Wikipedia

Talk:History of concubinage in the Muslim world/Archive 9

< Talk:History of concubinage in the Muslim world
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Grufo in topic Google scholar results for Islam and sexual slavery and/or concubine
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Defining the scope of this article

Latest comment: 2 years ago68 comments10 people in discussion

The scope of this article should be the history of concubinage in the Muslim world because that is what meets WP:GNG. (Concubinage is defined, in the Islamic context, as the practice of men having sexual relationships with their female slaves)

WP:GNG is met by these sources: Concubines and Courtesans covers pre-modern concubinage in the Muslim world across 7th-18th centuries, Queens, Eunuchs and Concubines in Islamic History, 661-1257 covers it for a shorter period; there is an entry for concubinage in the following encyclopedias: Medieval Islamic Civilization, Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, Encyclopaedia of Islam, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Women, Islam: A Worldwide Encyclopedia, Historical Dictionary of Women in the Middle East and North Africa.

By contrast Mcphurphy insists that the scope must be "all the historical instances of sexual slavery practised by Muslims, including more modern cases". Does Mcphurphy realize just how broad that topic is? Here are some of the forms of sexual slavery practised by Muslims:

Where are the RS that conflate all these into a single topic? I have seen sources cover various forms of sexual slavery in a specific context (eg this covers various forms sexual slavery during Indonesian genocide). But "all the historical instances of sexual slavery practised by Muslims" no more passes WP:GNG than "all the historical instances of sexual slavery practised by Christians" (or Hindus, or atheists, etc). In fact the only "Sexual slavery in X" article that exists is Sexual slavery in China, which is a stub and limits itself to modern China. So sexual slavery in Islam is a glaring exception, and given that it fails WP:GNG, it seems like an WP:ATTACK page. 

Previously, Persecution by Muslims was deleted due to WP:SYNTH and non-notability (even though instances of persecution by Muslims are individually notable, like Armenian genocide, persecution of Bahais etc). Pederasty in the Middle East and Central Asia was similarly deleted for WP:SYNTH and POV-pushing issues.VR talk 02:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Clarification: Grufo only supported the inclusion of bacha bazi, but did not refer to other forms of child sexual slavery, as they pointed out here.VR talk 18:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree, I think it is pretty sensible to draw the line for the examples in this article at the close of the Ottoman Empire. Concubinage and sexual slavery are both archaic terms for archaic practices, and, following both abolition, and the nation-building and nationalism of the 20th century, it makes more sense to define most 20th to 21st-century examples of kidnapping and sexual enslavement in the Middle East and wherever as, just as you say, "Sexual trafficking in XYZ country" - even then, some of the example here would not qualify, such a that of Boko Haram references: you wouldn't even use these in an article called "Sexual trafficking in Nigeria", because it would be stupidly imprecise. It is only really relevant to: "Sexual trafficking by Boko Haram" or simple inclusion on the Boko Haram page. Anyone who thinks Boko Haram is even tangentially useful as an example of long-term practice in Islam is a moron. For a start, Nigeria has a Muslim-led government that is waging war against it as the terrorist cult that it is. Secondly, it's ridiculously fringe - it's founding preacher discourages reading any book other than the Qur'an, including the Hadith and Sunna, believes the earth is flat and that evaporation as a concept is fake news. Boko Haram is the worst example, but all of the examples in the "Modern/recurrent manifestations" section are ridiculously tangential. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Nishidani, Toddy1 do you have any opinions on the scope? VR talk 13:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I would prefer that this article were renamed to a title that made it clearer what the scope is. I would prefer something on the lines of: The practice of sexual slavery in Islamic societies. Where sexual slavery is practised by criminal gangs that should be out of scope unless it is part of the normal in that society over a long period.
If you want cut-off date(s), then I think that cut-off date(s) should be in the title - for example The practice of sexual slavery in Islamic societies before 1973. [1973 is a not intended as a suggested date.] I do not care whether there is a cut-off date, as long as it is clear.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Toddy1: practices like child marriage has been practiced in Muslim countries for centuries, human trafficking has been practiced for at least decades now, vani and bacha bazi are old too. But I just don't see RS that connect all these practices together across the entire Muslim world.
What is your opinion on narrowing the scope of this to only the premodern practice of a man having sexual relations with his female slave? That is clear and well supported by RS.VR talk 16:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I do not see any connection between child marriage and slavery. For example, Isabella of Angoulême she was 11 or 12 years old when she married King John of England, and Aisha was 6 or 7 when she married the Prophet Muhammad. I think we would count both cases as child marriage, but neither bride was a slave. Some societies give men and women a choice about who they marry, and some do it another way such as the families deciding - but that does not make a woman a slave.
Human trafficking has always gone on. If you watch a TV programme called Interpol Calling made in 1959-60 there are two episodes that deal with slavery in the then present day: episodes 7 ("You Can't Die Twice") and 13 ("Slave Ship"). Episode 7 is about the trafficking of refugees from Eastern Europe to the U.S.A. where the criminal gang that trafficked them insists on receiving a huge proportion of their earnings; it is a very good description of what modern axctivists call "modern slavery".-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree that child marriage shouldn't be covered here. But that's exactly what will happen under the broad scope of "sexual slavery" (here is a scholarly source that says "child marriage is a form of sexual slavery..."). That's why I think its import to limit the topic to "men having sexual relations with female slaves".VR talk 17:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Vice regent: I have talked about bacha bazi, but I did not say anything about “Other forms of child sexual slavery”. I have split your bullet list to make this clear (please check the diff). --Grufo (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

'Female slavery in Muslim world'

Slavery in Islamic world in general and female slavery in Islamic world are distinct phenomenon, which deserves some credit and some accountability both (as available in source–able content), hence do deserve distinct articles.

Though mostly it is historical but attempts and apologetics favoring revivalism has been observed time and again in some of global pockets.

Hence I suggest broader topic 'Female slavery in Muslim world'

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I think this is thinking in the right direction, but making the subject even broader like this may not be entirely helpful. For example, he category of "female slaves" would also include women enslaved purely for labour, such as domestic chores. The wider problem with this article is that it currently covers both concubinage (which depending on the epoch of history could involve concubines who were enslaved or free), sexual slavery more broadly, up to an including fringe terrorist groups and cults, as well as other weird examples and a litany of other abusive scenarios involving rape and kidnapping that do not necessarily fit into or act as useful examples of long-term historic practices. I'm thinking it would be more appropriate to use the slightly wordier title of Concubinage and sexual slavery in the Muslim world, which I think would more adequately cover the range of examples that we have on hand here. The broader and sometimes rather generic material on Islamic views on concubinage and slavery should all be split off/copied into Islamic views on slavery and Islamic views on concubinage, with this article only containing brief summaries of such content, with redirects to the main articles. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

See what I have gone through some recent research books, in middle east agriculture slavery was very small but it was there. Usually what has been happening is elite slavery in Turkey in Ottoman times had been taking all the lime light but slow but steady research in non–elite Ottoman times Muslim world slavery beyond Turkey is coming up.

Female slavery in Muslim world was much more complex phenomenon. At some times African female slaves were used just for domestic duties and European and Asian female slaves were used for sexual to concubinage to marital levels, again it's very fluid nothing is hard and fast. So in some cases domestic and sexual female slavery might appear distinct but again complexity is Islamic law does not distinguish between slaves as sex slaves concubines or domestic duty slaves. Again takfiri was too simple to claim a Muslim tO be non Muslim and give treatment like Kafir women in conflict times. So situation for individual females was much fluid. So accordingly we need to have a article title IMHO.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Medieval Muslim literature and legal documents show that those female slaves whose main use was for sexual purposes were distinguished in markets from those whose primary use was for domestic duties. They were called "slaves for pleasure" or "slave-girls for sexual intercourse". - this sentence in the intro (possibly from Pernilla), seems to suggest that there were discrete concepts for domestic and sexual roles - albeit, it's one sentence from where I know not. Regardless, it certainly does seem that, at least conceptually, there is a separate body of Islamic legal thinking about the dilemmas entailed in sexual intercourse with a slave - all the points about when it is permissable, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

We will need to check what individual scholars say, but prima facie, if that would have been strict case then percentage of Zina cases vis a vis female slaves would have increased exponentially in historical records, but I sincerely doubt that. At the first opportunities British consulates provided we see records of flights of slaves including female ones. If female slaves and even formally married women have had easy way to bring in Zina charges against their masters or husbands, they would have exploited that course of action in their benefit at least to an extent but that does not seem to have happened.
Even if one keeps matter of consent aside, basic scripture is sort of clear that woman possessed by right hand is okay for sexual intercourse. So even if one buys a female slave for domestic purpose but later if he feels to have to do religious scriptures unlikely to stop.
What would have happened in those cases, where female sex slaves did not bear any child? If the story was true then the case of Anarkali is quite intriguing. Jahangir is religious enough fellow to inscribe gods names on cenotaph, writes freely on love in memoir, builds a tomb but skips naming the woman officially, Akabar too punishes Anarkali but does not do any thing to Jahangir, one possibility is possible fluidity in case of female slaves not having master's child, even in cases of emancipated female slaves.
Other than Turkish elite female slaves other cases including female slavery in early Islamic period including Al Andalus, middle east, South and central Asia, Persia, is not thoroughly researched and whatever available adequate note has not been taken in WIkipedia. For example article on Islamic marriage contract in Wikipedia is under covered even for contemporary purposes then historical marriage contracts and mentions related to slavery in them is later step. Article Umm Walad has not gone beyond couple of paragraphs, and we don't have any article on Tedbir at all.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Bookku: would "female slavery in the Muslim world" cover the modern enslavement of women through forced labor and debt bondage? Can you provide some sources that broadly cover all these forms in a way that is specific to women? VR talk 13:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
IMO in just forced labor and debt bondage there is nothing specific Muslim about; "female slavery in the Muslim world" (Partially of Islamic cultural character) is a distinct fluid phenomenon.
  • Women (specially of other religion or other sects or declaring their families Kafir)
  • Either taking them captive in conflict zones,
  • Or Purchasing selling or sharing them as gift
  • Considering them available for sexual pleasure without marrying and reducing their consent to irrelevance or less relevance
  • Not considering their (non–marital) sexual relationship equal to Islamic Nikah (marraige) wife.
  • Making normalizing claims like if women from conflict zones or purchased or gifted slave women remain alone will cause Zina (But captivating/ purchasing/ gifting/ watching or manhandling them sans veil; establishing non–marital sexual relationship when aquired them as property then is not Zina); there after putting or condoning conditions (tedbir) for their emancipation;
  • On credit side some of the slave women may be eventually consenting to sexual demands or slavery in anticipation of better life standard or by stockholm syndrome, taking some of them in marriage if eventually they agree for religious conversion and so on, 'genderedly' equal right in property to children of female slaves (with comparatively lesser social stigma for children of female slaves) if slave owner accepts paternity.
All of above features are complex enough to explain I do not know how to put them in most brief manner amount to distinct female slavery of Islamic nature. This has happened in pre modern times and fewer but certain cases in modern times.
If any modern community at certain time and place behaves like premodern then whether to club them or not is the question we are dealing with. rather than answering it I will leave it for other users to reflect upon.
Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The problems in a range of articles are deep and not easily ironed out. As noted, the title is anomalous, and the anomaly recapitulates one of a congeries of deep prejudices in Western civilization: sex and slavery. We have articles on Jewish and Christian views on slavery but, with the third member of the Abrahamic religions, we have specific articles on 'Islamic lubricity', the salacious sexual opportunism of the Muslim world. Norman Daniel wrote a great pathbreaking books on this a half century ago (Islam and the West: The Making of an Image (1960), documenting how deeply grounded confessional enmity against a rival faith was for Christians for well over a thousand years. Coming across this, I felt that it harked back to that tradition, despite using the modern scholarship that, in the wake of Daniel's lesson, grappled with Islam's less censorious approach to sex, and, in some regards, its more refined attempt to secure legal definitions finessing types of slavery to include rights to emancipation, or social mobility, a scholarship that dispensed with the condescending and hypocritical hauteur of Western tradition, which had a longer and arguably far more violent history of carceral enslavement than was the general case in Islam. The two articles here one on concubinage, and this lurid POV mess, should, in my view, be merged in to something like Concubinage and female slavery in the Muslim world, which would have two aspects, the legal tradition stricto sensu and actual practice. The topicalization of 'sexual slavery' in the title, uniquely for Islam, attracts prurient eyes looking for an itchy sexual angle on Muslims, fully in accordance with ancient prejudices rooted in religious rivalry. Daniel remarks, 'By misapprehension and misrepresentation an idea of the beliefs and practices of one society can pass into the accepted myths of another society in a form so distorted that its relation to the original facts is sometimes barely discernible.' (p.2)-
Whatever the title choice made, covering the topic requires considerable hard, persistent and focused labour by several hands. We can talk all day about the niceties of language, but only practical rewriting of at least two long texts from top to bottom is going to remedy the fixated POV pushing we have ended up with here.Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Nishidani: the first step in this long process is determining a reasonable scope, as that will establish organization, WP:DUE-ness and relevance of content. The propose here isn't about title change (that would require a WP:RM) but about establishment of scope. Any feedback is appreciated.VR talk 15:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Nishidani: Neutral and well informed of religion people like you do not write on Wikipedia separate articles on subjects like 'Women's rights in Muslim societies', 'History of marriage contract in Islam', Tedbir and do not complete articles like Umm walad then how western people will know all the greatness?
You also do not write articles on 'Slavery in Mecca and Medina', 'Female slavery in early Islam', 'Female slavery in middle east', 'Female slavery in Al Andalus', 'Female slavery in Central Asia' then how western people will know all the greatness? And yes we need not forget Female slavery in Persia too! But unless written articles what is point in not forgetting and talking of just greatness.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I second Nishidani's idea of "Concubinage and female slavery in the Muslim world" - for two reasons: first, the big problem with "sexual slavery" as a term is that it is fundamentally anachronistic, as a term not really formalised or widely used until the 1998 Rome Statute. Female slavery already conveys the implicit lack of volition that such an individual had over their destiny, sexual or otherwise; secondly, this framing partially resolves the medieval/modern dissonance by better framing the article in terms of pre-modern terms. Slavery came to the end in most places somewhere between the late 19th century and the post-WWII 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is therefore pretty possible and practical to draw a distinction between pre-modern concubinage/female slavery and modern iterations, particularly those lingering on into the 21st century, which might be better termed sexual slavery or sex trafficking in line with the contemporary terminology. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I support concubinage as part of the scope. But "female slavery" would cover women in debt bondage, forced labor, forced begging, which all happen in the Muslim world (see this map). Hence I recommend limiting scope to concubinage.VR talk 17:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't see female slavery as covering those three other practices at all. These types of thing are sometimes called "modern slavery", which is a term that specifically distinguishes itself from the slavery of yore. Modern slavery typically involves some sort of coercion, typically either related to debt or the threat of violence, in contrast to pre-modern slavery, which was the simple, contractual ownership of another human being. That graphic uses data from 2013, so clearly modern. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Iskandar323: I think as soon as you put the word "slavery" in the scope or title, people will automatically assume it also covers modern slavery. Why not just leave the scope at "Concubinage in the Muslim world"? What does "female slavery" convey that "concubinage" does not?VR talk 19:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Two reasons: some of the sources clearly discuss the issue of sexual intercourse with female slaves without reference to the word concubinage, which means you would be somewhat decontextualizing these sources by only reflecting "concubinage" in the title. Secondly, some systems, like the Ottoman one, were highly complex and had multiple different institutional layers, including free concubines, slave-concubines and also female slaves more generally. On the other point, I can't overemphasize how distinct a term modern slavery is. It is hyper-specific to the modern era, and also includes sex trafficking and the use of child soldiers. However, if you really think this would be a legitimate source of confusion, I would suggest a comprehensive top-of-the-page disambiguation would solve it. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Iskandar323: which sources refer to this phenomenon without using the term 'concubinage'? Still we could use the term "slave-concubine" which would exclude free mistresses. Finally, it is really not necessary to have just one article to cover every sexual relationship that happened in 1,400 years of Muslim history spanning three continents. It is better to have separate articles for different kinds of relationships, for different time periods, for different places. Trying to fit everything into a single article will lead to issues like GNG vio.VR talk 20:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
a) All female slaves were not automatically concubines, Some owners used to marry their female slaves to some third person in that case those female slaves were official mistresses of third persons and not concubines.
b) Some female slaves would have been usually just domestic workers but available for sex on demand and did not bear child. So blanket use of word concubinage does not cover them and would misrepresent actual fluidity
c) There are reports of instances from early Islamic times that 'a ruler used to reprimand female slaves for using veils or dressing like free women and on the other hand some clergy used to express disapproval for female slaves moving around bare chested and complaining ruler not taking action as expected by clergy' (I suppose RS would be available for such instances where discussion is just about female slaves and not about concubinage. Where would one put those instances if wording concubinage is used in blanket manner?
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
As per Encyclopedia of Islam concubine refers to a female slave who is her master's sexual partner[3], which includes those who didn't bear a child. In any case, the WP:ONUS is on you to show how your proposed scope meets WP:GNG. You have so far provided no sources, whereas I have provided several showing the topic of concubinage across 7th-18th centuries meets GNG.VR talk 03:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
IDK which Arabic, Persian and Turkish words are translated as concubines even when Islam had no third official category other than wife and slave and how any such fundamentally wrong authorship are being elevated to reliable.
At least spare the article title with more neutral term by using just 'female slavery in Muslim world' which can incorporate all kind of possibilities and difficulties suffered by ancestral X (feminine) chromosome of modern Muslims as sources become available.
See I don't have Phd in WP technicalities, I do understand simple logic and simple merit. No doubt Wikipedians can restart discussions as and when sources become available but first it involves lot of time of writers. Many writers write as sources come before them, starting with narrow scope unnecessarily discourages them. I prefer curators and censor friendly enthusiasm does not suffocate an article in the bud itself.
Encyclopedias deserve space for summary style articles too. I would be okay with taking the whole article to draft space again rather than suffocating it in the name of scope.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The reason why I agreed with Nishidani's suggestion of both terms is that it bridges the inherent ambiguity and confusion between the different sources. You have cited an encyclopedia definition of a concubine as a female slave, but evidently this is not definitive, as we know there could be free concubines even in the Islamic world. I agree with Bookku that the fluidity of many master-slave relationships is key, as a slave might in practice readily by a domestic servant one day and a concubine the next, or vice versa, or both, as Bookku points out, where female slaves could become concubines (or even wives!) of men other than their masters. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I checked the Encyclopedia of Islam entry and it covers concubine being wife of one man, but a domestic servant for another. And this book does have a chapter on 'free' concubines but it says it was relatively rare, and most were slaves. So sources are using the term 'concubinage' pretty broadly. I think we're on the same page in terms of scope - as long as the scope is treated coherently in RS (and is not being constructed by synthesizing RS on entirely different topics).VR talk 12:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree that the title is too broad and misleading. I suggest restricting the scope to the conubinage and move the out of scope content to other pages like Islamic views on slavery. --Mhhossein talk 05:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Sexual slavery in the Islamic world would be a good compromise. We can also include some content on child marriage in Islam - a practice which all traditionalist ulama permit. Mcphurphy (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
You are conflating entirely different concepts, so-called "child marriage" and slavery.
Regarding so-called "child marriage", English law was changed in 1929 - before then a marriage was only valid if the boy was at least 14 and the girl was at least 12 - but from 1929 both the boy and the girl had to be at least 16. In addition, since 1929 the consent of parents was required for people getting married under 18. (I think at one time the consent of parents was required for people under 21.) There was absolutely no connection between slavery and 12 year old girls getting married before 1929.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
As Toddy1 notes, child marriage is unrelated to slavery as a theme and primarily a matter related to national laws. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
First part of this specific comment is without any religion or people of any religion in mind. I do not insist bringing child marriages in blanket manner under slavery. But consider following points a & b:
a) Any child's consent for any sexual relationship would be immature need to be considered void if at all existed, is matter of common sense and most would agree and RS would be available from psychology and medical sciences side that it ought to be considered void. In a way, child's consent for any sexual relationship with an adult within marriage too is sexual slavery by grooming but for a while we keep this point aside.
b) Consider a case child's consent is clearly absent. If any – emphasis to word 'any', so pl don't do whataboutery– if any child marriage is consummated by an adult without child's consent then technically that would be clear example of sexual slavery–irrespective of child's parents consent exists or not. Here what is important is availability of reliable sources. Here is a little irony, we humans are less likely to insist for reliable sources in case a where sexual consent would be assumed as part of –even child– marriage but do all of the children consenting to marriage would be aware of concept of sex and implication? We are more likely to insist for reliable sources in case b. If not getting the point pl. do read a and b points again understand RS need to be asked for availability of consent in individual cases of point a, where as if we ask for RS in case b that should amount systemic bias on part of encyclopedist because even where supposedly consent exists can not be valid enough then in those cases where consent is doubtful or absent is necessarily sexual slavery
Second part of this comment, with the association of religious background:
Now let us come to one example of the case of 'Jilfidan' where reliable reference is available. A captive child has been bought and added to so called concubinage. Later behaviour of Jilfidan before her child and society would seem as if relationship of so called concubinage was consensual or was groomed for the same or accepted as fate, once you have child or because any way a slave can't marry without masters permission with some third person, later no one would know. So it is total fluid we can not determine in modern times without clear source to that effect.
( Also pl do not do whataboutery on point that whether Jilfidan or her daughter took services of other slaves because controversy of they clearly not objecting to slavery do not erase memory of their own relation in to slavery as a slave narrative.)
Emily Ruete's description of kidnapping and enslavement of her mother 'Jilfidan' becomes one of closest available testimony about a captive female slave. Until Ruete's mother did not get sold to her father she was a common (non-elite) slave but purchasing by Ruete's father made her an elite slave (concubine) later.
Emily Ruete about captivity of her mother 'Jilfidan'
"...My mother was a Circassian by birth, who in early youth had been torn away from her home. Her father had been a farmer, and she had always lived peacefully with her parents and her little brother and sister. War broke out suddenly, and the country was overrun by marauding bands ; on their approach the family fled into an underground place, as my mother called it — she probably meant a cellar, which is not known in Zanzibar. Their place of refuge was, however, invaded by a merciless horde, the parents were slain, and the children carried off by three mounted Arnauts. One of these, with her elder brother, soon disappeared out of sight; the other two, with my mother and her little sister, three years old, crying bitterly for her mother, kept together until evening,when they too parted, and my mother never heard any more of the lost ones as long as she lived.
She came into my father's possession when quite a child, probably at the tender age of seven or eight years, as she cast her first tooth in our house..."
Translation from books original language German as available on archive.org There is a minor difference in translation available on Google books.
Now one can excuse child captivity and slavery can happen without religion or with other religion too but a) it's likely religious sanction in the pattern it works associates with the given religion. b) The pattern in case of Muslim societies due to given religion is unique so encyclopedic association with pattern of Muslim kind of slavery becomes valid.
She came into my father's possession when quite a child, probably at the tender age of seven or eight years, as she cast her first tooth in our house..." Here Jilfidan had no parental support to see she bears at least age of puberty is being taken into account again sans record ironically one needs to consider captors and buyer took due care. In any case if a Sultan had dozens of concubines wording concubine instead of sex slave is just being shy and not calling spade a spade?
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Put very simply, marriage does not involve ownership or possession, unlike slavery, which explicitly involves ownership. As long as this article is entitled slavery, material on anything short of examples of explicit ownership arrangements is misplaced - hence the need to actually decide on the right title and scope of this piece as a matter of priority. If this article were entitled Concubinage and female slavery then discussion of the age of concubines in concubinage arrangements, which often blurred the boundaries between slavery, servanthood and wifehood, might be appropriate - although I would be expecting some slightly more substantial academic backing for this sort of content than anecdotal Ottoman examples. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

A reverse approach

I would like to propose a short brainstorming using a reverse approach; instead of asking what the article should be about, or what its name should be, I would like to ask: What would an article named “Sexual slavery in Islam” talk about if you, as a Wikipedia editor, had to write it? My question does not imply that you will have to write it, or even that Wikipedia should have one (although my personal position about it is known), but aims only at knowing whether the current title maps what the editors think a similar title means. We can still agree on what “Sexual slavery in Islam” means but disagree on the fact that Wikipedia should have a page named as such, but we would at least make one point clear. Each of you could be asked by a friend “Tell me all you know about sexual slavery in Islam”; what will your answer be? As I had previously written, the answer for me would be “How Islam addresses/addressed the topic of sexual slavery” – where by “addressing” I mean scriptural interpretations, laws and practices. This page has generated a WP:POVFORK; obviously the authors of the WP:POVFORK claim that it is not a WP:POVFORK, and for doing that they must defend something similar to “The scope of Sexual slavery in Islam – not just the current content, but even the best possible version of it, the one that I would write – diverges from what I want to do with this other page”. So how do they define the scope of a “Sexual slavery in Islam” article? --Grufo (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The question is not how you and I define such a topic but how sources define that topic. Without sources, answering your question would be an exercise in WP:Original research.VR talk 21:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The scope of an article does not need to be supported by sources, only the content needs to be supported by sources. Wikipedia has plenty of articles that are not findable in any source “as such”. I couldn't find much on Wikipedia guidelines (you are welcome to quote it in this discussion if you find anything), but there is an essay, WP:SCOPE, which does give some advice (emphasis mine):

“Article scope, in terms of what exactly the subject and its scope is, is an editorial choice determined by consensus.”

“Artificially or unnecessarily restricting the scope of an article to select a particular point of view on a subject area is frowned upon, even if it is the most popular point of view. Accidental or deliberate choice of a limited scope for an article can make notable information disappear from the encyclopedia entirely, or make it highly inaccessible. Since the primary purpose of the Wikipedia is to be a useful reference work, narrow article scopes are to be avoided.”

So my question still stands: how would editors describe the scope of this page (independently of how it is currently written)? --Grufo (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:SCOPE is not policy; WP:GNG is policy and requires "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." VR talk 22:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Please read Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam#Defining the scope of this article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
@Vice regent: I believe you are misinterpreting the guideline. This article is covered by reliable sources (even too many someone was complaining). But as that essay suggests, the scope of an article is an editorial choice determined by consensus, and the broader topic should be favored over the narrower one. I believe that this comment by Anachronist was trying to enforce these principles (@Anachronist: any comment is welcome). Look at the sources of Christian views on slavery: is there any source named “Christian views on slavery”? (Answer: NO). --Grufo (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Further addition. WP:PAGEDECIDE (official guidelines) goes also in the direction of favoring broader topics rather than narrower ones. And WP:MERGEREASON gives good reasons for merging the current POVFORK into this page:

“Context: If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. For example, minor characters from works of fiction are generally covered in a "List of characters in <work>" article (and can be merged there); see also Wikipedia:Notability (fiction).”

(In the specific case of Islamic views on concubinage a reader would need to contextualize the meaning of “concubinage” and embrace an unusual meaning compared to what they are used to, while the broader topic, Sexual slavery in Islam does not require that). --Grufo (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:GNG requires the topic of every article to be covered in depth by several reliable sources. This source covers the topic of slavery in Christianity; where are the sources that cover sexual slavery in Islam? The fact that you can't find sources to answer your own question "How Islam addresses/addressed the topic of sexual slavery" is telling.VR talk 23:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The topic of this article is covered by reliable sources (even too many). The scope of this article instead is something we must decide about. And no, the voice “slavery” in an encyclopedia of Christianity is not “Christian views on slavery”. --Grufo (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Please list 2-3 sources that cover the topic and lets examine them (only 2-3 sources please).VR talk 23:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
As mentioned by Slywriter, with 273 cites source coverage is really not the problem. I will go random:
  • Pernilla, Myrne (2019). "Slaves for Pleasure in Arabic Sex and Slave Purchase Manuals from the Tenth to the Twelfth Centuries". Journal of Global Slavery. 4 (2): 196–225. doi:10.1163/2405836X-00402004. S2CID 199952805.
  • Brown, Jonathan A. C. (2019). Slavery and Islam. Simon & Schuster. p. 70.
  • Ali, Kecia (30 October 2010). Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-05059-4.
  • Afary, Janet (9 April 2009). Sexual Politics in Modern Iran. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-39435-3.
--Grufo (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I took a quick look at all 4 sources: all of them cover the topic of men having sex with their female slaves (which they all call either "concubinage" or "slave concubinage"). None of them covers "sexual slavery" as a topic. Afary simply covers everything related to sex in Iran: marriage and concubinage, heterosexuality and homosexuality, temporary marriage, child marriage, polygamy, adultery, fornication, birth control and abortion. Ali covers marriage and concubinage (heterosexual) in early (600-900CE) Islamic theology. Pernilla uses the term "sexual slavery" and "concubinage" interchangeably, but she's only referring to relations between free men and slave women, I didn't find anything on child marriage, child abuse, or sex between free and slave men. Brown also only covers heterosexual concubinage. Of these 4, only Brown's topic is Islam in general, everyone else has a narrower topic. This means that even if Afary covered sexual slavery, it could only be used to support Sexual slavery in Iran - one cannot extrapolate from Iran to the entire Muslim world.VR talk 02:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, everything looks pretty normal. You are describing a situation similar to what happens in Christian views on slavery (on a different topic). --Grufo (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I was baffled by your claim saying "The scope of an article does not need to be supported by sources". When the title and the content of a page is based on the reliable sources, the scope is automatically defined by the reliable sources as long as they are not ORed. --Mhhossein talk 03:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The scope of an article is an editorial choice and does not need to be supported by sources, only the content does. Think that for Wikipedia even having an article that is too big can be enough of a reason to split it, even when all sources treat it as a single topic. And as per WP:PAGEDECIDE, broader topics that do not require contextualization are to be preferred (for instance, Islamic views on concubinage is an example of a page that requires contextualization, even just for its title). --Grufo (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
What context is required at Islamic views on concubinage that is currently not already there?VR talk 04:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The unusual meaning of concubinage in that context requires specialized knowledge. --Grufo (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I was pinged above, so I'll just make a comment. I have no objection to two articles if they are about obviously distinct topics. One article about the history of sexual slavery in Islam and another about current Islamic views, if the topics can be separated, can be fine. I don't really care if it's called slavery or concubinage or sexual slave concubinage or whatever. However, I observe that a concubine isn't necessarily a slave, and if the topic does entail slavery (concubines being forced into nonconsensual sex acts), then we should refer to it that way, per WP:SPADE. Concubinage might imply slavery in an Islamic context, but a reader unfamiliar with the topic wouldn't know that. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: thanks for your input. I agree that the body and lead of the article should clarify the slave nature of concubinage in the Islamic context. But the title should be based on WP:COMMONNAME used by RS, though an alternate suggestion was made by Wiqi55 to use "slave concubinage" in the title, which is also supported by RS. Finally, as an aside, do consider the fact that marital rape wasn't criminalized in most countries until the 20th century, as married women were regarded as the property of their husbands[4][5].VR talk 06:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent:

  • “Used by RS”: That gives zero information about whether it is a specialized usage of the word “concubinage” or not. Are you aware of any other context (not Islam) where concubinage needs to involve slaves?
  • “Marital rape wasn't criminalized in most countries”: You are free to write an article on Corinthians 7:4 (I will support you). But if you use this instead as an argument to remove the issue of consent from Sexual slavery in Islam, it is whataboutery.

--Grufo (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC) ----

Back to the original question. What would a page named “Sexual slavery in Islam” talk about according to Wiki editors? Please post your answers below. Please do not post below unrelated discussions.

As explained in the introduction, this section is not dedicated to what we think this article should become, but to what we think “Sexual slavery in Islam” means. You are free to post your answer in the paragraph below. --Grufo (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
This is general comment to all. IMHO we same people are discussing same points again and again. Again lack of substantial participation from women in itself brings in systemic bias. Rather present people take a break from discussion for a some weeks let some fresh users with some fresh perspectives come in.
In mean while I would urge present learned and concerned of women issues guys (I mean users) to update articles like Draft:Sexual politics, Draft:Women, conflict and conflict zones, Umm walad, Islamic marriage contract (including historic perspective vis a vis female slavery), Draft:Women's rights in Muslim societies, Draft:Slavery in Mecca and Medina, Draft:Comparison of rights and limitations of Muslim wives, female slaves and concubines; then we also need to have article Draft:Tedbir, Draft:Women's agency.
I would urge any discussion closing users not to close any discussions at least for six months since we lack sufficient participation from women projects, and present users need to give some more time on actually reading the sources thoroughly even those presented by others. Some one is presenting a source and we respond without reading in minutes would not give justice to the subject. Then lot of fresh academic research is coming up who is going to read new research that too needs time. What sort of hurry we are in to own and shape article in limited time among limited people without sufficient women' project participation?
I am voluntarily delisting this article from my watch list for 3 weeks from now.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The question

Back to the original question. What would a page named “Sexual slavery in Islam” talk about according to Wiki editors? Please post your answers below. Please do not post below unrelated discussions.

  • “How Islam addresses/addressed the topic of sexual slavery” – where by “addressing” I mean scriptural interpretations, laws and practices. --Grufo (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Fun facts

Just out of curiosity, I googled “concubinage iran”, and the first result I got was:

I don't know why Google did that, the BBC page does not even contain the word “concubinage”. I guess “concubinage” for meaning “sexual slavery” is not WP:COMMONNAME for Google servers (for which “concubinage” indeed simply means “concubinage”). --Grufo (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Impressive straw man Grufo - part of the reason for you not getting hits for "sexual slavery" in relation to "Concubinage" is because "sexual slavery" is not, in of itself, a common name for anything. Sexual slavery is barely used as a set term in academic literature, largely because it is redundant. A slave has no free will, so can be used for domestic chores, gladiatorial combat, sex, whatever - their usage is somewhat irrelevant and secondary to their status as a slave. The optional use of slaves for sex was almost universal in slave-owning society, so "sexual slavery" is a fairly redundant term. As Nishidani has pointed out, a more precise term might be "female slavery", because that appears to be the focus. (The sexual use of male slaves is not clearly in evidence.) "Sex slave" is a modern and fetishized term more than it is anything related to ancient slavery, where the term "slave" encompasses potential sexual applications. On the subject of Concubinage, you are literally the only editor here that thinks your ramblings about Roman cohabitation are the main meaning, in a modern sense, of Concubinage. That Iran article link doesn't even use the word Concubinage. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • As an allegory for the mild absurdity of the naming of this article, it's a bit like me going over to the pages on gladiators and calling it "Death slavery" or "Mortal combat slavery" - somewhat explanatory, but totally off piste relative to common names, most sourcing and the language of the times. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Calling every female slave to be either sex slave or concubine for that matter is plain insincerity. Even women used to buy female slaves in fair numbers for domestic core– they were too humiliated but until they were resold one can not label them as sex slave nor as concubine. But as I said earlier this state of being domestic slave is fluid since many of them were resold in the market if the owner did not like slave and again slave could end up in slave market. Again any male buyer could physically touch and examine their private body parts– visible sexual gratification of naked female slave was there and again physical examination of sexual organs not sex slavery? again can get sold to some rich fellow for longer term sexual relation. Too fluid the situation was.
Since sex slavery was there in other parts under other religion some how validated Islamic sanction underplaying importance consent and marriage also sounds unreasonable and insincere. The great religion could have allowed couple of more marriages with war widows with due consent.
May be self claimed great so called great sources if fail to take above simple logic into account can not be called reliable in any sense what so ever. Religions were insincere to humans, humans were insincere to religion, humans were and are insincere to humans, is my sincere opinion.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, if English had the category of “death slavery”, gladiators would definitely be categorized as such (who else!). But that is not the case. English possesses the category of “sexual slavery” though – although it did not have even that until not long ago, which explains in the first place why the word “concubine” started to be used for harems' sex slaves, as it was the closest word in the English vocabulary back then. If you went to Shakespeare and said something like “sexual slavery” he might understand all kind of weird things, from “slavery of the genders” to “slavery of your own genitalia”, to I don't know, but hardly what we mean today. If you said to him “concubine” instead, maybe he would not realize that you are talking about a sex slave, but he would get some closer picture. You may read some comments of mine from the old dispute about this, or you might check the etymology of the word “sexual”, whose modern meaning is that of “related to the sexual intercourse”, but whose original meaning was that of “related to the sex of a person, the gender, or the genitalia” – and that was the meaning of “sexual” when the West first described Islamic sex slaves. --Grufo (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@Iraniangal777: Welcome here. The page separates quite well already; and most importantly, before proposing a renaming you should explain how the current title is problematic, as for several editors that is not the case – anything different than WP:IDONTLIKEIT will do. --Grufo (talk) 07:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

What is lacking

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

at the outset is a clear definition of terms. Concepts have a categorical order, and subsets. (a) Slavery→ (b)slavery in antiquity-(c)female slavery→(d)female slavery in Islam→(e)enslavement of women for sexual purposes in Islam.

This article ignores such encyclopedic order, and just runs in medias res the reduction of a complex sociological phenomenon of concubinage to sexual use. In antiquity - one can see it as early as Bk 1 of the Iliad, where Agamemnon offends the seer who wishes to redeem by ransom his daughter, enslaved by the king, by refusing the offer, stating that her stature and figure (sex) are more pleasing to him than his wife's, that she is clever (intelligent) and skillful at work. Three factors, and you find this all over ancient literature, the Islamic kind as well. Sexual availability certainly was important, but an enslaved woman was viewed also in other terms, and not just, as the modern use of the term 'sexual slavery' implies, exclusively as a source of physical self-gratification.

Among the many things to fix would be an introductory outline of the various key terms in Arabic denoting slaves in their functional roles, and their nuances: words like fatayāt etc. One requires this to avoid retrospective contamination of the history by the ineludible modern resonances of the terms we use. Once that is done, logical order would require that the legal definitions, in the Qur'an, and the sharia, for each condition be outlined.Nishidani (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It is truly a continuous moving the goalposts for who criticizes this article… Just a short comment on what you write. Giving a darker connotation to slavery when applied to modernity is done automatically by the reader, but we don't change the way we define slavery. Think that the word used in Latin for slaves was “servus”. The word was used both for free servants and slaves, because freedom was not the big deal it is today back then (today the idea of a slave would be scandal). Do we call Roman slaves “servants” because of that? Answer: No – we use the same scandalous term that we use today for modern dehumanized slaves. --Grufo (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes and no. There is the distinct term "Modern slavery" for more recent enslavement that is distinct precisely because its connotations are quite different from those of antiquarian and medieval slavery. Sexual slavery is a particularly bad term because it is explicitly modern and conveys a sense of meaning that is so overly simplistic that it does little justice to historic scenarios. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Your are basically debunking yourself: the page you cite (Modern slavery) is a redirect to Slavery in the 21st century (there has even been an unsuccessful move request). --Grufo (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Modern slavery is still a main term on that page: the title is less important. Again, you're somewhat missing the point, which is that people today already confuse modern forms of slavery, such as trafficking, forced labour and child abuse, with the legalised and normalised slave institutions of the past and view them through the framework of their modern understanding and cultural sensitivities. And it gets yet worse when you use thoroughly modern and reductive terms like "sexual slavery" to describe the far more complex societal institutions of the past. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The title is most of what we are discussing so far. Let's analyze the risks:
  1. “Sexual slavery in Islam”: readers risk to think that it was more inhumane than it was
  2. “Concubinage in Islam”: readers risk to think that there was no slavery at all involved (we saw that happening even with editors during the previous dispute)
As often it was inhumane and there was a huge human traffic in antiquity, I would say that we can tolerate risk #1 more than risk #2. For sure we cannot describe exactly what it was in a page title, but #1 is way more accurate than #2. Any proposed renaming should always keep in mind this sentence from Slavery in the 21st century's unsuccessful move request: “A disambiguation that introduces another ambiguity is a failure”. --Grufo (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I certainly agree that if consensus on Wikipedia meant saying the same things over and over until other people get bored and wander off, you'd have a winning strategy. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Grufo. I mentioned concrete things: like an appropriate description at the outset of Islamic classifications of female slaves. You ignore that, for one, and just talk back in protest about goalposts being shifted. You appear to be happy with the set of goalposts so wide any blind, one-legged rookie could score even with their back to them. You are not helping the process of collegial revision here.Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
No, I don't ignore that, and I appreciate all possible improvements. But if you really want to enhance the collegial work you should go slow. People don't look at Wikipedia every second, and already the current discussions are many. Nobody hunts us. In the meanwhile, if you really think you have good proposals you can already add them directly to the article. I would like though that when we edit this article we are always able to write in a way that both who loves Islam and who hates all religions feels equally satisfied for the quality of the information. I know that many current editors involved are Muslim, while personally I am atheist/agnostic (I don't really spend much time in defining my beliefs). It would be nice if people from other religions were involved too. At the moment I would say that many of the motivations in editing this article come from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. When I contribute to Wikipedia I am usually amazed by what I discover in the process. The other way around (making Wikipedia discover my beliefs) is inherently more boring. --Grufo (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Archiving

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

​​​​​​​​​​​The current archiving arrangements are that level-2 sections are archived if the most recent post is 90 days old. The archiving instructions are that a minimum of five level-2 sections should be left on the page.

The talk page has become enormous, so I propose to change the archiving instructions to 28 days, and a minimum of three level-2 sections should be left on the page. Does anyone object?-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd say have at it! Be Bold! It can always be changed back at a later date. But while you're here, thoughts: [6]? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
It's okay for me too. But I would wait that the naming dispute ends first, or we will have to repeat things to the newcomers (if any) – and we already repeat ourselves too often. --Grufo (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
[Humor]:IMHO you are underestimating our present discussion teams capacities to repeat same old discussion with incremental effect. :) If we are going to just empty talk page by archiving it and same people discussing same thing over and over (with kinda CopyPaste in incremental propo) then 28 days is too big, I foresee, you shall need to reduce the time frame further and further with much faster pace.:))
Seriously speaking: IMHO presently discussing people, 'truly', need to take break and leave present discussion open for 180 days as is for new readers to read take their own time and reflect in due course. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Google scholar results for Islam and sexual slavery and/or concubine

Latest comment: 2 years ago57 comments8 people in discussion

- all excluding "Islamic state"
"Islam" and "sexual slavery" 7,510 3,490
"Islam" and "sexual slavery" excluding "concubine" 7,220 3,300
"Islam" and "sexual slavery" and "concubine" 285 181
"Islam" and "concubine" 14,900 14,000
"Islam" and "concubine" excluding "sexual slavery" 14,700 13,800
"Islam" and "concubine" and "sexual slavery" 285 181

-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Nice analysis - wise to do it with and without the Islamic State: very revealing as to how big a share of the usage that accounts for. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Ditto. The terrorist group ISIS does not represent all of Islam, but because it has "Islam" in its name, results can be misleading.VR talk 16:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't have the energy to add another box, but I would note that "Islam" and "female slaves" also generates about 10,000 hits, retaining 7,000 of them when excluding "Islamic state" - so also a major term, and certainly more so than "sexual slavery". I could certainly be persuaded that it should be "Concubinage and female slavery" rather than the reverse though, given the almost 2:1 ratio of sources weighing in on behalf of concubines and concubinage. That was my first hunch actually. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the contribution. We all agree that historically, especially in periods where “sexual slave” could not even exist as a term, “concubine” was the word most often used in the English language to refer to an Islamic sex slave (but you should also take into account this comment from Iskandar323 about recent research trends). However in the choice of a title considerations about popularity vs. ambiguity can play a decisive role (see previous section). --Grufo (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Please see Vice regent's reply to Iskander's comment. M.Bitton (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I had seen it, as I had also looked at those sources before this discussion even started. What should I see in that comment? --Grufo (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
My comment wasn't meant for you, so don't touch it again. M.Bitton (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I apologize. I understood it as such, as I am the only one who mentioned Iskandar323's comment. Out of curiosity, for whom was it meant? --Grufo (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

- all excluding "Islamic state" including "female slave"
excluding "Islamic state"
"Islam" and "sexual slavery" 7,510 3,490 161
"Islam" and "sexual slavery" excluding "concubine" 7,220 3,300 105
"Islam" and "sexual slavery" and "concubine" 285 181 51
"Islam" and "concubine" 14,900 14,000 979
"Islam" and "concubine" excluding "sexual slavery" 14,700 13,800 1,150
"Islam" and "concubine" and "sexual slavery" 285 181 51
"Islam" and "female slave" 6,530 4,790
"Islam" and "female slave" excluding "sexual slavery" 6,330 4,680
"Islam" and "female slave" excluding "concubine" 5,220 3,800
"Islam" and "female slave" excluding "sexual slavery" excluding "concubine" 5,090 3,730

-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

If we remove also “ISIS” (not just “Islamic State”), a few articles will go away too from “sexual slavery” (3,200 hits for “sexual slavery”). But if we do the same with “concubine” and “concubinage”, the hits will drop drastically (6,020 hits for “concubinage” and 10,200 for “concubine” – for the last two I set the language to English, as these words appear also in other languages):
search terms excluding "Islamic state" and "ISIS"
"Islam" and "sexual slavery" 3,200 hits
"Islam" and "concubinage" 6,020 hits
"Islam" and "concubine" 10,200 hits
--Grufo (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
EDIT I have corrected an error due to using the apostrophe instead of the double quotes. --Grufo (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I'd be careful with the acronym "Isis": there is always a risk there that you are sweeping up references to the ancient Egyptian goddess Isis, who was incidentally a concubine of Thutmose II - there is a not non-existent risk that such mythology may be mentioned in Middle Eastern histories. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
If that were the case, the goddess would be removed equally from all three results. --Grufo (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • As predicted, this is just another circle in the making. That's why I mentioned the fact that all tertiary sources (that's what we used to establish DUE) use the term concubine. M.Bitton (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    Not really a circle - even in the most pessimistic reading, we have 4,000-6,500 hits for concubines/concubinage versus 3,200 for sexual slavery - and that's assuming that the Goddess Isis definitely isn't messing us about. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    I know, but everytime you leave a small window, someone will somehow manage to turn the exit into a circle (this has plagued this article's discussions from the start), that's why I insist on using the tertiary sources. M.Bitton (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    @M.Bitton: By tertiary sources do you mean only encyclopedic definitions? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    @Iskandar323: By tertiary sources, I mean other encyclopedias (see the ones mentioned by Vice regent). M.Bitton (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Grufo: In your some of search terms you did -'islamic state' instead of -"Islamic state" This makes a lot of difference:

search terms excluding "Islamic state" and "ISIS"
q= lr=lang_en&q=
"Islam" and "sexual slavery" 3,200 hits 3,070 hits
"Islam" and "concubinage" 8,210 hits 6,020 hits
"Islam" and "concubine" 13,000 hits 10,200 hits

I think what you do when you use -'islamic state' in the search is to change the search such that it must include the word "state'" but exclude the word "'islamic".-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC) modified to show the effect of the language modifier, which Grufo is now using, but did not originally use.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: I had made a mistake with the double quotes. Should be fixed now. Addition You should set the search language to English as I did above, as “concubine” is used both in French and Italian. --Grufo (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Searches for Islam without the word Islamic certainly would cause some problems ... Iskandar323 (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
If you quote “Islamic State”, as I did, it will find “Islamic WHATEVER” but it will exclude “Islamic State”. --Grufo (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the table I posted, we should consider all possible periphrases for “sexual slavery” (such as “sex slaves”, “slaves for pleasure”, etc.), while “concubine” / “concubinage” have no periphrasis. --Grufo (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Depending on context, terms like harem girls and courtesan could be analogous, without of course forgetting the Arabic "surriyya". Iskandar323 (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
“Harem girls” is very far from concubinage. “Courtesans” is closer – but is it used with the same meaning of “slave concubine”? --Grufo (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Grufo, you need to stop thinking about Roman law. Harem girls is basically the academic definition of concubinage. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
…Or… of sexual slavery. I honestly was not thinking about the meaning of concubinage. “Harem girls” simply points to the girls who lived in harems. Whether you want to call that concubinage or sexual slavery it is definitely not “harem girls” that will tell. --Grufo (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I would also note, however, that while sex slaves is certainly a periphrasis of the same dubious applied modern term, "slaves for pleasure", while no doubt a sexual euphemism, is not explicitly so. Slaves for pleasure could conceivably include dancers, musicians, et cetera - in other words slaves with all sorts of potential talents, in much the same way as many courtesans (or Geisha in Japan) were multi-talented. Sex slave, by comparison, is a reductive and objectifying term. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
It is impossible to give en exact estimate of the numbers. However we are talking about the same order of magnitude. I also believe that “sexual slavery” was an almost impossible term to find in literature (in any field) before the first decades of the 20th century – the modern meaning of “sexual” is… pretty modern. --Grufo (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Or maybe it's because it is a bit redundant. Where you have slaves you have sex. Show me a slave culture without sex. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I also believe that is true. The anomaly here is not the sex with slaves, the anomaly is the fact that the only sex allowed outside marriage was with slaves (thus, the only possible “concubinage” was with slaves). This anomaly is so unique that it does not allow to define sexual slavery using the stand-alone “concubinage”, as the latter defaults to something else. --Grufo (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • There already is an article about Islamic views on concubinage. I think anything about concubinage should be going to that article, and any thing about sexual slavery should stay in this article. There is already an article about History of sexual slavery in the United States so I think something similar could be the scope in this article. Iraniangal777 (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    There's also Female slavery in the United States, but in any case it is an imperfect analogy, because there were essentially no laws of institutions governing the rights or treatment of slaves in the US - they were essentially treated as pure objects or sub-humans, in contrast to the centuries of legal, religious and societal frameworks around concubinage in the Muslim world, which were well developed and sometimes quite elaborate and multi-layered, such as under the Ottomans. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    There already is an article about Islamic views on concubinage. I think anything about concubinage should be going to that article, and any thing about sexual slavery should stay in this article. They are the same thing in the Islamic context. --Grufo (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    Not really. If these two article were together, I would be calling for a WP:SPLIT - Islamic views on concubinage is 40,000kB, and Sexual slavery in Islam is currently 130,000kB and really needs further splitting - it's entirely practical to cover theology properly in one coherent article and cover history in another, with a small section on theology linking to the main article. I frequently look around Wikipedia and wonder if people have just forgotten all about WP:SPLIT. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

A little addition to show that there is not really a chronological differentiation in the usage of the words concubinage and sexual slavery, and our choice is purely an editorial choice:

search terms hits
(isis AND concubine) OR (islamic state AND concubine) 3,000 hits

--Grufo (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  of your search results, about 1,200 hits were articles about ancient Egypt that mention the goddess Isis and the word concubine.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I would lower your numbers if I were you:
search terms hits hits with lr=lang_en
islamic state AND concubine 2,690 hits 2,590 hits
Don't ask me how that is possible. Ask Google Scholar. --Grufo (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Hahaha, wow Toddy1, higher than I could have imagined! I was half being tongue-in-cheek, but clearly the confusion is real! Iskandar323 (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
There is no goddess here. --Grufo (talk) 12:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
More broadly Grufo, Isis went out of their way to frame their warped thinking in historical terms, so this is hardly a surprise. But the only people calling what Isis did "concubinage" are Isis themselves and those parroting what Isis said. It was plain and simple rape, sex abuse and modern sex trafficking. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the press that uses “concubinage” with ISIS is parroting them, as I also think choosing “concubinage” on Wikipedia for a page title about sexual slavery is parroting an apologetic view. For an average reader sexual slavery is not called concubinage. --Grufo (talk) 12:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
For an average reader of history, concubinage is not sexual slavery - that is extremely reductive. Concubines weren't just slaves for sex, they were secondary wives wielding often considerable power and influence: individuals operating in a restrictive legal framework, yes, but not just sex objects. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Whether they were secondary wives or sexual objects really depends on a lot of factors (epoch, region, status, etc.) – and something similar happened in ancient Rome, where many slaves were almost spouses (mostly husbands in that case, as contubernium was more prevalent between a free woman and a slave man). But a shared element of all the possibilities we are examining here was the fact of being private property. A reader does not expect that in “concubinage”, but does expect that in “sexual slavery”. --Grufo (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
It's unwise to cite wiki articles as authoritative, esp. stubs like that on contubernium, which generalizes what was a very specific custom for a while in imperial households as though it were characteristic of Roman society.Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I would be cautious with poisoning the well if were you. I wrote that contubernium article (which is not a stub) and read the sources I used. The most important source – Treggiari, Susan (1981). "Contubernales". Phoenix. 35 (1). CAC: 42–69. doi:10.2307/1087137. JSTOR 1087137. – is quite impressive. The 260 contubernia analyzed come all from the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, which means not from literature (which is often unbalanced in favor of the elite), but from inscriptions made by common citizens (“It is my purpose here to discuss only those who are actually described as contubernales in the inscriptions of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum”, p. 44). --Grufo (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
This is splitting hairs. Even if it's not a stub, it's still start class and overly reliant on the Treggiari source. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
The Contubernium article relies on several sources, but the topic is not the most discussed topic. Most sources analyze Roman laws or at most anecdotes found in literature, while Treggiari is the only one I found that made the dirty job of reading inscriptions. It is also the most cited article specifically on the subject. --Grufo (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
As Bitton notes, you do expect that in Islam. However, the distinction you are making is also artificial. Concubinage typically involved slaves in ancient Mesopotamia, Assria, and often in Greece, China and Korea. They were also essentially a husband's property in Mongol society. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
And we go back to what I was saying earlier. If you need to “expect” something, it means that that the reader needs to contextualize. You can do that in an article body, but if you can you should avoid that in a page title, where you have no context. In an encyclopedia I expect that two pages named “Christian views on concubinage” (not existing) and “Islamic views on concubinage” talk about the same thing; but they can't, as in Christianity the actual meaning of concubinage is preserved. Wikipedia favors broader scopes that do not need context. --Grufo (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Any usage of Islamic terminology by Isis should be considered a non-mainstream (WP:FRINGE) take from the outset. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
We are not talking about the usage by ISIS here, we are talking about the articles that appear on Google Scholar. --Grufo (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • A Google Scholar search for "Sexual Slavery in Islam" returns 77,200 results [7]. A Google Scholar search for "Concubinage in Islam" only returns 11,000 results.[8] Mcphurphy (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    You need to put each word or phrase that you want to reference in a search within quotation marks, so, in this case, "Sexual slavery" in "Islam", which gets you 4,600 results [9] - otherwise you're just gathering every source that has the word "sexual" and the word "slavery" in it at some point. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I am going to request editors who have previously partaken in discussions on this article to comment. @Dr Silverstein:, Error in Template:Reply to: Input contains forbidden characters., @Bolanigak:. Mcphurphy (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
@Mcphurphy: You should check the template syntax of your pings. --Grufo (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_concubinage_in_the_Muslim_world/Archive_9&oldid=1059886380"