Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Merzbow (talk | contribs) at 19:00, 14 January 2007 (→Aftermath of the Battle of the Trench). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 December 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

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: -- 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. TruthSpreader 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". TruthSpreader 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 : , , and to end this, islamonline, the website of the islamic hiter (qardawi) cites him , so please, don't revert again.Toira 05:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ma malakat aymanukum

I have this translated as concubine. User:Toira believes the word should be "sex slave". A short, non-binding poll: Which is better? Patstuart 18:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sex slave

Concubine

1. Patstuart 18:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
2. --TruthSpreader 18:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
3. 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. -Patstuart 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 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. -Patstuart 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)

Guys, just use the proper term: Ma malakat aymanukum.--Striver 01:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem: most people don't speak Arabic. -Patstuart 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. TruthSpreader 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). -Patstuart 02:09, 22 December

2006 (UTC)

Ma malakat aymanukum is a 1400 year old concept, which (unfortunately) has been in practice in Islamic societies! What is todays' concubinage? --TruthSpreader 02:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, concubine is at least 3500 years old (see Genesis). It's not used here to specify a modern term, but a term more recognizable to the English speaking world. -Patstuart 03:04, 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. TruthSpreader 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. TruthSpreader 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. TruthSpreader 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)

I am used to seeing glossing over history, but I must admit that I am surprised at the apparent willingness to falsly represent the Qur'an, which most Muslims believe to be the inerrant word of God. Does such a work require Ms. Al-Hibri's amendments?Proabivouac 06:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think best-selling books can be used as sources in this article, wouldn't you agree? Arrow740 06:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not only what Hibri says but also Encyclopedia of Islam and Muslim world (another peer-reviewed scholarly source), which says very clearly that Qur'an mitigated slavery. And many others agree with this as well. Misplaced Pages is not a place to do original research. A better idea would be to add information from peer-reviewed scholarly journals or books published by scholarly press, rather than reading commentry of Qur'an at polemics' websites.

Regarding best selling books, one should read WP:RS and WP:V.TruthSpreader 06:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but I did not challenge that the Qur'an "mitigated" slavery, did I? That claim was left untouched. At issue is, as I believe you know (or at least should know before reverting) is Al Hibri's claim that the Qur'an "recognized slavery only as an undesirable transitional socio-political condition and spelled out many ways for its elimination." There is no part of the Qur'an which recognizes slavery as an "undesirable transitional condition" (any more than there is than any part which lauds it) or that "spells out many ways for its elimination." That is pure fabrication, as you really must be aware.Proabivouac 07:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

verification needed

these quotes and attributions to za'ad al-ma'ad need verification. the lists of slaves currently provides little context. were they all his slaves at the same time? or are they a list of every slave irrespective of duration of assumed ownership? please provide the full extracts. i have tagged the article to reflect the requested verification. ITAQALLAH 06:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Itaqallah, to answer your points about the context of ownership, yes more detail is needed. Be clear though there is no assumed ownership, Mohammed owned slaves, he also (which is not yet covered here) enslaved the women and children of at least one town after a siege and had them sold. But yes it would be good to know the length of ownership and which of the female slaves were concubines and hence (probably) the victim's of rape, and which were just house slaves. Also the total value (or individual values) of slaves traded by Mohammed would be important information for this article to have.Hypnosadist 15:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur! Someone needs to verify the source, otherwise we will have no other option but to remove it. TruthSpreader 06:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What needs to be verified? Know what "verified" means before your response. Arrow740 07:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a copy of Zad al-Ma'ad or an authentic translation of it? If yes, would you like to share the content with us! TruthSpreader 07:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This from those who, with assistance from a revert-only anon (hmm, wonder who it might be?) are preserving outright fabrications about the Qur'an from a professor of law and feminist theory contra over one thousand years of Islamic scholarship.Proabivouac 07:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You should read: Iman Hashim, Reconciling Islam and feminism, Gender & Development, 1999, vol. 7, issue 1, p 7, ISSN 13552074 ! TruthSpreader 07:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not the eminent Iman Hashim to whom this misrepresentation of the Qur'an is sourced, but Azizah al-Hibri. As your scholarship is superior to my own, might you be willing to explain her argument to me?Proabivouac 07:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hashim writes in conclusion:

I have argued that there are significant reasons

why feminists might benefit from drawing upon Islam when attempting to address the particular subordination of Muslim women. At an individual level, Muslim women will be unlikely to subscribe to a Western notion of feminism, which would mean abandoning beliefs which they have a commitment to and which provide them with mechanisms to deal with and resist the oppression they face. Moreover, the Qur’an lays down significant rights for women, of which they are often unaware, but which can be drawn upon to address and improve their circumstances. At the political level, women’s exclusion from religion in the past has resulted in the dominance of patriarchal interpretations of the Qur’an. It is only from a position of knowledge that women can claim their rights and contest patriarchal interpretations of Islam.

Having said this, I do not wish to present an over-simplistic or over-optimistic view of the potential for women’s emancipation as a result of either knowledge of their rights or feminist reinterpretations of the Qur’an. This strategy is, of course, insufficient in and of itself. Many Muslim women are politically and economically marginalised, and this in itself prevents them from claiming their rights, let alone from using theological arguments to do so. In this sense, reinterpretation of the Islamic texts from a feminist perspective remains an academic and intellectual exercise, and it is primarily more affluent and educated women who are able both to engage in this debate and to benefit from its argument. Moreover, women’s experiences of Islam are myriad, and their subordination is not only based in so-called Islamic practices. Consequently, one cannot prescribe some form of universal formula to overcome the constraints Muslim women face, and strategies adopted must respond to these contextual constraints. Incorporating the study of rights accorded to women in Islam into the awareness-raising and educational components of development interventions could be very effective in improving women’s lives. Addressing these issues from within an Islamic perspective would prevent opportunistic accusations of cultural imperialism (intended to prevent feminism from entering an Islamic culture), and would be more likely to appeal to Muslim women. Although egalitarian reinterpretations of the Qur’an are currently relatively marginalised and limited in their scope, Muslim women (and men) are actively working not only to reinterpret the Qur’an, but also to educate the political elite and provide them with new interpretations of the sacred texts which can be used as a basis for legislation. Activists are also making efforts to mobilise grassroots support for these activities and to establish a dialogue between people at the grassroots and national and international decision-makers, in order to ensure the dissemination and adoption of these interpretations (Afkhami 1997).

Speaking as a woman born into a predominantly Muslim family and community, and having undertaken a study into gender and Islam, I now recognise the ways in which Islam is frequently misrepresented (deliberately or otherwise). Having studied what the Qur’an actually states, I am now in a position to oppose patriarchal interpretations and to challenge others when debates are foreclosed on the basis of my gender. This, for me, is remarkably liberatory; but it is easy to get carried away by one’s personal experience. I am a Northern-based, privileged woman who is relatively untouched by these interpretations of Islam. I can only imagine the constraints facing women in other sociogeographical locations. It is important to be aware of the problems of advocating the dissemination and adoption of egalitarian interpretations, and not to underestimate the dangers involved in contesting patriarchal interpretations of Islam ± witness the plight of Taslima Nasreen or the recent death threats levelled at Nawal el Sadaawa, the Egyptian feminist. However, the mere fact that this does arouse such strong reactions, I would suggest, is testimony to the potentially

significant ramifications of such a strategy.

TruthSpreader 07:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

She also writes in abstract:

Islam is often represented as a religion which denigrates women and limits their freedom. However, many scholars have found evidence in Islamic texts which is supportive of women’s rights. Whereas Western concepts of feminism are often resisted as foreign and subversive of Muslim culture, arguments for women’s equality from within Islam hold a lot of potential for feminists.

Presentation of this paper was only to show that even in scholarly circles, people do think that it is not the Qur'an but its patriarchal interpretation that is causing problems, but principle stance of Qur'an is seen very just in scholarly circles (at least). TruthSpreader 07:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to flood the talk page, Truthspreader, I asked you to explain Azizah al-Hibri's argument to me, as it's to her that the false claims about the Qur'an are sourced. Namely, that the Qur'an "recognized slavery only as an undesirable transitional socio-political condition and spelled out many ways for its elimination." Your evasion of this question is transparent, and will not put it to rest.Proabivouac 07:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added another source, which suggests exactly what Ghamidi has concluded in his remark. If you want to see what Qur'an and the Prophet has done to curb slavery, kindly see Islam_and_slavery#Mukatabat. But the best sources to understand this issue would be the one which Hibri has suggested in her paper. But in any case, I don't find a need to justify her, as we as wikipedians don't justify others, as it will be original research, but rather use WP:RS and WP:V compatible sources. TruthSpreader 08:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Truthspreader (ahem!), I've asked after Al-Hibri, not Ghamidi, whose opinions I did not remove from the article. Please explain not Iman Hashim's, not Ghamidi's but Azizah al-Hibri's argument that the Qur'an "recognized slavery only as an undesirable transitional socio-political condition and spelled out many ways for its elimination."Proabivouac 08:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to give you a clue (and you might call it an original research) that why she would have said "undesirable transition" is verse . Qur'an call freeing of slaves as "free the necks" (you have to read an accurate translation of this verse to appreciate it) and you can see the flare in the language that how much abhorant this practice is to Qur'an. Secondly, she has already cited sources which have done work on it. For more information, you should read them. And I find this a futile exercise to justify a scholarly source as Misplaced Pages is not a forum to discuss such matters. TruthSpreader 08:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As Yusufali, Pickthall and Shakir are unreliable, will you not share your superior translation? For I see nothing here which "recognized slavery only as an undesirable transitional socio-political condition." I suppose one might say that using alms for freeing captives is one way spelled out for its elimination? But buying slaves has never proven too effective at deterring people from taking them, while did not Muhammad and his men themselves take many hundreds of slaves? Perhaps that, too, is original research. What is not is to observe that your source is more than inadequate to support the inclusion of such a dubious claim, which you seem either utterly incapable of or determinedly unwilling to address.Proabivouac 08:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if her statement were more than a stupid lie, she is a lawyer. Arrow740 09:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The request for verification is in bad faith as there are no grounds to think that the source is being misrepresented. How would you like it if I went around threatening to remove all quoting of Islamophiles unless they are "verified?" Arrow740 09:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

barring the red herrings above, this comment is simply an attempt to sweep glaring verification problems under the carpet. whoever has been attributing the content to Za'ad al-Ma'ad should verify this material because it currently provides extremely little context. it is simply a list of names, yet the editor who added it cites several pages. please provide what ibn al-Qayyim actually says about this list so it can be contextualised. it seems an unreliable polemic website has been used as the resource here. as it is bereft of any credibiliy whatsoever, especially as it is using this cherry-picking from Ibn al-Qayyim as polemic, we can only conclude that the material must be verified and the exact cited passages provided for us to understand the context (see WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it). ITAQALLAH 18:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It is utterly false to accuse me of attempting to "sweeping glaring verification problems under the carpet" - in the context of the discussion above, this charge is nothing but a red herring of your own. I've no opinion about the veracity of the material attributed to al-Ma'ad, as I've not seen the source, and didn't add this material. What I do know is that Al-Hibri is an inadequate source for the novel claim that the Qur'an "recognized slavery only as an undesirable transitional socio-political condition and spelled out many ways for its elimination" (and speaking of verification, note how Truthspreader substituted lengthy passages from Iman Hashim for the requested Al-Hibri material.)Proabivouac 19:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"this comment", meaning Arrow's comment, is what i was addressing. your discussion above with TS is what i referred to as the red herrings. ITAQALLAH 19:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough.Proabivouac 19:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

is anybody willing to address the problem of verification i have highlighted above? ITAQALLAH 23:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"it seems an unreliable polemic website has been used as the resource here" this is a bad-faith accusation. The one violating wikipedia guidelines is you. The list is self-contained and needs no context to be understood. Arrow740 23:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

bad faith? would you like me to provide you the website that has been used? no, we must verify that Ibn al-Qayyim a) said this and b) in what context he said it, whether he means Muhammad had all these slaves at once or at some point. the person attributing cites several pages, so it's clear that Ibn al-Qayyim has conducted some sort of discussion about it. you are simply refusing to endorse the fact that the material needs verification, despite this is being a patently obvious no-brainer. ITAQALLAH 23:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"bad faith?" Yes, clearly. Provide me with any website you want. You have no grounds (except your bad faith assumption) to assume that Ibn al-Qayyim did not say this, and the context is irrelevant. It is a list of all the slaves he owned. Arrow740 01:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

the other editors here seem to disagree with you. clearly, you must have missed me directing you to WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it, and it has been obtained rather obviously from here. the website has no credibility, and so we cannot be sure that what has been translated and attributed to Ibn al-Qayyim is accurate or the entire picture of what he was saying. context is certainly relevant here, although it is only one facet of many we currently require through verification (i.e. accuracy of translation, attribution, page numbers). we aren't obliged to include material we can't verify, especially when we have as fundamental problems with verification as this. ITAQALLAH 01:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That was a good website! I will get that book. Who knows what other juicy tidbits about Islam it contains. The libraries are closed until Tuesday. Arrow740 02:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

was that a joke? check the front page, i doubt that the book is even in print by a decent printing press. even they admit they are unsure of the accuracy of what they're using. as you seem content with a red herring, i will proceed to remove the dubious information. ITAQALLAH 02:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I mean ibn-Qayyim's book, obviously. Your bad faith assumptions are not grounds to remove cited material. I will get the original source myself when the libraries open. Until then it will remain, tagged if you wish. Arrow740 02:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

the material has obviously been taken from the website, there are no "bad faith assumptions". per the bibliography, the versions they are quoting are in Arabic. therefore, seeing as the page numbers are identical, the person who has been attributing the material to Ibn al-Qayyim must also have been using that same 1984 edition arabic book from the library of manara al-islamiyya, hmm? good luck on finding ZM in english, i don't believe there exists an english translation of the whole work. you can re-insert the unverified material when and if you actually verify it. ITAQALLAH 02:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

While I see no particular reason to doubt its veracity, I agree with Itaqallah that this quote must be verified, as it clearly derives most immediately from answering-islam.org. It's not clear to me that anyone is operating in bad faith here, and in any event, ridding Misplaced Pages of poorly-sourced or otherwise dubious material is a service, regardless of the motivation for doing so.Proabivouac 02:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"good luck on finding ZM in english", can you find one in a language you can read Itaqallah? Then you can check if this is right and look at the context.Hypnosadist 03:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

it's on the web in Arabic. however 1) the refs given will not correspond to the e-books so i'm not prepared to go fishing through the work for the exact passages and 2) my arabic isn't good enough to provide an authoritative translation, and certainly not for encyclopedic purposes. ideally, we require a reputed press to verify the translation. ITAQALLAH 04:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Intimate relations

What are those? Why is this phrase being used? Arrow740 02:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad engaged in slavery

Who knew? KittyHawker 00:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath of the Battle of the Trench

100's of women and children were enslaved and sold after this battle. It was done with the full knowledge and authority of mohammed, by a second in command and the decision is commended (at the time) by mohammed. These people where mohammeds slaves and as such are notable.Hypnosadist 18:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The question here is whether the article should be about slaves Muhammad personally owned. - Merzbow 19:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)