Proabivouac (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
Ms. al-Hibri, a professor of law, is scarcely any kind of credible authority on the meaning of the Qur'an. There is, of course, nothing in the Qur'an to this effect; I would be curious to see her argument (supposing she has one.) Muhammad and his men didn't just allow and regulate existing slavery, but enslaved a good number of people themselves. Was this part of this secret (so it must be) Qur'anic plan to eliminate this "undesirable transitional socio-political condition?" If there is anything to this novel claim, which, if true, would be of great historical importance, we will be able to source it more convincingly than that.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
Ms. al-Hibri, a professor of law, is scarcely any kind of credible authority on the meaning of the Qur'an. There is, of course, nothing in the Qur'an to this effect; I would be curious to see her argument (supposing she has one.) Muhammad and his men didn't just allow and regulate existing slavery, but enslaved a good number of people themselves. Was this part of this secret (so it must be) Qur'anic plan to eliminate this "undesirable transitional socio-political condition?" If there is anything to this novel claim, which, if true, would be of great historical importance, we will be able to source it more convincingly than that.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
:It is disappointing that a person who has shown himself be marginally reasonable in the past, [[User:Itaqallah]], has insisted on including this information. If this is the kind of crap a large amount of people will believe then maybe mankind deserves Islam. [[User:Arrow740|Arrow740]] 06:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:21, 10 January 2007
You say: "In islam, having sexual relations with one's female slaves is allowed even if married, it is not considered as adultery". If you want to critisize Islam, you should firstly read Qoran. If you read Qoran, you'll see that, this is not legal in Islam.
I think that this topic should be deleted rapidly.
Of course it is allowed. Read 23:5-6, and this article about the subject: [1] -- Karl Meier 11:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Can the person who wrote down he article please give me the credentials of Qayyim al-Jawziyya, the man you cited.
- Anon the link is in the article at the top but here it is for you Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya, hope that helps. Hypnosadist 08:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Female slaves
This article gives very little information about these slaves. Whethere all these female slaves were Ma malakat aymanukum or they were freed is completely ignored in the article. Muslim history records only one Ma malakat aymanukum and that was Maria al-Qibtiyya as per Polygamy in Mizan. TruthSpreaderTalk 12:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Zad al-Ma'ad is a primary source. We need a secondary source to prove the claims. Even the factually accuracy can be disputed of this document, and this article presents things as facts, such as the list of slaves (implying M. had marital relations with all of them) and then statements like He was used to renting out and hiring many slaves, but he hired more slaves than he rented out are "Original research". TruthSpreaderTalk 13:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I question your claim that it is a primary sources. We're talking about Muhammad's slaves and yet the Zad al-Ma'ad which is claimed to be a primary source was created over 600 years after that time. It is not a primary source in that as a document or other source of information it was not created at or near the time being studied (i.e. the lifetime of Muhammad) nor by the people being studied (obviously if it was written six hundred years or so later). It is clearly a secondary source as it is a work which would built on primary sources (in this case obviously as a commentator, the Quran, Hadith, Sahaba etc). You haven't provided a convincing argument why it's a primary source. Ttiotsw 20:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Source about having sex with one's female slave
Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid, from saoudia arabia, has this website (www.Islam-QA.com) that one of you here calls a "forum", This Sheikh (or a satanic gourou, depending on your POV) gives fatwas on this website (www.SurvivorsAreUs.com) with "Dr" (what a stupidity) Abdullah Faqih of Dubai. The fatwas of this satanic imam are used iin serevarl islamosatanic websites : [2], [3], and to end this, islamonline, the website of the islamic hiter (qardawi) cites him [4], so please, don't revert again.Toira 05:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I have this translated as concubine. User:Toira believes the word should be "sex slave". A short, non-binding poll: Which is better? Patstuarttalk|edits 18:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Sex slave
Concubine
- Patstuarttalk|edits 18:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- --TruthSpreaderTalk 18:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ttiotsw 22:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC) (concubine sounds so much more cultured than sex slave)
- Are you being sarcastic? This is an honest poll. -Patstuarttalk|edits 22:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith. WP:NPA applies as you said "are you being sarcastic" but I'll let this ride. No I am not being sarcastic. Pay attention to all the related articles - I reverted [5] to remove User:Toira use of what we feel is NPOV terminology. Ttiotsw 23:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- At the risk of inflaming this further, please assume the assumption of good faith. I'm not involved in the other articles, and I was just asking you if you were being sarcastic. -Patstuarttalk|edits 23:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK point taken. No not sarcastic. I used cultured as a shortcut to mean it was less controversial and a more appropriate term given the context that these are historical events. We need to avoid presentism and the article Sex slave redirects to Sexual slavery and that has more contemporary definitions, whereas Concubine redirects to Concubinage and that refers to a quasi-matrimonial relationship with a man of a higher status (clear-cut with Muhammad). Involuntary, or servile, concubinage involves sexual slavery of one member of the relationship but they can still be called a concubine. I probably should have mentioned this bit on presentism rather than shortcutting it. Ttiotsw 00:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- At the risk of inflaming this further, please assume the assumption of good faith. I'm not involved in the other articles, and I was just asking you if you were being sarcastic. -Patstuarttalk|edits 23:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith. WP:NPA applies as you said "are you being sarcastic" but I'll let this ride. No I am not being sarcastic. Pay attention to all the related articles - I reverted [5] to remove User:Toira use of what we feel is NPOV terminology. Ttiotsw 23:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Are you being sarcastic? This is an honest poll. -Patstuarttalk|edits 22:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Guys, just use the proper term: Ma malakat aymanukum.--Striver 01:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Problem: most people don't speak Arabic. -Patstuarttalk|edits 02:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ma malakat aymanukum is a completely different concept than classical concubines. The differences can be seen at Islam and slavery. If she would bore a child, her status was raised. Similarly, there are certain rights, which all academic scholars agree with. TruthSpreaderreply 02:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Then perhaps we need to say similar. "Ma malakat aymanukum ("what your right hands possess" ما ملكت أيمانهن) is a scriptial reference in the Qur'an to what would commonly be called today concubinage." (from the main article). I realize that Arabic terms are quite commonly in usage among Muslims, but sometimes they completely confuse non-Muslims and need to be clarified (I've recognized a similar pattern when I entered the church: people continually used strange terms, albeit English ones). -Patstuarttalk|edits 02:09, 22 December
- Ma malakat aymanukum is a completely different concept than classical concubines. The differences can be seen at Islam and slavery. If she would bore a child, her status was raised. Similarly, there are certain rights, which all academic scholars agree with. TruthSpreaderreply 02:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
2006 (UTC)
- Ma malakat aymanukum is a 1400 year old concept, which (unfortunately) has been in practice in Islamic societies! What is todays' concubinage? --TruthSpreaderreply 02:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The proper term probably depended on the woman. If she was able to accept her status as a slave that did not have the right to deny sex to a man she wasn't married to, then it could be concubinage. If she was being held entirely against her will, the term sex slave would make more sense. What we have now seems alright. Arrow740 05:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
edits
Is this really an improvement? --Striver - talk 13:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- It is a good idea to discuss slavery from reliable sources. TruthSpreaderreply 23:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Slavery's bad in islam?
The source i removed points to the sources given below
61 On this subject, see the excellent discussion of ABD AL-WAHID WAFI, HUQUQ AL-INSAN FI AL-ISLAM (Cairo: Nahdhat Misr 1999) at 156-164; see also MUHAMMAD ‘AMARAH, AL-ISLAM WA HUQUQ AL-INSAN (Cairo: Dar al-Shuruq 1989), pp. 18-22.
so thats why i put a fact tag and removed it.Hypnosadist 16:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- The scholarly journal article, which referred it, it didn't refer it only as the opinion of "xyz" but also endorsed this conclusion itself as well. Secondly, you might not be familiar with the literature regarding slavery, as these sources are not unknown but have been done by some of the top scholars in egypt.
- The other point which someone was saying that quran says very clearly that sex with slave is allowed. I would simply say that we should leave this matter to scholarly sources to say. But just to give a clue, Exegesis of Qur'an is a complete knowledge. There is a concept called Abrogation. Qur'an has been revealed in 22 years. Those verses which were revealed afterwards, sometimes abrogate the previous order. Hence, scholars believe that this change was gradual so that society can cop up with it. But in any case, if scholars are saying something, you should have faith in it, or atleast some respect for WP:V and WP:RS policies. TruthSpreaderreply 02:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Q)Does islam allow slave owning? A) yes! Its just that simple, there is no good sort of rape by your master just the normal painful type when you are a concubine. And i love "Hence, scholars believe that this change was gradual so that society can cop up with it" , yep 1400years and counting, thats a lot of copeing. PS the sources are blatantly biassed Hypnosadist 03:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- The gradual change was within life of Muhammad. No one is arguing about Muslim society since last 1400 years. I find this argument irrelevant when we are talking about teachings of Qur'an and not the practice of Muslims. Regarding your argument owning of slave, kindly see Islam_and_slavery#Mukatabat. This was the last verse revealed regarding slavery which gives slaves complete right to get its own freedom, by making a contract with the master. If Islam would finish the slavery immediately, the whole society would collapse! Children, women, old, disabled who were being fed as slaves would now be homeless. women would start doing prostitution. I would doubt the strategy of Qur'an if this would have happened, but I am unable to grasp your point that what else can be a better way to finish slavery then gradual changes in society. And lastly, Muslim history doesn't show what Qur'an or Islam teaches, just like Christian history doesn't tell us what Christ actually taught. TruthSpreaderreply 03:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Slavery as the first welfare state, i'd laugh if it wasn't for the fact a human was justifing slavery to me. Whats better, the britsh actually stopping the world wide slave trade (its the 200th aniversary this year, starting with Britains law against slavery), almost totally in under 50 years by killing every slave trader the britsh navy found.Hypnosadist 03:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- PS Roman slaves could buy their freedom too, even gladiators, it don't make slavery not slavery.Hypnosadist 03:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Lies
It is not the case that everything written in a book can be included in wikipedia. Obvious lies are not to be included. Respond to my requests in the edit summaries about the obvious lies you are peddling. Arrow740 06:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
al-Hibri claim
Ms. al-Hibri, a professor of law, is scarcely any kind of credible authority on the meaning of the Qur'an. There is, of course, nothing in the Qur'an to this effect; I would be curious to see her argument (supposing she has one.) Muhammad and his men didn't just allow and regulate existing slavery, but enslaved a good number of people themselves. Was this part of this secret (so it must be) Qur'anic plan to eliminate this "undesirable transitional socio-political condition?" If there is anything to this novel claim, which, if true, would be of great historical importance, we will be able to source it more convincingly than that.Proabivouac 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- It is disappointing that a person who has shown himself be marginally reasonable in the past, User:Itaqallah, has insisted on including this information. If this is the kind of crap a large amount of people will believe then maybe mankind deserves Islam. Arrow740 06:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)