Talk:Ma malakat aymanukum: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:27, 30 March 2007

Germen's edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me just clarify a few points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Be that as may'?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

used most often with reference to women?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge with Islam and Slavery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

headings make the article tricky to read

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

Ma malakat aymanukum as a Concubinage concept

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

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

FrummerThanThou 06:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Total Rewrite

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

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

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

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

Ma malakat aymanukum and sex

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

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

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

Traditional Sunni and Shia viewpoint

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

re:[3]

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

Primary Source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NN 07:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Schimmel

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

Schimmel states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: "female captive consent to sex" section

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

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

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

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

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

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

@@ Line 198: / Line 198: @@
 And second, the source is pointless, as it is just a link to an online Quran. How will that help someone verify the (obviously OR) claim? [[WP:SOURCE]] states that primary sources can only be used to make descriptive claims. But this isn't a descriptive claim, because unlike all the other citations, it says something '''isn't''' in there. How can the Quran say that something isn't in it? It can't. That's the whole point. It's [[WP:NOR|OR]].--<font color="red">[[User:Kirbytime|Ķĩřβȳ]]</font><font color="green">[[Islam|♥]]</font><font color="yellow">[[Atheism|♥]]</font><font color="black">[[Friedrich Nietzsche|♥]]</font><font color="pink">[[User_talk:Kirbytime|Ťįɱé]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Kirbytime|Ø]]</font> 16:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 :all editors seem to be in agreement that these types of negative derivations are totally inappropriate. we represent what the source says, not what it doesn't say. it seems to be just one editor who is determined to act in violation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and other associated policies. [[User:Itaqallah|<small><b><font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH</font></b></small>]] 16:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
+::Sorry, "all editors" are not in agreement. It is a description and hence a proper use of a primary source. How will the link to the online Koran help the reader? Try reading it. [[User:Nayan Nev|NN]] 05:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)