaib: Anas bin Malik said, "The Prophet took Safiya as a captive. He manumitted her and married her." Thabit asked Anas, "What did he give her as Mahr (i.e. marriage gift)?" Anas replied. "Her Mahr was herself, for he manumitted her."(Sahih Bukhari, Book 59 "Al-Maghaazi", Hadith 513)[10]

Narrated Sahl bin Sad As-Sa'idi: A woman came to Allah's Apostle and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have come to give you myself in marriage (without Mahr). ..."(Sahih Bukhari, Book 62 "Marriage", Hadith 24)[11]

Ibn kathir also comments "also lawful for you, O Prophet, is a believing woman if she offers herself to you, to marry her without a dowry, if you wish to do so."

---

Notice that Muhammad Asad is not quoted. On Muhammad Asad was discussed previously and since he bases his works on earlier famous scholars you, he is legitimate to be quoted when he agrees with a number of earlier scholars. Nevertheless he has not been quoted above and on your premises if you delete again you are vandalizing the article since that would proof Muhammad Asad's reliability is not your main concern.

(Studentoftruth 19:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

Arrow,

Do NOT VANDALIZE the article by taking quotations from the Qur'an. You are corrupting the article by hiding the verses, showing your hidden agenda of keeping what fits you to defame Islam. Since you have very minor knowledge you are corrupting and creating a defamation based article. You are removing quotations from Qur'an and Hadith, which are the basics. Then the sayings of Sahaba and Tabi'in outweigh any other sayings. You are showing to be zealously ignorant on matters concerning Islam. I repeat, do not vandalize the article !!!(Studentoftruth 04:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

Hi. I believe that you're misusing primary sources. We're encouraged to use secondary sources because of situations like these. You are presenting original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Arrow is right to ask: would you find it acceptable if verses were cited that ostensibly promoted slavery? You are committing a similar act, but in a pro-Islamic, propaganda-ish manner. Please cease to do so, as you are apparently unaware of Wikipedia policy or what vandalism is in the Wikipedia context.--C.Logan 16:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, misusing? How come when Arrow740 alludes to some verses in the Qur'an which contradict several other scholarly books on that matter is not misusing, while when I quote just the Qur'an and the Authentic Hadith without any twisting of the meaning, it is called misusing? Do you have any sense of logic at all? If this is about Islam and a term used in the Qur'an, quoting Qur'an and Authentic hadith or summarizing what they say is not misusing. Creating hallucinations by contradicting several verses of the Qur'an in a twisted interpretation is misusing and as far as I can see wikipedia is not for the purpose of defamation. You can quote any verse you like as long as you allow anyone to say the "correct" meaning according to the understanding of Islam. Otherwise if you want to twist a meaning, then we must label it defamation, especially in the case of erasing any viewpoint of Islam on that matter. Is that what you are looking for, to quote some defamatory meaning of which Islam is free off? Quote whatever you want from the Qur'an, but then we must have a discussion on the correct meaning by giving scholarly references and not what "YOU" think it means. And by the way references are given and I am not doing any original research essay of my own. You can go buy the books and read them.(Studentoftruth 22:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

You are clearly not listening to what's being explained to you. Wikipedia's manual of style for Islam-related articles states, "The Qur'an and the Hadith are considered to be primary sources, as defined in WP:NOR. Therefore they should not be quoted to make an argument or imply a particular interpretation unless one can also cite a reliable secondary source that supports that usage." Whether you like it or not, citing the Hadith themselves is original research".

You continue to spout that you're simply giving the "true" meaning; I have some news for you: yours is only one particular interpretation of things. Again, Arrow may come from a Qur'anic school where a verse implies a very different meaning than the one you support (note that Arrow is not a Muslim, but for the sake of example, he could easily see his interpretation as "true" and he could see you as the one who is distorting the truth).

There is no consensus over the meaning of religious scriptures in any of the major religions, as far as has been demonstrated to me. There are always divisions in interpretation, and sometimes many schools form around these impressions. The fact that you push your POV with a primary source demonstrates that you don't understand why it is against the rules to use primary sources in this manner.

If you're here to contribute while abiding by our policies, then I welcome you, but if you're going to continuously argue that only your POV is acceptable and that your interpretation of primary sources is sufficient, then Wikipedia could do without you. Please familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines here, and then you will understand why your changes are being reverted. Additionally, do not misuse the vandalism template. If you need help understand what is and is not considered a valid source, then feel free to ask.--C.Logan 02:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

C. Logan, might I explain the origins of this dispute? Someone once provided a secondary source to give support for one interpretation of sexual relations with captives that said the practice is not allowed outside marriage. However, Arrow said the source was unreliable for a variety of reasons and we asked him to give evidence for his allegations. However he dodged the simple request over and over and instead kept pushing forth that it is our job to prove that the source is reliable according to WP:V. Student therefore decided instead to quote directly the primary sources b/c he thought that would be incontestable then and also previously the other interpretation also included only a primary source. On top of that, IMHO the broad/vague criteria that Arrow was giving for the source being unreliable could basically apply to virtually any Muslim theologian trying to explain, interpret, etc. a belief/ideal of the religion of Islam. However, what Arrow might not have realized as I did not when reading the policy is that the policy was referring to information that is added w/o sources, not the sources themselves. I hope that helps explain it. Jedi Master MIK 05:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Obviously, though, Student is no less wrong in this situation. However, I think you may need to explain things in specifics- as far as I am familiar with policy, Arrow's objection is essentially valid. Articles should rely on third-party, reliable sources. WP:V extends over this requirement, as it places the burden of proof on the editor who adds information. It requests "reliable" sources, and therefore both sides should offer arguments over whether or not a source is reliable, if there is a dispute over the source (no one side bears the burden in assessing reliability, as far as I know). Could you elaborate more on the source itself, and on the dispute in general?--C.Logan 05:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course I agree that he is wrong in the way he's going about things, I just wanted to clear up why hes being so resistant though. On WP:V, burden of proof on a promoter of information was aimed at just adding information, not the sources as the sources are what are to prove the information. There is a separate section on reliability of sources which states nothing specific like which is stated about the information, in fact its a bit vague on how to make sure its reliable besides checking that it cites its sources and what not.

Now then, let me explain a bit further what we were talking about a while back though you can look up above for more details of the argument. Muhammad Asad is a well known Muslim historian and theologian. Pertaining to this article, he wrote in his writings that a male master can't have outside of marriage sexual relations with a female captive and he provided references from the Quran, ahadith, tafsirs, etc. to build on his given interpretation. However, Arrow kept removing any citation towards him on grounds that he was unqualified, apologist, partisan, etc. but he never give any proof of his allegations being valid beyond his own personal POV.

While I still don't know what he defines as partisan or unqualified, according to his definition of apologist, every Muslim historian/theologian can be considered apologetic and so unusable to explain what their religion believes...is their any rationale to that??? When I tried to get him to reveal some backing to his allegations, he pushed his said interpretation of WP:V in my face. On a side note, its funny the alternative interpretation that was already given in the article, sex is allowed with captives out of marriage, originally simply used a primary source to try and prove the point but when Muhammad Asad, a secondary source, gave an alternate explanation the verse, he gets deleted.

Back to MA, as I said before he does give references to give his interpretations and also nothing I could search up gave credence to the allegations given by Arrow and instead most everything, including wiki, give him credence as a learned Muslim historian/theologian. So now I dunno where to go with this, I hope that explains this. Jedi Master MIK 16:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for elaborating. I haven't taken a look at Asad, but I'm not familiar with Arrow as being out of line on matters like these; maybe he made a mistake (at the least, it appears that he did concerning WP:V, from what I can see), but I'll certainly see if I can see the problems he sees with the source, if I can scrutinize it against policy. In any case, I now know the general problem with the article. It may, in my opinion, need to be entirely re-structured.--C.Logan 21:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thing thats being silently disputed with Arrow is this section [12]. He's telling Student not to use primary sources and what not yet Arrow keeps not only citing a Quranic verse to back up the interpretation given in the section but also uses his own personal interpretation of the verse with no citation to a secondary source support to try and prove it fits. Right now I've taken out the reference to the verse for above stated reason but I've left it there b/c the link to the actual topic is in that section and it does cite sources but I'm not saying its the most concrete solution. Jedi Master MIK 18:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

C.Logan,

Do not play games with me here. I provided the hadith from Sahih Bukhari. Bukhari is a scholar and one of the most famous. Imam Bukhari is the THIRD PARTY. SATISFIED? All the main schools of thought agree on his authority and reliability. As far as when you deleted what I added there was a reference to Ibn Kathir and not directly to Qur'an. I am not drawing any conclusions. I am summarizing what Ibn Kathir, a scholar of Islam, and among the most famous in Qur'anic Commentaries, said pertaining Zina (fornication, adultery) with a Slave. IBn Kathir is the THIRD PARTY. SATISFIED? It is not my conclusion. Get it? Maybe you adding "Imam Bukhari related the hadith as authentic:", but deleting and saying I am making my own research and you needing secondary sources is not correct, because you have primary Qur'an and Hadith sources and Third Parties as Bukhari and Ibn Kathir. They both are there therefore your claim of me creating POV or original research is false. (Studentoftruth 19:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

I agree with Jedi Master on Muhammad Asad. Is he not a THIRD SOURCE too? But what amazes me is that you C.Logan don't delete Arrow740 of drawing conclusions from Qur'an by himself. There is NO Third Party there, please point to me his third party. Be consistent, man. Do not have double standards in your so called "editions", of which I did not agree as I explained above it meets the criterion you suggested. (Studentoftruth 19:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

First of all, as I've pointed out above, I don't know what the origins of this discussion even pertain to. This is ultimately irrelevant on the issue of your additions, but I don't even know what Arrow is supporting. I really hate when I become involved in a dispute and people ask me why I'm not fixing other problems or checking the contributions of other editors, as if I'm some sort of watchdog. It's not my job to stamp out every negative aspect of the article; the one that I observed in action was this addition by you, Student. I don't know Arrow's opinion, or his arguments in the matter. As far as I can see, this article has serious quotefarm issues, and your addition of POV Hadith interpretations is not helping the matter. As it stands, this article should probably be shortened drastically. I think that the verses relevant to the term should be discussed, and quoted in moderation, but again, only with accompanying scholarly interpretations.--C.Logan 21:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained this to you multiple times, but I don't think you really understand. It's not acceptable to quote a Hadith just because it was quoted in a third-party source. You are still presenting it by your own interpretation. You can only present the argument of the source itself, that is, for instance: "Ibn Kathir argued that this verse supported the emancipation of slaves" (note that I'm guessing the text even says anything like this). Again, the compilation of Hadith is irrelevant; the Hadith are not to be used as sources. My claims of POV and original research aren't false; it's just that you're doing this unintentionally, as you misunderstand what I've explained. Here I shall explain this to you, in simpler English:

• The Hadith and the Qur'an can not be used as sources for any point of view, regardless of the collection or version.
• One cannot quote the Hadith or Qur'anic citations from a third-party text to argue a point. The fact that you "lift" the citation from Ibn Kathir does not make the citation acceptable.
• You can only cite what scholars argue about the verses; you can cite reliable commentary (as far as I know), and you can cite what an author argues should be the interpretation.

Again, the problem with these edits is that you are presenting primary sources according to your POV. We can only cite the POV of reliable secondary sources. Stop taking extreme issue with me, as I'm trying to show you how things work on Wikipedia.--C.Logan 21:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Student, I think this is the policy they are referring to: WP:NPS

Now the article suggest a few things, one I found most interesting and was used on Banu Qurayza, that is Wikisource. Ibn Kathir though is a commentator on the Quran so in a way he can be considered secondary b/c he's examining the actual primary source.

As far as I know, commentary is acceptable, so we're okay. This seems to be a good addition, but the grammar is going to need fixing straightaway.--C.Logan 19:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

References

Some viewpoints need ascribing?

In these two paragraphs:

Although slavery was not outright condemned Muslims argue that this is because slavery was a vital part of the world during the time of the revelation and it would be difficult for society to end it immediately. The strategy used by God sought to incremently push for its abolishment through humanitarian initiatives. For example, "The Prophet said, "Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release (set free) the one in captivity (by paying his ransom)." (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Food, Meals, Volume 7, Book 65, Number 286)". Also when an individual erred such as missing a day of fasting they were to free a slave. Slavery was not encouraged, i.e there was no command to take slaves. On the contrary, there were commands that freeing slaves is a righteous act. Therefore this set the emancipation of slaves in motion. While this emancipation was occurring the quran and the prophet established rights for slaves that were not before enjoyed as well as limiting the source of slavery to only prisoners of war.

Therefore most Muslims argue the verses for "what your right hands possess" no longer apply. There are however a minority of Muslims who still believe that owning prisoners of war/slaves as legitimate.

To the reader it appears that Wikipedia knows exactly what God's strategy in relation to slavery is! Presumably these paragraphs give one (relatively modern?) viewpoint on slavery in the Quran - namely that the Quran should not be seen as a pro-slavery text, and that in fact it forms part of a trend of Islamic rejection of slavery as an institution. Is this a relatively modern interpretation of the Quran's treatment of slavery (perhaps a reaction to criticism that the Quran countenances slavery)? Or did early Islamic scholars use these scriptures to argue against the institution of slavery? At any rate, I don't think the statement "The strategy used by God sought to incremently push for its abolishment through humanitarian initiatives" can reside in the text without being attributed to somebody. (Incidentally, "incremently" is a typo which needs correcting.) Purgatorio (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Needs major editing

This article has POV problems. As it currently stands, it should be called the Ibn Kathir article. I'm not going to tag it for now, in the hope that someone objective can do something with it. Wuapinmon (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Prostitution?

This article says: "Force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity." However, prostitution is forbidden is islam. How it is possible that on the one side a ma malakat aymanukum may prostitute (when she doesn't desire chastity) and on the other side prostitution is forbidden? A Horse called Man 23:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Title of article

Does the Arabic term Ma malakat aymanukum have anything to do with how Islam and/or the Qu'ran regard the treatment of war captives? If so, I'd like to move this article to Islam and war captives. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

An interesting article to read on Ma Malakat Aymanukum

Here. http://www.understanding-islam.com/reader-articles/islamic-beliefs/those-whom-your-right-hands-possess

I do notice that the article I linked did not clarify on the sayings of Muhammad (Hadith) but we have to realize that the scholars of Islam in the past and the present, no matter how careful they are with their writing, may still make mistakes. Some Sahih (meaning, authenticated by Bukhari and Muslim) Hadith (sayings of Muhammad), for example, with regards to music, whether it's allowed or not in Islam is still a big subject of debate today. The linked article made references only to the Qur'an and none to the Hadeeth, and all Muslims would agree that the Qur'an, in its original language, means exactly what Allah wishes it to mean. With a Hadith, it could still be debatable whether it's authentic or not (even if it's verified authentic by Bukhari and Muslim, remember, people, no matter how good they are, make mistakes. Even the Prophet make mistakes but Allah notifies the Prophet of such mistakes through the Qur'an. Chapter 'Abasa as a good reference), as the Prophet never told his followers to memorize the Hadith, and he told his followers to memorize the Qur'an. I used the word memorize, because I do not necessarily mean that the followers of the Prophet need not follow the saying of the Prophet, just saying that it's not as closely monitored in its transmission, as the Qur'an is. I, as a Muslim do see how the Hadith narrated by the people in the past helped in teaching Islam today, and unfortunately, not on this matter.

EDIT:Also I would like to add that while the saying of the Prophet may have been authentic, it may have happened before the verses were revealed. I also have another link. http://syedsoutsidethebox.blogspot.com/2012/08/surveying-quran.html?showComment=1344336857474#c1642231943334219158 If your browser broke down, just find 'aymanukum'. It shows 'aymanukum' doesn't mean hand, but means oath.

Thoughts on this? I've been pondering about this for quite a while, looked through the Internet for answers, and some videos. I finally came to the conclusion that Islam forbids having sex with the slaves they own, seeing as the article explained very, very well on the exact meaning of Ma Malakat Aymanukum. I hope this clears up all the confusions, and possibly the Wikipedia editors can take this article into consideration. We should also realize not all of the scholars of Islam are native Arabic speakers nor well-versed in the poetry of the Arabs. - A Muslim - 210.187.254.152 (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Islam and Slavery

This article lacks secondary sources and it can be accommodated in Islam and Slavery. TruthSpreader^Talk 15:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The term in it self is notable. Merge some content if needed, but keep the article as a term article. --Striver 19:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

can we merge its contents then redirect it (i mean the term) to the section that contains its contents?--Truthpedia 16:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

the layout of this article is currently rather messy. i would really like it if we could organise the article into a single coherent (sourced) prose before merging it... ITAQALLAH 16:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As i stated, i view that this term warants an article. However, i do not realy care how much content is there, as long as the term itself is properly covered. --Striver 01:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Striver the term is quite notable in Islam, no merge for me--Khalid hassani 20:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the merge template. --Striver 16:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Since it seems to be an almost identical article to the Islamic views on slavery article, I think it should be merged, however if it is not merged all the repeated and overlapping information should be removed from this article and it should contain a link to the "Islamic views on slavery" article.

Perhaps the section entitled, '"Ma malakat aymanukum" in the Qur'an' could have the wording underneath changed to, "For the main points about "those whom one's rights possess" (ie slaves) in the Qur'an, see Islamic views on slavery."

Then all the repeat information below that sentence could be deleted except the subsections from "List" onwards. In fact I think I will be bold and do just that now. Daniel De Mol (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Viewpoints

In this article most of the opinions and beliefs are attributed to all of the muslims without determining the different viewpoints of Islamic sects. Mhhossein (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a huge problem. If there is any bias, that contributor needs to reconsider posting. Wikipedia, as well as us as contributors, strive for neutrality. See WP:NPOV. If we can keep to neutrality, every side of every issue can be regarded fairly. I understand that there is a lot of contention in the United States for this particular group due to the methods of classification that the people revert to automatically, typically without thinking, and that can't bleed into wikipedia. Those with a potential bias; ask yourself if your country has a reputation for something, whether it is bad teeth or obesity and ask yourself if that is necessarily the case for you as well. When it comes to Islamic sects, look at ISIS. A group of radicals has completely ruined the image of an entire faith for multiple thousands of people. Again, that can't affect our judgement here on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Complete turing (talk • contribs) 08:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources on the views of different sects, please add a section that discusses them. EastTN (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@EastTN: There does not need to be separate section at all, the text should determine who believes in this. Mhhossein (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

There are a couple of different ways to do it. In the case of a religion that's been around as long as Islam, it's going to be important to do it in a way that allows the reader to understand where each view fits into the history of Islam. In any case, if you have good sources on how the views of the various sects differ, I'd encourage you to bring them in. We can always talk about whether there's a better place to put them, but the first step is to get the content into the article. EastTN (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Article should be named Ma malakat ayman

Ma malakat ayman means what one's right hands own. The terminaly currently used is not neutral. It refers to 2nd person. So kindly improve the article. Zabt of TahzeebZabt of Tahzeeb (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Quran says Ma malakat can own property and contract manumission with the consent of owner and slave-girl shouldn't be compelled to prostitute

4:25 Permit to free muslim men to marry slave women from their Ma malakat ayman: 1 with the permission of her owner. 2 by paying her mahar or dower in recognized manner.

24:33 say 1 and those who want Mukataba from your Ma malkat ayaman then contract Mukataba with them and give them property from what God has given to you - a written contract in which owner agrees to free slave in exchange for something from slave. 2 Do not force your slave-girls to prostitute, if they desire chastity 3 however if she is compelled then God is kind and merciful after her compulsion.

Let discuss something with me? Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutral content should be preffered not sectarian

The verse 4:24 link profit to mut'ah that is sectarian intetpretation upheld by only shia Islam. Similarly the verse ask for writing refer to Kitab that is literal and real meaning, which is missing. Kindly make article encompassing neutral definitions not sectarian. Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate Weight for Clarence-Smith/Pervez Past-Tense Translation?

How much weight should be given to the theory by Ghulam Ahmed Pervez and Clarence-Smith that ma malakat aymanukum should be translated in the past tense? I haven't done an exhaustive search, but all of the standard translations I've seen render it in the present tense. Is this a fringe theory? EastTN (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Dr. W. G. Clarence-Smith is professor at the University of London, and he cited Ghulam Ahmed Pervez's argument in his book because it provides an important insight. Clearly it is not a "fringe theory" despite being a minority view. In any case, in order to reduce its weight, I would suggest to expand the mainstream view further (since that is not very well fleshed out at all) which will correct the weight automatically. Code16 (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I think your changes to the section on "Rape" look good. I was actually talking about the section on "Translation and meaning." That's where it seems to me that we may be giving it too much weight, given that all the standard translations seem to consistently render this in the present tense. EastTN (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes that's what I'm referring to as well, not the "Rape" section. Code16 (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "expanding the mainstream view further" in that section. We could simply list all the different translations that use the present tense, but that could quickly get pedantic. I guess it's possible that there's a secondary source that's responded to Clarence-Smith by saying that all the standard translations are in the present tense, but if so, I haven't seen it. Are you aware of anyone who's written a response to Clarence-Smith? EastTN (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I meant just fleshing out the mainstream view further, to make it more weighty. I've tried to be as concise as I could with the minority view already, I can clearly state that it is the "minority view" if that helps? Also, I'm not aware of a response to the argument the professor has highlighted in his book, it hasn't been refuted as far as I know. Keep in mind, there are many errors in the standard translations of the Quran that are well known, at least in the academic circles. Sometimes it's simply a language barrier (English is very limited, no direct translation is possible). Other times, it's just a case of intellectual laziness, i.e. using similar words to the Bible, even though the concepts are very different, and then there is even outright bias in some cases. There was a German scholar who pointed out such issues in the standard translations, I just can't recall his name... Take for example the word for "religion" or the word "faith", which are often translated for "deen" and "iman", but both these words are almost exactly the opposite in their meaning to how they are used in the Quran. "Iman" is actually "logical or empirical certainty" and "deen" should be "anti-religion/madhab", yet the standard translations treat them in the classical judeo-christian biblical manner. After all, how can "iman" mean faith if the Quran forbids anyone from following anything blindly (17:36) ? G.A. Parwez wrote and lectured a lot on these issues, which is why I think Professor Clarence-Smith mentioned him in his book. These views are not trivial or "fringe", they were influential in his time and are growing in influence today, and so deserve a mention on this wiki. Code16 (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong - I'm not opposed to mentioning the ideas. I would like us to get the weight right, because my sense is that there's a strong consensus that, as a matter of history, Muhammad did allow slavery (but he did also regulate it in some important ways). I'm not sure I fully understand what you're suggesting, but on the surface it sounds very reasonable to me. Are you thinking of bringing in some sources that explain why most translations render the text the way they do? I'm just not sure I'm qualified to do it - at least not without doing a lot of research. EastTN (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try and gather more sources to address the "why" issue adequately (although, this is an issue which is much broader then this wiki, since it basically deals with the historical sources that comprise early-Muslim history itself, not just as it relates to slavery), it will take time of course but I'll add the things relevant to slavery on this wiki as I find them. I hope others will contribute as well, a lot more has been said about this topic by scholarship that hasn't been mentioned on this wiki. This is an ever-evolving field because many of the sources that are used by the religious leaders (and these are used to define the official "standard" history of the period) are rejected by actual academics. There is also a feedback loop effect as well, because some of those flawed sources were used to formulate the expositions/commentaries on the Quran, which then in turn influenced future translations. All of this creates a lot of confusion, especially for laymen. So it's a highly complex topic, much broader then just slavery. Code16 (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

@Sa.vakilian: Note that the reason you gave in [13] is invalid. The material cites A Dictionary of Islam and is as such not OR.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder:, Even so, it is against WP:MOS to gather several quotations with reference to Quran and Hadith in the article. Wikiquote is dedicated to such texts.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Wikiquote is not a place to dump quotations in general, it is only for particularly notable quotes. There also is no general provision in WP:MOS against having several quotations from the Quran and Hadith in an article. Quite on the contrary, WP:ISLAMOR says: "... it's a good idea to quote the Quran and Hadith to explain a topic, if they are cited in reliable secondary sources." Which is the case here, Hughes' Dictionary of Islam being the reliable secondary source.--Anders Feder (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I really can't find the citation to the secondary sources in the text which I have removed[14], except the first paragraph!!! Can you please show them to me?--Seyyed(t-c) 06:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean? The citation is the one in the first paragraph.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: I will revert the first paragraph.[15] But the other part of the section is clearly against WP:MOS. Each paragraph should has its own citation. You see, the reader should have found the source easily, while as a professional wikipedian I could not find the source.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It isn't against MOS at all - "Wikipedia does not have a "one inline citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rule, even for featured articles,"[16] and for a collection of items from the same source it is quite standard to place the citation in the beginning of the collection, rather than redundantly repeating it for every item. We don't put citations after every word in a sentence either, even if someone claims he is confused by it, and we certainly don't remove the words themselves.

The references actually consist of two citations, where the latter, "MH Shakir", seems to be primary (a Quran translation). We could probably remove the parts that are only sourced to that one. But the case for removing material cited to an established and well-known source like A Dictionary of Islam is poor to say the least.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There is clear difference between what you can find in the former edition of the article as a collection of verses[17] and you can find in the reference as secondary research[18]. Gathering a collection of the verses is clearly against WP:NOR, as well. The source includes some information and only six examples which support that explanation while the article says nothing! In addition, the book has been published in 1885 and the recent researches should be added.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop rambling. 1) Hughes references a number of passages in the Quran that relate directly to the topic of the article. It is more than appropriate to cover this in the article, and any attempt censor it from the article is very dubious and raises questions about what the motive would be for doing so. 2) Per WP:ISLAMOR, it is completely appropriate to quote those passages of the Quran directly in the article, since they are cited by Hughes. 3) If "some information" and "recent research" is missing, then that is a reason for you to add it - not to remove the sourced information already in the article.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with using Hughes ideas beside the others and mentioning the verses which he or the other reliable sources have gathered regarding slavery. My problem is gathering a collection of quotations out of the context of the source. I can not find similarity between the source and the article except some verses. I do not want to censor anything. In my view, separation of the quotations from its context is a kind Original research. However, I think you can solve it easily by using them as the source has done. If you disagree with me, let's ask another wikipedian to decide about it.--Seyyed(t-c) 17:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Please solve it yourself. You are the one who has a problem with parts of the material, not me.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo: What is your idea about our different viewpoints (WP:3O)?--Seyyed(t-c) 05:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Responding to the ping. Just looking things over, I'd like to ask to be sure: can we specify one individual section or paragraph to discuss first? There are several points in the article where primary sources are cited, so I'm assuming that there are several points in the article that are relevant to this discussion. Perhaps focusing on one section for discussion at a time will take a little more time but will facilitate a smoother, more thorough discussion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I think @Anders Feder: agrees that the sections which do not have secondary source should be deleted. The problem is about the correct way to use the secondary source.[19] I think a collection of the verses which have been mentioned by the secondary source without direct reference to it and without any explanation derived from the source is against WP:MOS and WP:NOR. While, as I understand, he thinks we can mention the secondary source at the beginning of the section and then make a collection of the verses with direct reference to a primary source. --Seyyed(t-c) 06:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: I have added a secondary reference to go with the scholarly translations of the relevant verses from the Quran. The cite discusses the verses. Further, the WP:NOR policy states,

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. - WP:PSTS section of WP:NOR

The addition of a secondary source should address all the concerns above. RLoutfy (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I don't disagree, but the quotes in question have been removed, and I do not know for what reason.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Saw your additions now. Thanks.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: What does those quotations are going to show by their own? A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge, is this part compatible with what you did? Btw, I think you have already violated WP:NFCCP by copy pasting such an amount of non-free content. Mhhossein (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo: I still wait for your opinion.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: If your interpretation of the policies and guidelines is correct, then we can use directively use the historical and Hadith sources which are endorsed by the reliable scholars. For example, if Wilferd Madelung or Seyyed Hossein Nasr have endorsed Imam Ali's quotation in some cases, then we can refer to Nahj al-Balagha in that case. Am I right?--Seyyed(t-c) 13:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Quotations should not be overused, but if they serve to explain a pertinent point, supported in secondary sources, which can not be easily summarized, I believe it is accepted. Hughes' A Dictionary of Islam–which, like Wikipedia, is a reference work–quotes the Quran for the same reason. Scripture, specifically, is difficult to summarize, because it involves interpreting it and there nearly as many interpretations as there are adherents. By picking one interpretation, many other relevant ones risks being left out. As for Nahj al-Balagha, if it has been covered by Madelung and Nasr, and it is pertinent etc., you can definitely reference it in accordance with WP:INTEXT (though I would not recommend direct quotation except if the precise formulation of the quoted statement is significant, as is the case with the Quran).--Anders Feder (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Those quotes are from widely used early 20th century translations of Quran, whose copyrights have expired, and it is also a sample under fair use clause. WP:NFCCP doesn't apply, IMO, but I am willing to be persuaded and to revise the section if necessary. The quotations are indeed verifiable, and they show the various contexts in which the phrase Ma malakat aymanukum was used in the most important scripture of Islam. This is an easy, informative way to "make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts without interpretation" about this phrase. Summarizing scripture is otherwise difficult, as well explained above by @Anders Feder. RLoutfy (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Since the source of the quotations is clearly marked, I doubt this limited selection of text would be any problem with regards to WP:NFCCP. If it is, we can simply use one of the other translations on wikisource:Quran.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: Thank for your answer. --Seyyed(t-c) 05:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder, Mhhossein, RLoutfy, and MezzoMezzo: I think it will be useful if we add the issue to WP:MOSISLAM.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)