Talk:Women in Islam/Archive 1

"many Muslims believe that domestic violence is acceptable" 1. sources? and 2. what the hell... i thought this was an encyclopedia. ;) i removed it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.171.218 (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Guys, the Criticism section needs some real work. It's very POV and I've even spotted a few typos. They're making it sound like the Criticism of women in Islam is stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.96.213 (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

haha very funny read some history before writing these people, first lets read a german peasant in Anatolia about how muslim woman was then read Turkish historians then come and write about where women are placed in islamic world, Ottomon formal religion Bektaşilik is the first philosophy in the world to mention absolute equality between genders as well as continuing islamic racial equality, About womens "private space" in muslim countries, I guess people writing this never heard what "Baciyan-i Rum" is, First organisation of women (Meaning Sisterhood of Rome) formed a challenging place to women with even their men (who had 3 major civil organisations in Anatolia at the same time) on trade, manifacturing (even had an indsutrial site in todays Kayseri) as well as in battle grounds, Ops wait these were occuring even before 14th century, Western and Eastern women was only seen as Baby production facilities... Wasnt those the Franks who have checked! virginity of "Joan D'Ark" just a hundred years ago... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.97.81 (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes

Resolved

 – Calliopejen1 06:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Text in "quotes" is changed. TruthSpreader^Talk 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

???TruthSpreader^Talk 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Statements like "in the eyes of God" are POV, as Qur'an does not say that. It says clearly, from one being. It means, by their creation or by nature. TruthSpreader^Talk 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

???TruthSpreader^Talk 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on slavery was taken from a source, you cannot remove one of them, just because you don't like it. TruthSpreader^Talk 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

???TruthSpreader^Talk 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Some argue that this command shows that Qur'an does not want to make difficulties for women" , this statement was sourced. then why it was removed. TruthSpreader^Talk 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

???? TruthSpreader^Talk 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What is "highway robbery"?TruthSpreader^Talk 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

???? TruthSpreader^Talk 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Women as sex slaves" is just showing one aspect of slavery, while article is more general, (unless you have something else in your mind). TruthSpreader^Talk 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

???? TruthSpreader^Talk 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I need solid answers to above questions. TruthSpreader^Talk 19:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that if your need is critical you leave the comment on the user's talk page. (You only waited two hours...) Also, you should not have reverted all of Lao Wai's changes, because some were fixing broken English, and were good and uncontroversial changes. (Like "Qur'an" to "The Qur'an" Thankfully it appears that Osmanja has done further English fixes as well. Please be careful in reverting edits with multiple parts, you may be reverting things which are not unjustified. - BalthCat 21:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Slavery

Resolved

 – Calliopejen1 06:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a cold, I feel rotten, and this is not the moment to get involved in an edit war. However, I will just take this opportunity to express my incredulity that Truthspread is busily trying to absolve Islam of all blame wrt slavery, insisting, as if it were a matter of fact, that the intent of the Qur'an was to gradually abolish slavery. That's an opinion, not a fact.

I'm feeling grumpy about it because I'm editing a late Victorian book about Africa with copious references to Arab slave traders. Most Muslims seem to have thought that slavery was just fine and dandy. I don't know why Truthspreader's version of the message of the Qur'an should get special treatment. Zora 05:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is an opinion but is held by some academic scholars. Lewis tells this interesting story:

"In 1842 the British Consul General in Morocco, as part of his government's worldwide endeavor to bring about the abolition of slavery or at least the curtailment of the slave trade, made representations to the sultan of that country asking him what measures, if any, he had taken to accomplish this desirable objective. The sultan replied, in a letter expressing evident astonishment, that "the traffic in slaves is a matter on which all sects and nations have agreed from the time of the sons of Adam . . . up to this day." The sultan continued that he was "not aware of its being prohibited by the laws of any sect, and no one need ask this question, the same being manifest to both high and low and requires no more demonstration than the light of day."

The sultan was only slightly out of date concerning the enactment of laws to abolish or limit the slave trade, and he was sadly right in his general historic perspective. The institution of slavery had indeed been practiced from time immemorial. It existed in all the ancient civilizations of Asia, Africa, Europe, and pre-Columbian America. It had been accepted and even endorsed by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as other religions of the world."

John L Esposito states that "Much of Qur'an's reforms consists of regulations or moral guidance that limit or redefine rather than prohibit or replace existing practices."

But Schimmel and Azizah Y. al-Hibri for example argue that Islam's regulations theoretically would abolish slavery. Islam's reforms seriously limited the supply of new slaves, Lewis points out. In the early days of Islam due to rapid conquest and expansion, a plentiful supply of new slaves were brought, but as the frontiers were gradually stabilized, this supply dwindled to a mere trickle.' The prisoners of later wars between Muslims and Christians were commonly ransomed or exchanged. --Aminz 05:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. TruthSpreader, Zora is a very respected editor and is an scholar for herself. You'll find her quite neutral and helpful :). --Aminz 05:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I definitely respect Zora as she is one of the senior wikipedians here. I don't mean to imply that Islam abolished slavery, rather Islam gave slaves option to get their freedom from their masters, if they want. This is based on an opinion, which I have already referenced. If you think that my language is implying something else, feel free to change, or if you like to add something from Islam and Slavery to add other opinions, it is upto you. But the only problem is that this article is not about "Women as slaves in Muslim societies" rather it is an article on "Women as slaves in Islam". Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 07:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, other groups that kept slaves freed them. There were free blacks even in the southern US before the civil war. Greek and Roman freedmen were ubiquitious. I'm finding it hard to think of a slave-owning society that didn't also have emancipation. Zora 08:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Lewis points out that the Islamic legislation "brought two major changes to ancient slavery which were to have far-reaching effects: "the presumption of freedom" and "the ban on the enslavement of free persons except in strictly defined circumstances". Muslim jurists defined slavery as an exceptional condition, with the general rule being a presumption of freedom (al-'asl huwa 'l-hurriya — "The basic principle is liberty") for a person if his origins were unknown. --Aminz 08:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, Islamic practice of slavery was much more humane. Lewis says: "In the Islamic empire, the humanitarian tendency of the Qur'an and the early caliphs was to some extent counteracted by other influences. Notable among these was the practice of the various conquered peoples and countries which the Muslims encountered after their expansion, especially in provinces previously under Roman law. This law, even in its Christianized form, was still very harsh in its treatment of slaves. Perhaps equally important was the huge increase in the slave population resulting first from the conquests themselves, and then from the organization of a great network of importation. These led to a fall in the cash value and hence the human value of slaves, and to a general adoption of a harsher tone and severer rules. But even after this stiffening of attitudes and laws, Islamic practice still represented a vast improvement on that inherited from antiquity, from Rome, and from Byzantium." --Aminz 08:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Being bold

I was invited and then remineded to edit on this article, so i am going to be bold and do so. Sorry for not doing so earlier. Peace, and hope my efforts are appreciated. --Striver 15:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Women in Islam/sandbox --Striver 15:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Beating totally prohibited?

Unresolved

 – Calliopejen1 06:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The article currently states:

“ Beating wives for any other reason is completely prohibited, as Muhammad is attributed to say:

• I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them.

”

However An-Nisa 4:34 states:

“ Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). ”

So which is it? jaco♫plane 15:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get the source from with the part where someone went up to Prophet Muhammad and that this person was told that women are not to be beaten? Just wondering. --Fantastic4boy 05:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The article says that beating rebellious wives is provisioned but not for any other reason. See Rights and obligations of spouses in Islam. TruthSpreader^Talk 15:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ohh, of course, I misread the article. Thanks, jaco♫plane 15:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually it does not say that. It says that beating is allowed if you fear your wife may be disobedient (although nushuz is related to honor so it really means anything that might shame you as a husband). That is a small but significant difference. Lao Wai 16:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It is never interpreted this way by scholars. "nushuz" is used for rebellious behavious, something that challenges the authority. Other interpretations would require jurist's opinions to justify. TruthSpreader^Talk 17:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is. The fear bit is obviously true and just as obviously "rebellion" in most Muslim cultures is an affront to a man's manhood. Like asking for a divorce. It is honor related. I am sure there are no end of modern interpretations. Now. In the West. Lao Wai 17:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It is very true that sadly in Muslim societies men use this directive as a licence to beat their wives. But in Islam, a women can claim divorce in court of Law on the basis of maltreatment, even countries like Pakistan have made laws (which I think are completely Islamic) that woman can claim divorce on basis of lack of trust on behalf of her husband. So in this situation, this directive can only be carried out when both partners are not seeking divorce, and husband still wants to run the family when wife is not ready to co-operate at all. TruthSpreader^Talk 17:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with leaving articles in your hands is that you are an advocate who is using this for dawa and not an encyclopedist as this shows. So what if women can ask for a divorce? No court is required to grant it and traditionally, and still in the vast majority of the Muslim world, they would not even think of it. Over half of Bangladeshi domestic violence victims tell no one - not even their families. Who would care anyway? It would be a brave woman who actually rebelled because her husband beat her. This directive contains no limits on it whatsoever. All it says is that if a husband fears rebellion, he may beat his wife. Lao Wai 17:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"Over half of Bangladeshi domestic violence victims tell no one - not even their families." This is true in the West as well. The vast majority of domestic violence is never reported, irrespective of the household religion. Is Islam responsible for that too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.171.218 (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As we have discussed before, that this event should proceed with dialogue and separation of bed. It is not our job to interpret scriptures, as Arabic language is sophisticated enough that sometimes only a learned person can make opinion. Secondly, if women in Muslim societies are not brave enough to talk against their husbands, this is a cultural problem. But if you have some sources regarding this misuse, feel free to add it to Women in Muslim societies. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 01:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If the husbands are responsible to take good care of their wives and NOT to abuse them (as seen in the article with the statement 'not to treat them with harshness') - then what would you say about WIFE-BEATING? Many people have mentioned about wife-beating to be encouraged in Islam and stated that this is required in the Koran. Furthermore, as seen on some Internet websites, they state that Muslim wives are slaves to their husbands and that they must be treated like children - it suggests that Muslim husbands can beat up their wives any time they want and when they feel their wives are wrong and need to be corrected. Some people say that wife-beating is a rather complicated issue in Islam. Are these all true? If there's anyone who's an expert on this field, can you please help me out there? Thanks. --Fantastic4boy 06:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You would like to see An-Nisa, 34 and Rights and obligations of spouses in Islam. TruthSpreader^reply 05:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

@Fantastic4boy, The "permission" to beat one's wife falls into the category "allowed" - not "encourage" or "required". It is tolerated, as is slavery, and there is nothing requiring Muslims to keep this permitted, in the same way as nobody today would claim that slavery must be allowed because it is allowed in the Quran (or the Bible). Nobody would either claim that Muslims have to marry four wives just because the Quran allows it. Any in most Muslimcountries today beating is punished and no longer allowed. If men bet their wives, it is from my point of view more because of their culture, because they fell they ae superior and can beat their wives whenever they like. This is the same for every culture - it happens in every country and every religion. --Arabist 13:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A point to make about beating one's wife is that the verse states: "beat them (lightly)" -sholars state that it should leave NO MARK, and never 'beat' the face. Therefore, they say, it should be more of a tap than a 'beating'.
As for slavery, according to the histories I've read, many people at the time of Mohammad bought slaves for the sole purpose of setting them free, as there was some sort of 'spiritual reward' for this. Aouandme 06:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)aouandme

The verse states "beat them". The word "lightly" is added by translators to "clarify" the verse's meaning. As with all other words in that passage in brackets. There is no "lightly" in the Arabic. Some scholars say it should leave no lasting permanent damage but that is irrelevant as it is not justicable in Islamic law. Wives cannot sue. Other scholars disagree anyway. No doubt there was a spiritual reward for setting free a slave - Islamic law actually imposes the setting free of slaves as a punishment for certain sins. But so what? The Muslims took so many slaves that there were plenty to free. Lao Wai 10:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the edits I am making to all of the topics regarding Islam, are correct. I have edited out all of the BS that society wants to portray. I know that this is right, because I am a Muslim myself. So please do not undo any edits I have made. And just to be clear about one thing: Islam does NOT tell you to beat your wife. In cases of adultery, there must be 4 people that have witnessed the crime, or the woman who committed adultery must admit to it. That is the only way you can say that this woman has committed adultery. And once a woman is found guilty of it, according the historic law, she must be whipped 80 times by the executor (definition executor: 2. Law A person who is appointed by a testator to execute the testator's will. - from thefreedictionary.com). And to clear up the slavery issue, Islam disapproves of slavery. It is haram (meaning against what Islam says; illegal)/ wrong. Mnagi85 03:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Society wants to portray? You think it is all a conspiracy by any chance? What you think Islam is or is not, is irrelevant. What matters is what most Muslims think Islam says. And most Muslims have always thought that the Quran tells them to beat their wives if they "rebel". As they do in larger numbers than non-Muslims. Seems a fairly obvious reading of the Quran to me. Why do you think they are all wrong? I agree that as far as zina, so much more than adultery by the way, you need four eye witnesses. Or a pregnant single woman. It is true that the Quran calls for whipping, but the aHadith call for stoning and stoning is what Muslims have always done. Islam does not disapprove of slavery - Muhammed owned slaves, he sold slaves and he made free people slaves. It simply calls freeing them a good deed. Do you have any evidence for any of these claims? Lao Wai 15:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"You think it is all a conspiracy by any chance?" So according to you, there is no bias against Islam in the West today?

"What matters is what most Muslims think Islam says." The title of the article is Women and Islam, not Women and Muslims in come Muslim countries. Sorry.

"It simply calls freeing them a good deed." It also explicitly states to treat a slave like your brother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.171.218 (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Stale

 – Calliopejen1 06:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.crescentlife.com/thisthat/feminist%20muslims/working_women_during_early_islam.htm --Striver 03:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Inheritence

Resolved

 – Calliopejen1 06:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Women are not getting half as men in every case, as you can see under inheritence section. Hence, I find it factually wrong to mention in the lead paragraph that they get half the inheritence. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Although, I myself feel that testimony of a women can be mentioned in the lead paragraph. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've modified the lead paragraph to be factually precise (more limiting). A problem Women in Islam have is that speaking up or defying the rules can have serious consequences, so they generally avoid it.PeaceThroughStrength 04:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Answering-Islam.co.uk is not a reliable secondary source. And secondly, if you are taking something from a news website, please consider adding it to Women in Muslim societies rather than in this topic. Thank you! TruthSpreader^Talk 07:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In relation to men

The source which is quoted is non-scholarly for this kind of comment. Please look at the author's profile:[2]. This is just a POV by a non-scholarly source. Yvonne Haddad and John Esposito says, "In principle, except for a verse or two, the Qur'an grants women equality" in Islam, Gender, and Social Change, Oxford University Press US, 2004, p.163 . Similarly in Carla Makhlouf Obermeyer. "Islam, Women, and Politics: The demography of Arab countries", Population and Development Review, Vol. 18, No. 1. (Mar., 1992), pp. 33-60. (published by JSTOR says: "Thus there is a certain ambivalence whereby, though all believers are equal, relations between the sexes are governed not by the principle of absolute equality but by the principle of complementarity." and also "These elements are antithetical to Koranic rulings about the equality of believers and the relative economic independence of women (right to inherit and to keep their own property). Indeed, "It is only in the matter of the rights and responsibilities of males and females that the notion of equal human worth, otherwise so intrinsic to the Koran, seems momentarily suspended." I found these comments completely opposite to your quoted source. TruthSpreader^Talk 08:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me just remind you that Yvonne Haddad and John Esposito are both apologists and thus have a pro-Islamic bias. That is POV too. It is important to also include an opposing viewpoint. Margaret Speaker Yuan has a degree in humanities- per your site, and that makes her qualified on issues of human rights and equality (or inequality) of women in society. This particular perspective was written by Azam Kamguian, and is an excerpt in Margaret Speaker Yuan's book. Azam Kamguian has made many public apparences on TV snd radio programs discussing womens rights in the middle east. Online, she is mentioned in Iran daily, BBC news, and fromtpagemag.com, Not to mention she was a speaker at the world humanist comfrence. I think that makes her a notable scholar.--Sefringle 23:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

My only argument is that having a degree in humanities doesn't make you a scholar on Islamic sciences. On the other hand, Yvonne and Esposito both are professor in this field and are acknowledged reliable sources by secular sources and their books are published by University publishers. And saying that they are apologists is a mockery of western scholarship that has been developed in 20th century. TruthSpreader^Talk 01:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

But I will not rule out that they don't have a POV. If another POV has to be put in the article, it must come from a reliable source and it should be Verifiable. TruthSpreader^Talk 01:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Also the journal paper I quoted from JSTOR, tells exactly that in which situation Qur'an differs, as Qur'an's equality is not absolute but based on complimentarity. Which means that Islam see men and women to be equal but not the same, hence both are assigned with different responsibilities and rights. As from a Muslim background, I know that in an Islamic society, you don't have equal relations with every one. Elders, teachers, and parents have to be respected, hence concept of egalitarian society in Islam is not as in western society but it is still an egalitarian society, as it is based on complimentarity (give and take) and not on absoluted equality (all are same with the same set of rights and responsibilities). TruthSpreader^Talk 02:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The WP:RS#Non-scholarly sources allows Azam Kamguian's writings to be published, since it says "A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or reccomends it.

According to the WP:RS#Scholarship, it says "Has the material been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." Azam Kamguian is reliable in this case as well, because (see origional paragraph) she is mentioned in other sources as well as the ones above, the following academic database: [3]

--Sefringle 02:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I respect your findings but it is stated in the source itself that her opinion is as a humanitarian, not as an expert in Quranic sciences. It is just like we would call Muhammad as a sensualist as it is written in a publication of Esposito, but actually if you look at the context, he is talking about people who have maligned Muhammad with no strong backing. Similarly, Azam Kamguian is referred in the given publication as a humanist. That is just like saying, Pervez Hoodbhoy has some different interpretation of Qur'an (and he normally gives lectures on Islam as well) but he is a physict and his opinion on Qur'an has no value in academic circle. TruthSpreader^Talk 02:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Though you do have to admit this section has a highly pro-islamic viewpoint on the relationship between Islam and women. It should be more neutral, and that is why I included her viewpoint.--Sefringle 00:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! I've a feeling as well! But then what if the claim is factually true? As Gren said here Having criticism and praise does not produce NPOV. Our strive is to present the right picture infront of readers. But I think, a reader can definintely find fallacies in Islamic treatment from the Lead paragraph, and then women in nature was already favourable to woman before recent addition and now it still says that a few verses are not favourable to women. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 01:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think, the point where western scholarship has converged is that women has been treated in basic Islamic teachings as good (but not very good as western democracy would look at) but then there are cultural problems associated with it as well, which causes problems. For that reason, Women in Muslim societies would be a better article to add stuff. TruthSpreader^Talk 01:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important and relevant to include verse ^{[Quran 2:222]} within this article though, as it is relevant to women in Islam. If Azam Kamguian is not scholarly enough a person to mention it under, we should find someone who is who mentions the verse.--Sefringle 21:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been discussed under Rights_and_obligations_of_spouses_in_Islam#Sexual_relations. I just didn't put in this article, because I thought that article would become too big. What is your assessment? TruthSpreader^Talk 07:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That article mentions verse ^{[Quran 3:222]}, which doesn't really exist. It doesn't mention verse ^{[Quran 2:222]}. Still, this article probably should mention it somewhere--Sefringle 10:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that was 2:222, as there is no verse as 3:222 and I've corrected it. The issue is partially discussed in Women_in_Islam#Religious_responsibilities but if you want to add, sexuality section in the article, it is upto you. TruthSpreader^Talk 07:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Adultery/rape cases in Islam

Unresolved

 – Calliopejen1 06:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In the statement regarding adultery and rape, if it's difficult to press charges against men and that women must have four witnesses to prove that she's been raped - does this mean the men can get away with his crime if she can't prove that she was raped (instead of the woman raping the man)? I've always thought the Sharia system to be just and doesn't discriminate men from women. --Fantastic4boy 06:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well the statement is only true if woman gets pragnant and without marriage this pregnancy will only be because of fornication. But, I am not sure in this case, the alleged man can be prosecuted and if yes, will he have to show four witnesses in this case? I personally think that he will not have to show four witnesses as condition for four witnesses is only to give privacy and give individuals protection who fornicate by mistake. And in this case, the man should be identified by normal forensive evidences as woman is also caught in the same way. I don't have a source, otherwise I'd have put this opinion. TruthSpreader^reply 06:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I removed the statement:

"Scholars differ in their treatment of punishments for rapists and rape victimes. Some do not differentiate between rape and adultery, while others do; however, there is a consensus that in the former offence the victim is not prosecuted."

It had no citation and is AFAIK incorrect. The correct position in regards to rape is what I have stated:

"According to a Sunni Hadith, the punishment for rape in Islam is death, there is no sin on the victim, nor is there any worldly punishment ascribed." Referenced by According to a Sunni Hadith, This is the sourced hadith:

"When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered (raped) her.

She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: That (man) did such and such to me. And when a company of the Emigrants came by, she said: That man did such and such to me. They went and seized the man whom they thought had had intercourse with her and brought him to her.

She said: Yes, this is he. Then they brought him to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him).

When he (the Prophet) was about to pass sentence, the man who (actually) had assaulted her stood up and said: Apostle of Allah, I am the man who did it to her.

He (the Prophet) said to her: Go away, for Allah has forgiven you. But he told the man some good words (AbuDawud said: meaning the man who was seized), and of the man who had had intercourse with her, he said: Stone him to death.

He also said: He has repented to such an extent that if the people of Medina had repented similarly, it would have been accepted from them."

{Truth 06 13:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)}

There seems to be some good information at http://www.geo.tv/zs/Zina_article_Final.pdf and http://www.islam-democracy.org/documents/pdf/6th_Annual_Conference-JulieNorman.pdf. I will try to incorporate this into the article if I have the opportunity but others can do so as well. Calliopejen1 02:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Gender equality in Islam

Resolved

 – Calliopejen1 06:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In what sense are men and women equal in Islam? What rights do both genders have in common in Islam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fantastic4boy (talk • contribs)

You forgot to sign. You can sign by typing ~~~~. Anyways, everything except what is mentioned. TruthSpreader^reply 06:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As almost everything possible is mentioned, women are not equal to men in almost every aspect of life.Lorenzinho 11:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Women right’s was a legitimate part of the discussion of human rights in general remained contested even in the UN right through the 1980s. However, in the international year of the women that was announced by the UN in 1975 was the first World Conference on Women. It took place in Mexico City and approved a world action plan for the equalizing of the position of women. “It has only been since the 1990s that the relevant UN documents routinely indicate the human rights dimension of violations of women’s rights, particularly in the case of violence against women” (Gottstein 1998, 82). On the other hand, the Qur’an (Islam) established a movement for the renaissance of women’s rights 1400 years ago. The model of gender equality is exemplified in the Qur’an rendition of Adam and Eve. The Qur’an states that both sexes were independent, identical and deliberate. The Qur’an states: “And their Lord answered them: Truly I will never cause to be lost the work any of you, Be you a male or female, you are members one of another.”(Ibid, 3:195). It is clear that the Qur’anic view of women is no different than man. In other words, the Qur’an specified that woman is equal to man in religious duties. Therefore most Muslim women agree that Islam gave them their full rights. ”There is no doubt that in the Qur’an that men and women have the same ontological status, the same ethical values apply to them, and that they have the same religious obligations, whichever way they otherwise share their socio-economical responsibilities”(Al-Hakim 2005, 134). The social reality, however, in Islamic world is far away from the ideals of the Qur’an. ”They disappeared into a doubtful private sphere and shared their brothers’ fate of ignorance, cultural alienation and exploitation” (Tohidi 1998, 143). Therefore, Muslim women started to struggle for their rights in the beginning of this century.--Alibektas 15:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Rights as mothers in Islam

Resolved

 – Calliopejen1 06:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As part of my contribution this article, I've included the part for women's status in Islam as a mother and that it is a respected one. I've stated that the with Prophet Muhammad saying: "Paradise is at the feet of Mothers," and that this statement suggests that children are not to act disrespectfully towards their mother (e.g. using foul words and raising their tones towards their mother). Would anyone like to add on this? --Fantastic4boy 07:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Um. We need relaible sources before we include sections like this. The sources you mentioned were not scholarly. If you re-insurt it, try to phraise it without praise to Islam, for that would be POV.--Sefringle 06:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it compulsory for women to cover their heads?

Resolved

 – Calliopejen1 06:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Some people say that Muslim women are obligated to cover their heads and to just leave their faces exposed but others say it is not obligated but strongly recommended to do so. So, I'm just wondering which one is the correct decisions for women to undertake as good Muslims? --Fantastic4boy 07:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Try having look at Hijab article. There is alot of dispute among traditional understanding and scholarly sources. Even some contemporary Muslim scholars are also reviewing their stance. Cheers! TruthSpreader^reply 07:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is a ton of dispute over this, with many scholars saying the answer is no but with more traditional/concervative muftis and such saying yes. From what I have read there is no Qur'anic injunction to wear it, and the only hadith that specifically states to is considered weak (Abu Dawud volume 3, book 27, chapter 1535, hadith 4092 is considered mursal)so it really seems to be more a cultural tradiation, and in Muslim countries without Arab influence it is not common (Indonesia). Gtadoc 17:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why their is ton of dispute?

Quran 33:59 - O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful.

What way you would like us interpret the above verse? if it is not followed then their are consequences in following verses

Quran 4:34- Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

I hope their is no disagreement on the source

Al-Hibri

Resolved

 – Calliopejen1 06:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

She is a lawyer and publishes in journals of law. She is not a historian or a scholar of Islamic studies. She is not a reliable source for Quranic exegesis. Arrow740 06:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Her research includes "Islamic Jurisprudence"[4] and the journal is reliable. Please do not remove sourced material before discussing it. --Aminz 06:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert Spencer and Bat Ye'or also research Islam but they are not allowed in Islam, Muhammad, etc. The journal is a reliable source, but not for Islamic studies, and this includes Islamic jurisprudence. It's a law journal, for crying out loud. If you want to file an RfC on her please do so by all means. Arrow740 08:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

al-Hibri is not a controversial scholar as writers like Robert Spencer are. Her research interests includes Islamic Law. The journal is a peer-reviewed journal, it has all the qualifications. SHE HAS TAUGHT A COURSE ON "Islamic Jurisprudence"--Aminz 08:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It must be a peer-reviewed journal on the relevant subject matter! It does not matter what she has taught a course on. Do you find this in WP:RS? Saying that "the Quran recognizes slavery only as an unacceptable transitional period" is intellectually bankrupt. Arrow740 08:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

could we please keep this discussion in one area? cf. Talk:Dhimmi#al-Hibri. ITAQALLAH 09:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Aminz' reversion

Resolved

 – Calliopejen1 06:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, you reverted my attribution of Ghamidi's statement to him (it is an extreme minority view and should not be included at all), and the reference to the Quran. As you know, the Quran sanctions sex with ma malakat aymanukum as well as with wives. Do you admit that? We cannot include a statement in this article that we all know to be false, even if it is sourced. Either way, I request that the full context be provided on this talk page. Arrow740 08:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

POV in the first sentence

The sentence "The Qur'an is explicit in maintaining women's religious and moral equality" is clearly POV. We shouldn't state opinions as facts. I have rephraised it in a less POV manner.--Sefringle 22:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well! The statement is not wrong at all, when we talk about moral and religious equality. Qur'an cleary has some verses, which has been written in the article, which suggest that. Secondly, it is not what Muslims believe. It is the opinion of secular scholarship. If it would be said that women are equal in Islam, that definitely is POV, but not the statement which was already there. TruthSpreader^reply 23:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It most certianly is a POV statement. It is an opinion of some secular scholars and some muslims, however, it is not the opinion of all secular scholars on islam. I doubt, for example, Robert Spencer who is a secular scholar on islam believes the quran assures equality of women in Islam (See [5]) And the way it was stated, this opinion is stated as a fact.--Sefringle 02:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to refer to me any publication of Robert spencer et al. which is published by peer-reviewed University presses or famous scholarly press? TruthSpreader^reply 04:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The US govt has long considered him an expert, and they have a lot more to lose if they're wrong! Arrow740 04:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you please show me the printing press, where his publication has published? I am pretty sure that you can't even use "George Bush" as a reliable source, even though he is the president of USA. TruthSpreader^reply 04:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[6] see this video. He is interviewed by fox news.--Sefringle 04:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Com'on! I thought that you were kidding me. Is fox news a reliable source??? TruthSpreader^reply 04:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

<reset> The Islamic studies establishment is currently biased against the truth, but this will change. Arrow740 06:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the trend is going opposite. If you disagree, have a look at early 20th century literature by Orientelists, then mid 20th century orientelists like Watt, and then late 20th century scholars. And if you have access to scholarly jounrals database, just have a look at scholarly papers, which are published in 21st century. You will feel a huge difference in opinion. The picture of early Islamic society is getting better and better.

But anyway, I am waiting for an answer from Sefingle! TruthSpreader^reply 08:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Whats wrong with fox news? That they are conservative and thus unreliable and unscholarly? Just because you don't agree with their politics (I don't always either) that doesn't mean they are not a peer reviewed press or scholarly. They are as reliable as some of these other "questionable" sources.--Sefringle 01:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

By this you are implying that if "George Bush" says on Fox News that "Islam is religion of Peace". Will that statement be true and presentable as reliable information and will that statement make "George Bush" a reliable Islamic scholar??? TruthSpreader^reply 02:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, because George Bush has not had any education in Islamic or religous studies.--Sefringle 02:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You've got the point. Secondly, his ideas are not endorsed by any scholarly institution. The same reason you can apply on Robert Spencer, who has only Master degree in Catholicism. And God knows that he even did that degree by course work or research work. He might be considered a scholar, atleast with a doctorate degree or some scholarly publications. Otherwise we will get into the trouble of incluiding all the people who say their opinions in media, and most of them might have master degrees as well. TruthSpreader^reply 02:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Small correction: Robert Spencer has a degree in Religous studies, not Chaholicism. --Sefringle 02:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

His MA thesis is entitled "The Monophysite in the Mirror" and concerns the conversion of John Henry Newman to Catholicism in 1845 and Newman's denunciation of the Church of England as monophysite. This gives alot of his insight into Islam. Secondly, I just ask for a single scholarly publication he has made, which can be used in this article. TruthSpreader^reply 02:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems we drifted off topic. I wasn't bringing him up to mention him in this article. I brought him up to prove that all islamic scholars don't believe that women in islam are treated equal, just because some do.--Sefringle 03:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

But I would like to know those scholars who don't consider women in Islam to be equal religiously and morally! I will look into some other publications, and may rephrase the leading section. TruthSpreader^reply 03:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

They get less inheritance, can't have more than one husband, can't have sex with slaves, and their testimony in a Muslim court isn't worth as much as a man's. Also little girls can be married off to old men ala Aisha and Muhammad. There's more. Arrow740 04:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Stale

 – Calliopejen1 06:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The first and last sentences in the intro are not clear. What is "However, contemporary analysts have renounced treatment of Muslim women as essentialist, ahistorical and lacking in class perspectives with respect to Islamic injunctions" supposed to mean? Arrow740 19:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence means modern scholars renounce the treatment of women in Islamic society, as it is against Islamic injunctions. And those Muslim scholars or conservatives who preach such behaviour, are not keeping the view of Qur'an and early Islamic society properly in front of them (this has happened only recently that secular scholarship doesn't believe that Hijab is essential for women and the stress which is given on women's obedience etc.). The first sentence also has the same meaning more or less. TruthSpreader^reply 21:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So the sentence is implicitly picking certain Islamic injunctions as right and others as wrong. What does "essentialist" mean here? What does "lacking in class perspectives with respect to Islamic injunctions" mean? And how did the Umma get it so wrong? Arrow740 21:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Essentialism is a narrow view of something. And "lacking class perspective" means people look at one or two verse in Qur'an which give upper hand to husband in the house, but forget the other verses of Qur'an which are explicit in men and women equality. And your last question, how Umma got it wrong? This is answered on Hijab article, that many customs were absorbed in Islamic society from Bazyntine and Persian society, which were later on confused with the religion and people approximated their ideas over the Qur'an. But because, Qur'an is still the best source for early Islamic society, secular scholars don't agree with many contemporary and Medievel Muslim scholars. TruthSpreader^reply 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So it should be "broad" instead of "class?" So why don't we replace "However, contemporary analysts have renounced treatment of Muslim women as essentialist, ahistorical and lacking in class perspectives with respect to Islamic injunctions" with "Some contemporary analysts have renounced Muslim treatment of women as proceeding from a narrow understanding of the core Islamic texts, and not from the precedent set by the earliest Muslims." Though I'm going to do some research and we'll see what I find. Arrow740 22:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Absurdly soft language, POV

"Woman's primary responsibility is usually interpreted as having to raise children. Some Muslims believe that if women fulfill this, they may have a career if they wish and their husbands agree. Qur'an puts the main responsibility of earning over husband and asks wives to be obedient to their husbands. Hence, permission to work is generally considered conditional. As in Qur'an:"

Wow. "Some Muslims"? "And their husbands agree"? The Qur'an ASKS women to be obedient to their husbands? Asks?? That's not even close to accurate!

This is written to make the lack of employment rights of women more palatable to western sensibilities. It does not attempt to represent reality and I don't think wikipedia should have any part of it. Let's call it what it is. The NPOV reality on women's right to work in Islam, and certainly in many Muslim societies is simple: They don't have it.

Here's a NPOV writing on women's employment rights in Islam: "The Qur'an generally forbids women to work, unless they have already raised children. In the Qur'an women are commanded to be obedient and so permission to work is also conditional on the husband's approval."74.99.88.43 02:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That's silly. The Qur'an says nothing--people interpret it. What you say is true for some Muslims in some times but not always. I can assure you a peasant Muslim woman in 1600s India was working even from a young age and I doubt she believed she was being un-Islamic. Religious views are shaped by social conditions and it is clearly not for you to say that such views are illegitimate. For instance for quite a period of time no one would have thought that Hindu 'polytheists' could have been protected people--and yet when Muslims moved into South Asian they became that. Did Islamic law change? Yes. Can we say "that's not really Islam"? Of course not--because Islam is a religion defined by Mulsims. So, do many clerics from large Muslim establishments in both Saudi Arabia and Egypt talk about women needing permission to work? From the best of my knowledge, yes. Does this mean that Muslims who disagree (such as large portions of the Egyptian and Saudi populations who do work) are doing something un-Quranic? Hell if I know. The problem is yours is written like you're a cleric who is telling people what the Qur'an says. An encyclopedia takes the notable positions of religious authorities and the realities of the populace and weaves them into a tale to realistically portray Muslims. Now, we can debate if most clerics believe that this should happen to women or if it's only a few or if most influential clerics do but the Muslim population disagrees with their clerics or if all clerics are liberals swingers and Muslims are stern mean people. Those are legitimate topics... but, this is not Qur'an interpretation class. gren グレン 16:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's really all in interpretation, and Wikipedia cannot write about what is Islamic seperately from what goes on in Muslim societies, then this article should be deleted and replaced with a redirect to Women in Muslim societies. 169.132.38.100 16:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this article is seriously POV and I just haven't had time to deal with it. WP isn't a cleric and can't issue fatwas regarding what is and isn't Islamic. This article preaches. It was established by an editor who didn't like the emphasis on "reality" in Women in Muslim societies. Zora 18:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to overhaul another article, when I'm done with that one I'll get to this one. Arrow740 06:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Women as prisoners of war

Resolved

 – Calliopejen1 06:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That is related to Women as slaves. --Aminz 14:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Clothing or other signs as wives

Q&A

What clothes do women wear to show that they are married? A Christian wife may wear a ring, for example. Is there any such tradition? Thanks! --Flammingo^Parliament 12:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Gulf Arab women (and probably others) wear both wedding and engagement rings in the same way as in the West.Anjouli 09:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Closed society

Resolved

I think that if the Islamic community would be more open, many things about the Islam would get clearer. It's their choise, but if they don't decide to be more open, they can't tell us that we're discrimating, because they are.Lorenzinho 11:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

How women are really treated in Islam

How women are really treated in Islam ? Get a clue here.--CltFn 13:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Restriction of movement

Resolved

We have had two users (Aminz, Itaqallah) today remove this section. See [7], [8] It relates to Islamic rules specificly presuming to restrict the travel rights of women or groups of women. How is it contended that specific rules like that (only applicable to women), and that aspect of life (ie. travel), have no relevance to the subject 'Women in Islam'? Islam restricts the dignity of women to travel independently or with other women as a group. What's wrong with revealing that groups of women are forbidden to travel more than 48 miles, .. which would cover most interstate travel??—Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidYork71 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 9 March 2007

POV tag

Resolved

It is because of the points I raised the Tom harrison's page and sentences like this:"Islam restricts the dignity of women to travel independently or with other women as a group." --Aminz 20:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You opened this discussion way after you inserted the tag so we crossed each other. Anyway could you move that discussion from the admin's page to here to where it should be? Then we can discuss it here. I hate to make the admin see "You have new messages" when its not a message for him. Now that line, it follows with why that statement is so. You can change that to whatever you want. What do you think is the less POC version of this issue? Clearly women have a restriction on traveling according to the Islamic ref website used. If you think it can be worded better, go ahead. --Matt57_{(Talk•Contribs)} 01:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Further the picture is non-representative. No women in Iran has such veiling. --Aminz 08:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The woman in the black viel? It says its from Yemen. Arent there hadiths saying that women should be veiled and stuff? If you really follow Islam, women should be veiled, according to hadiths. You know this, right? As for your original objection, I believe that also is supported by hadith or religious rulings etc (travelling issue). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Islam does limit the extent to which women can travel without men, but to say it restricts their dignity sounds very POV to me, so I've changed the sentence. — Elembis (talk · contribs) 00:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Levy

Re [9], Arrow, what is Levy's quote? Verse 2:73 reads: "He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then is he guiltless. For Allah is Oft-forgiving Most Merciful." --Aminz 06:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never had that book. I suppose we should remove the Qur'an ref. Maybe Levy used a different numbering of the verses, ask Itaqallah to check it out. Arrow740 07:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

you don't have the book, yet you seem to know what is or isn't relevant, and whether or not the citation has been manipulated (which it has). if you check the work, you will know that Levy is not talking about female slaves, but is talking about slave rights/restrictions in general, which have been discussed in Islam and slavery. similarly, the mukataba stuff is not relevant specifically to women. ITAQALLAH 11:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to have the book to know that material attributed to it (if accurate) is relevant. Arrow740 23:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

and if you read my comment above you will know the attribution is not entirely accurate. aside from the fact that the material is biased and inaccurate representation of Levy's comments in general, to assign a context not verifiable in the text is original research. ITAQALLAH 17:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what context assignment you are imputing to me. The fact is that female slaves are women. Arrow740 21:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

female slaves are women: quite right. i don't see female slaves being specified in these citations to Levy. this link synthesised by DavidYork is, if you recall, exactly what he attempted in Islam and children, using the same refs but prefixing the word slaves with 'child' - as has been done here, but with a different prefix. ITAQALLAH 21:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So? Are you saying that saying that certain punishments for present or prior unbelief that apply to all slaves apply to women or children in particular is original research? Arrow740 08:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

not all slaves were non-Muslim. as for your question, in short: yes. you are postulating what the source does not, making an assumption that is not necessarily true. for example, a lot of the punishments for legal infringements applicable to slaves in general would not apply to child slaves, for they would not be considered baligh. so to make this sweeping assumption is flawed, and we should stick to representing precisely what Levy states instead of supporting the exploitation of sources committed by DY. the content itself is also a misrepresentation of Levy even without the erroneous assumption. ITAQALLAH 11:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

{{Cite Check}} tag

Resolved

I'm removing it due to a lack of reasoning given by the anon IP who placed it. I'll also be removing a vandalism (BOSOM) in the same edit. --ProtectWomen 18:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Quotefarm

Resolved

 – Calliopejen1 06:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I added this tag because this article consists of mainly quotes. It seems like over 50% of the article is just quotes.--Sefringle 04:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The article opens with criticism and proceeds to rebut it. The entire section "Women in their nature" boils down to an argument about what the Qur'an and Muhammad really meant to say, rather than a historically-grounded and non-judgmental discussion of women's real-world experience in Islamic societies. The section Women in Islam outright declares that controversial practices are un-Islamic, sourced entirely to Esposito. There are many Muslims who would disagree with the tendentious claims of this article, and we're not here (or shouldn't be here) to either correct them or excommunicate them. The quotes here play the unfortunate role of beating these designated ignorants over the head with cherry-picked scripture.

We can sum it up as 1. Critics claims that women are treated like garbage in Islamic societies and 2. they are right but 3. this is not the fault of Islam because 4. Islam commands the opposite. These last three features are unacceptably argumentative, and the views of critics certainly do not merit mention in the lead (if at all.)Proabivouac 06:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if you took steps to fix it. Arrow740 16:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Burkini

The Burkini might be necessity or innovation, but either way we shouldnt forget how the sexual revolution (including freedom for women and their clothing) started in the going swimming of the 18th and 19th century; only after English (and later, European) people got used to going to the beach, they slowly grew accustomed to leisure clothing, not necessarily showing more skin, but the bathing costumes were an important step. The picture subtext should consider this.--Flammingo^Hey 15:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point; see the sources in rational dress and swimsuit if you want to do a re-write. BrainyBabe 14:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Women in Muslim societies

Resolved

 – Calliopejen1 06:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

On the Women in Muslim societies page, a consensus has developed in favor of merging its content to this article. I'll be working on that in the near future. Any assistance is appreciated. Calliopejen1 13:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Especially with the new content being added, this page is hugely long and much of its content should be moved to subpages (many of which already exist). Calliopejen1 02:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the merger to Women in Islam. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well; both articles seem to cover the same content. Calliopejen1 02:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. "Women in Islam" is more accurate. "Muslim society" is a POV terminology. Sina Kardar 15:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree Merge it to Women in Islam--Sefringle 03:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Taliban and women

Unresolved

 – Calliopejen1 06:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted this and replaced it with what I thought was a better blurb from Taliban treatment of women; some of its content might be salvageable.

Taliban religion minister, Al-Haj Maulwi Qalamuddin, told The New York Times that "To a country on fire, the world wants to give a match. Why is there such concern about women? Bread costs too much. There is no work. Even boys are not going to school. And yet all I hear about are women. Where was the world when men here were violating any woman they wanted?"

Although the Taliban claimed that the education of girls in rural Afghanistan was increasing, a UNESCO report stated that there was "a whopping 65 percent drop in their enrollment. In schools run by the Directorate of Education, only 1 percent of the pupils are girls. The percentage of female teachers, too, has slid from 59.2 per cent in 1990 to 13.5 per cent in 1999." The Taliban regime was considered by some Muslims to be no more than a sect, one that was not recognized by most Muslim nations and was an incorrect representation of Islamic teachings. However, it was also recognised by many Sunni Muslims as the most thorough attempt to implement Sharia in the past century.

Women in the mosque

Resolved

 – Calliopejen1 06:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the work and changes going on have been detailed and careful. The only large-scale one I find glaring is as follows. One sourced paragraph, which provides a useful historical and modern overview, has disappeared, and another, without sources and largely about men (not women), has replaced it. The section title is now "Women in the mosque", which the section isn't entirely about. It jars with the rest of the (much improved) article.

Original paragraph (now gone):

At the time of Muhammad, the women prayed at the rear of the building while the men were at the front; however, they would have been within earshot of the imam (leader), and any men entering the mosque would have had to pass them. A saying attributed to Muhammad is: "Do not forbid the mosques of Allah to the women of Allah". Also, on the Hajj, the mandatory pilgrimage to Mecca, men and women pray side by side. In most modern mosques, however, women and men are segregated into separate sections, where they perform ablutions (wuzu) and prayers (salat). Any women's groups or classes will normally be held here too. Usually there are separate doors for each gender, with the children entering with their mothers before being led to madrassa (religious school).

Current paragraph:

On Fridays many Muslims pray in congregation, and men, women, and children are segregated into separate groups. (See "Sex segregation" above.) Every other day in the home the family prays together. The man will lead the prayers, as he is considered the head of the household. His wife and children will stand behind him as they pray. The man, as the leader of the prayers, also has the obligation to look after the family's copy of the Qur'an -- it is he who will take it from its place of rest, uncover it and place it on its reading stand, and then back again.

I find the original version more useful. Can we re-incorporate it?BrainyBabe 16:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Not sure if I accidentally deleted that.... Calliopejen1 17:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift reply. Yes, it appears that you did delete that para, which I will re-add. Also, I think, you inserted the second one. Can we delete that too? BrainyBabe 17:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, now I see what I did. The content was moved into the sex segregation subpage, with a note under sex segregation taht sex segregation is important within mosques. I don't feel too strongly about whether these details should be retained on the main page or should be moved into the subpage. The other paragraph is unsourced, but if true it adds some new information about the roles of men and women during worship. I don't feel too strongly about it either. Calliopejen1 20:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've moved that seocnd para to Gender roles in Islam (and THAT article is a mess, but there's only so much one can do...). I think THIS article is tightening up well. BrainyBabe 20:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Education

Unresolved

 – Calliopejen1 06:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be great to have a short section on women's education and Islam if anyone is inclined to do a bit of research. Calliopejen1 20:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Repetition

Para is repeated under gender roles and then Right to work. Where should it go? BrainyBabe 20:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and deleted it from the latter. BrainyBabe 15:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro rewrite

Unresolved

 – Calliopejen1 06:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm undertaking a rewrite of the intro because it has been accused of npov violations (which I don't really see, but oh well) and because it introduces facts (some unsourced) that aren't included in the body of the article. I'm going to try to integrate the sourced content from the second paragraph into the other parts of the article, then remove it. Calliopejen1 08:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of contradictory paragraph

I can't make any sense of this. I removed it from the "Legal matters: right to give testimony" section. BrainyBabe 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"There is however a difference of opinion among the companions of Imam Malik regarding bodily affairs which relate to wealth, like advocacy and will-testaments, which do not specifically relate to wealth. Consequently, Ash-hab and Ibn Majishun accept two male witnesses only in these affairs, while to Malik Ibn Qasim and Ibn Wahab two female and a male witness are acceptable."

Another contradiction

This one is from the marriage intro. It says a guardian called a wali can give away a young girl, but only under certain circumstnaces. Then it refers to the guardian being her father or son. I don't have access to the texts. Can someone sort this out? BrainyBabe 15:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Under Hanafi fiqh, the wali (male guardian of an unmarried woman) may give in marriage a girl who is a virgin and also a minor, after informing her that her suitor has presented himself. Her silence is taken as consent, but even if she says that she does not consent, the marriage is still lawful. Hanafi fiqh also strictly requires in such a case that the wali should be the bride's father, or else her son or other relative in the descendant line, if she has one; if not, then some other male relative may act.

WP:EL cleanup

I just went through and deleted a ton of external links. I did my best to sort out what came from authoritative sites and what didn't, but I definitely could have made mistakes. If anyone wants to re-add some of these, I won't feel offended. :) Here's the original list of links, with duplicates removed:

• Women in Islam Vs Women in the Judaeo-Christian Tradition - Sherif Abdul Azeem - WAMY
• [allaahuakbar.net/womens/index.htm Women in Islam] A Salafi perspective
• Women in Muslim History: Traditional Perspectives and New Strategies
• Islam and Women's Rights
• Free and Equal under the Qur'an - an analysis by Havva G Guney-Ruebenacker
• BackToIslam.com Articles about Women in Islam
• More to life than window dressing In this special feature, a successful Belgian-Algerian Muslim woman recounts what it was like growing up immersed in two cultures with divergent views of women. August 2006
• Women, Islam, and the New Iraq, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2006
• The status of women in Islam by a Muslim author
• How parental rights are not granted to women when it comes to divorce and children's movement Real stories
• Relation of the Sexes, a lecture by Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall in 1925
• Women's Position in Islam
• "Muslim Women, By: Sultan Al-Farhood" http://www.islam-truth.com/Muslim_Women.htm
• IslamicFeminism.org
• Tafseer of Surah an-Nisa, Ayah 34 Dr. Ahmad Shafaat, Islamic Perspectives. August 10, 2005
• Muslim women take charge of their faith, International Herald Tribune, December 4, 2005
• Gaza women join Hamas fighters by Khaled Abu Toameh, published in the Jerusalem Post August 21, 2005
• The Position of Women in Islam, online book.
• "WOMEN IN THE MIDDLE EAST: PROGRESS OR REGRESS?" Middle East Review of International Affairs, Volume 10, No. 2, Article 2 - June 2006
• The Modern Muslimah Forum
• The First Muslim Woman on Record to Lead a Public Mixed-Gender Jum'ah Prayer
• A Statement from the Organizers of the March 18th Woman-led Jum’ah Prayer - MWA!
• The central role of women in Islam and Islamic history
• "The Liberation of Women in the Middle East" by Azam Kamguian.
• A Sufi feminist perspective
• Afghan women under Taliban rule
• In memory of Saint Jani A site dedicated to a Muslim woman
• The Noble Women Scholars of Hadeeth
• Skeptics Annotated Quran: Women in the Quran
• Women scholars in Islam by Khalid Abou El Fadl

Newest merge proposal (Women in the Qur'an)

Just found yet another (partially) redundant article! I think the bits about the status and role of women generally should be merged into this article, but the accounts of specific women should be left as is where is. Calliopejen1 03:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. That article should be about female people (girls and women) mentioned in the Quran; this one should incorporate the sections on rights, responsibilities, spirituality, etc. BrainyBabe 14:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible content to incorporate from Women in the Qur'an

I was cleaning up that article... Looks like most of this is already in Women and Islam but it may contain some good supporting citations.

History

It must be noted, that although the Quran does not grant men and women the same rights in regards to certain issues, some Muslims believe that the scripture nevertheless alleviated the position of women on a social and economic basis, in comparison to the treatment of women within various pre-Islamic faiths (that arose before the 7th century CE). [10]

The Quran accords both sexes with different rights, as it argues that women are distinct from men and vice versa. Thus the Quran says:

"And for women are rights over men similar to those of men over women according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them." ^{[Quran 2:228]}

Financial rights

Regarding inheritance the Quran says:

"From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or large, - a determinate share." ^[Quran 4:7]

Other verses grant women a lesser share than men:

"God chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance, and if there be one (only) then the half" ^{[Quran 4:11]}

"They ask thee for a legal decision. Say: God directs (thus) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs. If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the inheritance: If (such a deceased was) a woman, who left no child, Her brother takes her inheritance: If there are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance (between them): if there are brothers and sisters, (they share), the male having twice the share of the female. Thus doth God make clear to you (His law), lest ye err. And God hath knowledge of all things." ^{[Quran 4:176]}

In response, orthodox Muslims contend that men are expected to meet their responsibility to fulfill the financial needs of their female relatives. Women, however, are under no such obligation.

The Quran makes it obligatory for men to provide for their ex-wives:

"For divorced women Maintenance (should be provided) on a reasonable (scale). This is a duty on the righteous." ^{[Quran 2:241]}

If the woman gains custody of a child then the man must provide for his offspring as well:

"And the mothers may nurse their children for two whole years, if they wish to complete the period of nursing; and it is incumbent upon him who has begotten the child to provide in a fair manner for their sustenance and clothing." ^{[Quran 2:233]}

A man is also ordered to make arrangements for his widow:

"Those of you who die and leave widows should bequeath for their widows a year's maintenance and residence ..." ^{[Quran 2:240]}

Right to divorce

Marriage in Islam is perceived by some as a sanctified bond that should not be broken except for compelling reasons and/or as a last resort. Couples are instructed to pursue all possible remedies whenever their marriages are in danger. [11]

"And if ye fear a breach between them twain (the man and wife), appoint an arbiter from his folk and an arbiter from her folk. If they desire amendment God will make them of one mind. Lo! God is ever Knower, Aware." ^{[Quran 4:35]}

Although, the Quran does give the husband the primary right to dissolve his marriage over a four-month delay period ^{[Quran 2:226]}, during a time in which his wife may become pregnant and/or there may be a possible reconciliation between the couple ^{[Quran 2:228]}.

But at the same time, the scripture also allows the wife to end her marital union through a Muslim court under certain circumstances, such as when she's faced with: cruelty, desertion without a reason and/or the unfulfillment of conjugal responsibilities etc. on the part of her husband: [12]

"If a woman feareth ill treatment from her husband, or desertion, it is no sin for them twain if they make terms of peace between themselves. Peace is better. But greed hath been made present in the minds (of men)." ^{[Quran 4:128]}

Some also interpret the following verse, as to allowing a woman to end her marriage (through Khula), by returning the wedding dower that was given to her by her husband. [13] This in compensation for choosing to leave a man who has not created any offenses within the marriage: [14]

"It is not lawful for you (Men) to take back any of your gifts except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by God. There is no blame on either of them if she give something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by God so do not transgress them." ^{[Quran 2:229]}

Either way, the husband is not allowed to keep his wife in a marriage against her will: [15]

"When ye have divorced women, and they have reached their term, then retain them in kindness or release them in kindness. Retain them not to their hurt so that ye transgress (the limits). He who doeth that hath wronged his soul. Make not the revelations of God a laughing-stock (by your behaviour)." ^{[Quran 2:231]}

Right to remarry

The Quran allows divorced women to remarry:

"And when ye have divorced women and they reach their term, place not difficulties in the way of their marrying their husbands if it is agreed between them in kindness." ^{[Quran 2:232]}

Response to VoluntarySlave

Salaam,

Thank you very much for adding the references, but how can they be classified in political terms? What may be liberal to one is moderate to another, conservative to another. I know this from experience, for I am conservative to liberals, liberal to conservatives, so, I may be right down the middle, a moderate. It is as told; there is no prohibition against Muslim women marrying men of the Book in the sharia, only in fiqh. That is not a liberal, moderate or conservative position. It is simply a fact. The reasoning used to create a prohibition is man made and derived from traditional cultural notions of women as property, needing to be controlled. If this can be deemed to be a tenet of Islam, I would love to know how. FOA 20:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to challenge to revision (shortened version)

Muslim Woman and Non-Muslim Man

A revision that I made to the section about marriage that, before editing, stated that Muslim women are forbidden from marriage with men other than Muslim men has been cited as contradicting an about.islam.com article. I'm not sure how about.islam became the measure of what is Islamic, but I'll play along. This is the article, with emphasis added by me:

Interfaith Marriage in Islam

The Qur'an lays out clear guidelines for marriage. One of the main traits you should look for in a potential spouse is a similarity in religious outlook. For the sake of compatibility, and the upbringing of future children, it is most recommended for a Muslim to marry another Muslim. However, in some circumstances it is permissible for a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim.

Muslim Man and Non-Muslim Woman

In general, Muslim men are not permitted to marry non-Muslim women. "Do not marry unbelieving women until they believe. A slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, even though she allures you.... Unbelievers beckon you to the Fire. But Allah beckons by His Grace to the garden of bliss and forgiveness. And He makes His signs clear to mankind, that they may receive admonition" (Qur'an 2:221).

An exception is made for Muslim men to marry chaste or pious Jewish and Christian women, who are referred to as "People of the Book." This comes from the understanding that Jews and Christians share similar religious outlooks - a belief in One God, following the commandments of Allah, a belief in revealed scripture (Books), etc. "This day are all things good and pure made lawful to you.... Lawful to you in marriage are not only chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time, when you give them their due dowers, and desire chastity not lewdness. If any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost" (Qur'an 5:5).

The children of such a union are always to be raised in the faith of Islam. This should be discussed thoroughly by the couple before they decide to marry.

Muslim Woman and Non-Muslim Man

Under no conditions is a Muslim woman permitted to marry anyone but a Muslim man. The same verse cited above (2:221) mentions, "Nor marry your girls to unbelievers until they believe. A man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever...." No exception is given for women to marry Jews and Christians, so the law stands that she may only marry a believing (Muslim) man. As head of the household, the husband provides leadership for the family. A Muslim woman does not follow the leadership of someone who does not share her faith and values.

My comments:

Despite the claims of this article, which contradicts itself, there is no basis for creating a prohibition against Muslim women marrying men of the Book in the Quran nor in the Sunnah. First of all, an "exception" for men in the Quran would mean that the Quran has been abrogated from its original Message since the advent of Islam in the time of Adam, the first Prophet of Islam. Abrogation is a highly debatable position to take when dealing with the Holy Book.

Second, a basic principle of Islamic jurisprudence is the asl al-deen: The halal is that which Allah has made lawful in His Book and haram is that which He has forbidden, and that concerning which He is silent He has permitted as a favour to you.* Since ayah 2:221, as referred to by the article, prohibits marriage to 'idolaters' for both Muslim men and Muslim women, one need provide further support for the supposition that Christians and Jews (ahl al kitab) are 'idolaters', ie, committing shirk, requiring an exception for any Muslim to marry among them.

Since the Quran states repeatedly that no 'idolaters' will be rewarded for their rejection of faith and failure to submit to His Will, one way we can determine if ahl al kitab are included among them is to research who are those that Allah says can possibly be included.

[2.62] Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

[5.69] Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

So, clearly, the group "ahl al kitab" is not among those who are lost.

An excerpt from the article states:

An exception is made for Muslim men to marry chaste or pious Jewish and Christian women, who are referred to as "People of the Book." This comes from the understanding that Jews and Christians share similar religious outlooks - a belief in One God, following the commandments of Allah, a belief in revealed scripture (Books), etc. "This day are all things good and pure made lawful to you.... Lawful to you in marriage are not only chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time, when you give them their due dowers, and desire chastity not lewdness. If any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost" (Qur'an 5:5).

There is a contradiction inherent in the statement that Jews and Christians share similar religious outlooks - a belief in One God, following the commandments of Allah, a belief in revealed scripture (Books), etc., so Muslim men can marry their women, but Muslim women can't marry their men using the same ayah that prohibits both men and women from marriage with 'idolaters'. No debatable, man-made abrogation is required.

5:5 is referred to as the ayah that created the "exception" for men.

This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).

However, since no exception is needed, does the explicit permission granted here constitute a prohibition for women? The general rule is that as the majority of law giving in the Quran is directed to men, they is also extended to women. For example, I know from hadith that many of the foods of the ahl al kitab are permissible to me, a woman, if I say 'Bismillah' over it before I eat. This permission is embeded in an ayah that we are told limits interfaith marriage to men, yet doesn't limit eating the food of the ahl al kitab to men.

There is no prohibition in the Quran nor the Sunnah against Muslim women marrying ahl al kitab men. That comes from fiqh law, and can, thus, be considered to be mukruh rather than impermissible. Fiqh law also considers marriage between Muslim men and non-Muslim women living in the west to be mukruh, but that is rarely cited, creating the impression that the same source , fiqh, can be taken so seriously that it can create sinful acts for women that Allah did not, or be completely ignored when ruling against a privilege for men.

I have examples of the above and regarding challenges to the tradtion, which is based on Arab patriarchy and the concept that women follow the lead of men, which is not Quranic, but tribal. The assertion in the article that "As head of the household, the husband provides leadership for the family. A Muslim woman does not follow the leadership of someone who does not share her faith and values." is very telling of this tradition. In Islam, women follow the leadership of God, not man. The requirments for doing so are the same for both:

[33.35] For Muslim men and women,- for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in Charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in God's praise,- for them has God prepared forgiveness and great reward.

(Citations available in my talk)

I have not yet learned how to add citations or to do some of the fancy things available here, but I will learn. I would appreciate it if the cultural aspects that have been incorporated in Islam and which constitute ethno-Arab traditional interpretations can be discerned without the dependence on websites as the arbitors. As Dr. Turabi said, we should always refer to the origins that are Quran and Sunnah, and no prohibition against intefaith marriage for Muslimas can be found there.

I can add more historical context, if requested.

Humbly submitted FOA 20:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Reported in Al-Hakim, classified as sahih (sound)

Cousin marriage

The following sentence was removed, with the comment that it wasn't relevant to the article on women.

It is permissable to marry one's cousin.

I think this brief statement within the section on restrictions on marriage should be re-added. Many cultures around the world have prohibitions or taboos against cousin marriage; others encourage it. Different religions, contemporary and historical, have had different rules in favour or against. It is useful to have a simple statement that Islam does not ban it. Cousin marriages are relatively common in some Muslim-majority nations (eg Pakistan), and it would be helpful to the reader to point out that, in the case of this religion, there are no prohibitions against it. If no one objects I will re-add it in a day or two. BrainyBabe 13:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I still think this is not something that belongs in this article, and I think should be in Islamic marital jurisprudence instead. As far as I know, this rule would affect women and men in the same way (and yet is not notable as an example of parity, which would also belong in the article). I also don't think it's relevant to the status of women. If I'm missing something, please explain. Calliopejen1 13:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The same argument about parity (whether it is deemed notable or not) could be made at several points within the article, e.g. age restrictions on marriage, and the sentence "According to Islamic law (sharia), marriage cannot be forced." In practice, among Muslim immigrant communities in the West, cousin marriage is relatively common, as an arranged (or occasionally forced) match and partly as a way to bring another family member to the destination country, and this is something that affects young women especially. It is merely one brief sentence with a useful wikilink that adds to the overall understanding of the piece. I will add it to the Islamic marital jurisprudence as well, but thinkit fits neatly here too. BrainyBabe 12:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference section needs repair

The reference section from #51 down are all jumbled together. I sought to fix them, but can't.

I'm not seeing this anymore, so I'm assuming it's been fixed? Calliopejen1 00:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

PS - Is there a section on "Men In Islam"? If not, why not?

For starters, there's much less written on it. (For example, a google search for "women and islam" pulls up about 90,000 results, while "men and islam" pulls up 500). There's no reason we can't have such an article though, so feel free to start one if you'd like (with the obvious caveat of citing reliable sources, etc etc). Calliopejen1 00:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Calliopejen1. It does look like they're fixed.

Women in Islam is a western obesession. Men in Islam is clearly underrepresented. I may just start the page. FOA 09:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Restrictions on marriage

We seem to keep moving back and forth between two versions of the section on whether Muslim women are permitted to marry non-Muslims. One claims that there is diversity of opinion on the topic, sourcing this to a statements or interviews with some fairly prominent Islamic scholars. There doesn't seem to be any problem of reliability with the sources here; but this version might give undue weight to a minority view.

The other version is more problematic, however. This version asserts as undisputed the idea that Muslim women may not marry non-Muslims, sourcing this to Yohanan Friedmann's Tolerance and Coercion in Islam. I don't doubt that this is an impeccable scholarly source; the problem is that, on the pages given as references at least, it doesn't say that Muslim women are not permitted to marry non-Muslims; what it does say is that Muslims are not permitted to put themselves in an inferior position to non-Muslims. The inference from this that Muslim women are not permitted to marry non-Muslims appears to be contribution of a Wikipedia editor, not a reliable source.

Anyway, this is just to explain what I take to be at stake in the back-and-forth over this section. Currently the best-sourced version appears to be the version that discusses the question as controversial, but there do appear to be questions over that version too. VoluntarySlave 05:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There are two pages cited. Please defend your use of about.com. Arrow740 05:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I know, that's why I said "pages". Maybe I've missed something in the source, though - if it does explicitly discuss the marriage issue, please quote it. And, what use of about.com? There's only one ref. to about.com that I can see, in a different section of the article. VoluntarySlave 06:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have NEVER used about.com as a reference. That is a misunderstanding on the part of Arrow740 who has not read my comments here carefully, nor, has read my citations. The reference to about.com is from a challenge to my revision by another revisor who used about.com as HER source to challenge my revision. If you look, you can see that my response states that I don't know how about.com became a reliable source.

I have been offering the version that cites a diversity of opinion. However, I don't see this as giving weight to a minority view since the "prohibition" is from fiqh and not sourced directly from the Quran nor the Prophet's Sunnah, and fiqh may be challenged as applicable for all times and places. My comments in an earlier response cites the fact that there is no verse in the Quran that restricts Muslim women to Muslim men, nor prohibits them from marriage with men of the Book; that they are limited is an interpretation that is challenged. Marriage between Muslim women and ahl al kitab men can only be mukruh because since Allah reserves the pronouncement of sins for Himself. If someone can show that Allah pronounced it to be a sin, I would love to see it that source. In addition, there is substantive evidence to show that not only did Muslimas (including one of the Prophet's daughter's) remain married to non-Muslim men for many years after their own converisons, there is evidence that learned early Muslims did not oppose the practice of Muslimas marrying non-Muslim men.

The same source that "prohibited" Muslim women from marriage with men of the Book also "prohibited" Muslim men from marriage with ahl al kitab women in the west. They did so under the same legal principle that was done to restrict women, mashlaha, the preservation of the best interest of the ummah. But, as is the "prohibition" against women marrying out, this "prohibition" is also not a sin and can be only considered to be mukrah. However, there is a true double standard in that two laws, upheld for centuries, are given such vastly different emphasis and weight, so that Muslim men feel few restrictions on whom they marry, but Muslim women are allowed to believe God has created a sin exclusive to them. Wikipedia is not intended to be a place that slants to one view over another.

The scholars that I cite in my version are traditionally trained, as am I. They simply do not put the interest of a long held ijima before what they see in their own examination of the authoritative sources of law. The early imams did not consider themselves to be infallible, but encouraged exploration and even rejection of their views if they were found to be incorrect. I am no raging Muslim feminist. I am simply a humble perpetual student of the faith who wishes to present an objective view of the Word, unbiased by cultural practices (which fiqh takes into consideration). It would be best to be fair to conflicting views, and I have hoped to do that by acknowledging that there has been a tradition of prohibition, that fiqh has created it, and that there are those who challenge it.

The conflicting revision is clearly biased, imo. To say that it is prohibited due to a Muslim need to avoid inferiority, but that Muslim inferiority can only be brought about by interfaith marriage with ahl al kitab men opens a whole can of worms about presumptions about what Islam teaches about gender roles, and why Muslim men who marry ahl al kitab women are not put into an inferior position by doing so. Oh, but figh rulings about interfaith marriage with ahl kitab women in the west says just that! Thus, while Islamic law acknowledges the possiblity of any Muslim, male or female, being put into an inferior position thru marriage with an ahl kitabi, the Quran still does not forbid, nor encourage it for either gender.

I would like the opportunity to settle the issues around this section so that I may move on to other areas that I would like to engage in with the limited time I have to spend here. Thank you for reading my rather lengthy response. FollowerofAllah FOA 06:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I could see the section was sourced to Khaleel Mohammed so to remove them complaining about something else("about.com") is strange. --Aminz 07:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that there is an effort to impose a limited view of this issue on this page. Despite the challenge to the revisor's including his/her own personal prejudices into the section (cited in VoluntarySlave's comment), he/she continues to replace a well-cited section with less objective and unbalanced revision that suits their own agenda.

It would be appropriate for Arrow740 to explain why he/she believes that his opinion carries more weight than those of three prominent scholars cited in my version so that his/her rationale may be evaluated. I haven't come under the impression that Arrow740 is an Islamic scholar of any note, or even a follower or student of Islamic law and history. If I am wrong, please correct me. FollowerofAllah FOA 16:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Which part of WP:ATT did you not understand? Please stop "balancing' material referenced to a reliable source with claims from random websites. Beit Or 20:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of inserting biased slanted opinion don't you understand? There are LOADS of websites cited in that reference list, but mine are the only ones that offend you? + Muslims may not place themselves in a position inferior to that of the followers of other religions. Pursuant to this principle, Muslim women may not marry non-Muslim men. The quote from Friedman bears no logical relationship to the second sentence, and has no greater support in the WP:ATT or reliable source than does mine except to be slanted. When did Thomas Friedman become an Islamic scholar? What makes his opinion a more superior source than the scorned about.com? How can excluding the public opinions of valid Islamic scholars with a secular journalist's be construed as anything other than prejudice? Surely, there are better and more credible sources re this issue. I refer you to neutral point of view. What about neutral point of view is so hard to understand?

Please stop insisting that this quote bears any substantial weight to the issue, and that it outranks the opinions of Islamic legal scholars. Perhaps, it will be best to simply cut the entire section re restrictions on marriage since it seems to be playground for mischief rather than a meaningful addition to the information. Meanwhile, I have combined both views; the Friedman quote is undoubtedly the extremist position. FollowerofAllah FOA 07:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that support your claims. Please stop inserting links to random websites that you have unearthed. Beit Or 19:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, the text you removed is sourced to Dunstan M. Wai, The Southern Sudan: The Problem of National Integration (published by Routledge, a mainstream publisher), an article by Khaleel Mohammed (a professor of religion at San Diego State, that is to say, a credentialed academic) and an interview with Hassan Turabi (a notable cleric) in a "major pan-Arabic news daily". It seems to me that these are all reliable sources - please explain specifically what you think is wrong with them, rather than reverting. In particular, please don't revert to a version that gives inaccurate page references to the Friedmann book - neither page 35 nor page 37 discuss marriage; page 162 does mention marriage in connection with the prohibition on Muslims placing themselves in a subordinate position to non-Muslims, so would be a good reference for that interpretation. VoluntarySlave 22:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wai confirms thje rest of the section. Though redundant, he can be retained. The rest are random websites. Khaleel Muhammad may be a decent man, but he is a minor scholar and the website where he published himself is not a reliable source. Beit Or 17:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wai says that the restriction on Muslim women marrying non-Muslims is dominant but not universal; given that he seems to think that it's worth mentioning the difference of opinion here, isn't it worth us including a sentence on it too? As for the Khaleel Muhammad and Turabi cites, I think they're reliable as evidence of the views of the authors themselves, that is, as examples of jurists who dissent from the dominant view. I don't know that either of them are notable enough to justify mentioning their dissent by itself; but as examples of a minority opinion mentioned by a secondary source (Wai), I think there's an argument for including them. VoluntarySlave 20:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see ijma. In Islamic law, a view that goes against the consensus (a minority view as you put it) has no strength. Khaleel Muhammad is not an Islamic scholar; he cannot issue fatwas (and even if he could, see above). Beit Or 20:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no ijima regarding what constitutes ijima. Additionally, no Muslim of any rank can create a sin where God has not. I posted scholars who maintain that they cannot find any prohibition in the sharia, the divine law, that opposes or denies marrying out to Muslim women. Fiqh is not divine, is applied to specific populations, circumstances and times, and may be challenged. The "prohibition" is from fiqh and not sharia. There is a distinction to be made and I may expand the section to include it.

Please explain why is Friedmann, another source that cannot issue fatwas (if that is the measure of validity, he fails), a reliable source re Islamic law and the application of a "law" against Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men? Why is it not proper to state that there is a challenge to the tradition that there is a prohibition in sharia against interfaith marriage for Muslim women? In fact, the reference to Khaled Abou El Fadl can be referenced to more than one idea in the section. His fatwa, which is specifically about interfaith marriage for Muslim women, states that he finds no prohibition in the sharia pertaining to it, and he is no minor scholar. Neither is Mohammad; he has ijaza from Shia and Sunni schools. We need to come to a suitable and NEUTRAL compromise that does not rely on a non-Muslim to decide Islamic practice. FollowerofAllah FOA 20:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, VoluntarySlave. Why is it that all of a sudden, this small section of an article has garnered so much interest and antagonism from people who believe that Muslim scholars with ijaza have no credibility? I frankly don't care who gets it right, as long as they get it right. I'm also curious as to your objections to the sources, Beit Or. They are not "random websites", as you claim, and they are certainly not the only websites in the reference list. Your objections appear arbitrary, under the circumstances. FOA 01:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Reliable source, citation #59 of the neutral version of the disputed text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_Abou_El_Fadl Reliable source, citation #63 of the neutral version of the disputed text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_al-Turabi Reliable source, citation #62 of the neutral version of the disputed text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaleel_Mohammed FOA 01:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740's latest revision. He complains about Khaled Mohammad, but retains Freidmann, as though he is a higher authority of Islam:

- Islamic jurists have traditionally held that Muslim women may only enter into marriage with Muslim men. This principle exists because Muslims may not place themselves in a position inferior to that of the followers of other religions.

Freidmann has no undue authority or weight over the tenets of Islam. To retain him while eliminating valid dissenters does not promote neutrality, and elevates a non-Muslim over Muslim scholars, who have the right to interpret law, as that is what Islamic scholars tend to do. Apparently, Arrow believes in Friedmann more than s/he believes in allowing Muslims to pose valid and reasoned challenges to the status quo. Is that a substantial platform upon which to rely upon one's own preferences instead of allowing for diversity of thought, a tradition in Islamic jurisprudence? FollowerofAllah FOA 05:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Good job, Calliopejen1 !

I like your edit to Restrictions on Marriage. I was looking for ways to do a better incorporation, and you did well! FOA 08:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! But note that I don't necessarily approve of the sources you've chosen because I haven't looked over them... You'll still have to deal with the other editors about that. Calliopejen1 09:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I just did a quick search in google books for

marriage OR marry "muslim woman" OR "muslim women" "non-muslim man" OR "non-muslim men"

and here are the top seven or so results that I could access. Lots of good information here. Some writers seem to go each way, but most say it is not permitted. Maybe others want to look at more of the book results even beyond these. Calliopejen1 16:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

*http://books.google.com/books?id=46gI7MAgiOkC&pg=PA70&ots=fmJ_YYnMDQ&dq=marriage+OR+marry+%22muslim+woman%22+OR+%22muslim+women%22+%22non-muslim+man%22+OR+%22non-muslim+men%22&sig=-yNCR3xYigX-jgkVoz5HFFCMmsQ

* http://books.google.com/books?id=TF2fVxyws90C&pg=PA28&ots=m64GSFGW8Z&dq=marriage+OR+marry+%22muslim+woman%22+OR+%22muslim+women%22+%22non-muslim+man%22+OR+%22non-muslim+men%22&sig=RYtArCAHQZWMSqd67k-dZr7hdNE

* http://books.google.com/books?id=mpQCjXm0HAwC&pg=PA131&ots=V0TT3wFuw0&dq=marriage+OR+marry+%22muslim+woman%22+OR+%22muslim+women%22+%22non-muslim+man%22+OR+%22non-muslim+men%22&sig=xmWpJnlWd6J-pzidPAFW3XLXxMc

* http://books.google.com/books?id=Yq5AUlWjZpsC&pg=PA267&ots=RxKzWOQqkc&dq=marriage+OR+marry+%22muslim+woman%22+OR+%22muslim+women%22+%22non-muslim+man%22+OR+%22non-muslim+men%22&sig=nBQ7Kp2h1o16ThRzaaWn-VS3z3M

* http://books.google.com/books?id=R1Wsf79ufqkC&pg=RA1-PA259&ots=4zHCtdFywZ&dq=marriage+OR+marry+%22muslim+woman%22+OR+%22muslim+women%22+%22non-muslim+man%22+OR+%22non-muslim+men%22&sig=Yr-v0tpQztTtN1VyAH7Fi4TvY7s

* http://books.google.com/books?id=a0nToibj6K4C&pg=PA163&ots=98VtFCfzDP&dq=marriage+OR+marry+%22muslim+woman%22+OR+%22muslim+women%22+%22non-muslim+man%22+OR+%22non-muslim+men%22&sig=wce0dQPIql1tzk2GpKIEvcuYhdk#PPA162,M1

* http://books.google.com/books?id=OTx1qbA8OW8C&pg=PA483&ots=yQUSOhcIPp&dq=marriage+OR+marry+%22muslim+woman%22+OR+%22muslim+women%22+%22non-muslim+man%22+OR+%22non-muslim+men%22&sig=Sqc00jlL6qgtUwGYPGXwmO0iOZg

Thank you! I do have book references, but I have to learn how to incorporate them as cites. I also acknowledge, in the neutral version, that fiqh rulings do say it is not allowed, but it should be also acknowledged that the rulings disallow it under the same principle, mashlaha, that marriage with non-Muslim women is deemed to be not allowed in the west - the best interest of the Muslim community, not because it is explicity forbidden by the Quran or the Sunnah. Muslim men marry non-Muslim women in the west all the time, and rarely is it ever denounced as a violation of fiqh law (the reference to Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl's website mentions this restriction.) The Caliph Umar forbid Muslim men to marry ahl al kitab women under that principle, as do one or two other countries today, so it has precedent. The over emphasis on disallowing Muslim women under fiqh law and allowing Muslim men to do what fiqh has ruled against is a topic that will need addressing as part and parcel fo the politics of fiqh culture, and this is but a tidbit of it. If we are going to have a section called "Restrictions in Marriage", let's keep it real and not bind it into a personal agenda based on one biased source (Friedman). Thanks again! FollowerofAllah FOA 18:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The template you want for citing book references is (memorably enough) {{Cite book}}, which like {{Cite web}} goes inside <ref name="SOMETHINGUNIQUE">...</ref>. :) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

pasted from Criticism of Islam

This is POV but maybe has some facts that could be incorporated. Calliopejen1 22:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Women are treated as second class citizens in many Islamic countries and societies. This disparity stems form the fact that equal rights are not granted to women. The Qu'ran is interpreted as an affirmation of the patriarchal nature of Islamic societies. The rule of talaaq or divorce is one of the most misused ones particularly in India. The Qu'ran holds that divorce should be a lengthy and drawn out affair giving ample time and scope for reconciliation. However the interpretation of the verses as triple talaaq or instant divorce by only saying "Talaaq ! Talaaq ! Talaaq !" is more popular to dissolve marriages. All the rights of the woman are usurped. Central and State Governments in India have been criticised by Muslim scholars when they have attempted to intervene in such matters to secure the rights of women. Some Muslim countries have permitted divorce by newer technologies like text messages so that the Muslim man can divorce to his wife by sending her a text message without having to ever see her.

Women in some muslim countries have "FEWER" rights

How can you possibly dispute that? To say they have "different" rights is misleading. Women can't testify in court, dont have choices in marriage, don't have choices in atire: that means they have FEWER rights. Come on people, there's no reason to go overboard politically correct here and beat around the bush. In some muslim-dominated countries, women have FEWER rights. Period. 70.234.159.24 22:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

that's an uncited point of view. please see our policy on neutrality. i don't necessarily advocate using the word "different", but it is less biased than "fewer." ITAQALLAH 22:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of the WP:NPOV policy. But it does not apply here, as my suggestion does not show a POV. Count the rights of women in countries where Islamic law is the state law, such as Iran, and you will simply see fewer rights belonging to women, period. It's not a POV. Women once had fewer rights than men in the United States, and blacks had fewer rights than whites over 100 years ago. Not different rights: fewer rights. The same is true with women in muslim nations like Iran today. The phrase "different" was misleading, as "different" can imply a number of things from "different but equal" rights to "a different amount of rights." "Fewer" rights is the most accurate term that should be used. 70.234.159.24 22:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

to suggest that Islamic law offers less rights for women - which it seems you are - is simply a viewpoint and an assertion which is not cited to any reliable sources. ITAQALLAH 22:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he is suggesting that many Islamic countries give women fewer rights, regardless of how scholars interpret the religion. 140.247.243.169 09:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

what has a country's being "Islamic" got to do with women's rights if it's not related to Islamic law? ITAQALLAH 21:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Although a claim sourced to primary sources is bieng inserted ([16]), we need secondary sources to verify this. The souces used are Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud and Tabari. None of these are reliable, nore secondary.

I request that if someone can provide a secondary souce, then do so, else this claim will be removed.Bless sins (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

what is wrong with Tabari? Yahel Guhan 09:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Tabari is a medieval historian. Unless you believe Muhammad was the "Apostle of Allah" you may not agree with him, as he presents the orthodox Islamic view (which was prevalent at the time he flourished). For history we generally use modern sources.Bless sins (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not mentioned or cited anywhere in the article that I could find. She is a very opinionated person who spreads text which is borderline on inflammatory.

Wikipedia, to my knowledge - is an unbiased source for information. If Ayaan Hirsi Ali is discussed, she should be discussed on her own, and noted somewhere.

If pictures are cited / used in articles, they should be relevant to the article, enhance the article, or at least mentioned in some way. I'm certain most people would agree with this. If Ms. Ali's photo is required in the article, then there should be a section shedding light on her role in this subject.

Thus far, there is none.

--Kyanwan (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Colgate University Editing Project

Hello fellow editors, our usernames our dcunningham, rdlibutti, and killernibbles. We are students at Colgate University in a class entitled Women and Religious Traditions:Islam. We are working on a project to edit the religious life section of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcunningham14 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Important need to clarify what is within the scope of the article

There seems to be lots of the discussion here in on the treatment of Women in Arab societies and not the religious doctrine of Islam as it relates to women. I think that this article should focus itself on the latter, the social and cultural position of women in predominantly Islamic societies being only a tangent to Women in Islam, Islam being a theological doctrine.

That being said, the page is still lacking and should draw out more on topics like Zina and Islamic Marital Jurisprudence which are part of or an extension of Sharia and therefore properly doctrinal.

Discussion on the prevalence of rape or societal issues of oppression/education/violence/intercourse/women's rights are not part of Islam as a doctrine (unless, again, they are discussed as part of Sharia or as they appear in the Qua'ran) and belong on a page like Women in Arab societies (which is, by the way, in quite bad shape at the time of this writing) or Islamic Feminism or maybe rape or female education or violence against women or something like women in Iraq. Unless you mean to discuss the associated Islamic theology these topics really do not seem to belong here. --68.149.110.63 (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Lack of female point of view

This article is male centric and does not give a female point of view. It does not speak much of oppression of women and the inferiority in men. It doesn't talk about the security of Muslim women, nor does it talk about the polygamy practices that are supposed to be followed only by men. It says nothing about weighing a man's word as twice that of a woman's in court etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prathik Rajendran M (talk • contribs) 08:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Muslim scholars as reference

In my opinion, this article shouldn't refer to muslim scholars' interpretation of Quran or Hadith if there's a direct verse available. Scholars don't represent the whole religion as well. 86.50.66.241 (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is horrible; I fail to see how it recieved a passing grade in quality. This article is under culture and society in Islam, thus it should discuss real world findings on women in Islam. This article reads as how they interpret the quran with real world stuff sprinkled on. The best thing to do would be seporate the article into two articles, one on Women in Islam society and the other on women according to the quran. --68.9.206.216 (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Doesn't wikipedia prefer secondary sources to primary WP:NOR? Most of the interpretations of the Qua'ran are going to be from Islamic scholars but if you find competing or contradictory sources that appear reliable you should add them. And 2. isn't the article titled "Women in Islam". Islam is a Religion, so the article should be focused on the religious portrayal of women and their role and rights in the religious corpus and doctrines as they have evolved over time. I don't think the article should be focused on demography, it should focus on ideology; there are already pages devoted to more practical topics like Women in Islamic Politics, Gender Separation in Islam, etc. which are the best places for detail on Women in Islamic Society. --68.149.110.63 (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Abuse, misogyny, mutilation, few choices, dominated by males

This very pro-Islam article reads like a tourist brochure. How come it does not mention that a woman receives half of her brothers inheritance. How about the young girls being stoned for trying to go to school? The "cut her nose off" treatment for a wife attempting to flee abuse? The fact that it is ok to punish your wife in Islamic cultures?

How about the fact that it is impossible to rape your wife because a husband may force sex on her any time he wishes?

Woman in some parts of the world have risen up and become organized to demand equal rights, but this is difficult in sharia cultures due to the risk of death.

I propose to add a part on the institution of sex-slaves in the Koran and the Hadith.MuratOnWiki (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

References (Quoran)

Women who are guilty of lewdness ... confine them to the houses until death take them.--4:15

Males are to inherit twice that of females. 4:11

A woman is worth one-half a man. 2:282

Have sex with your women whenever and as often as you like. 2:223

"Unto the male is the equivalent share of two females." 4:176

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.27.252 (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 

It is clear that somebody without much knowledge of the practical role of women in Islam, and particulalry islamic countries, having read this article would assume they have achieved the same level of gender equality as women in the Western world! This is so biased and completelty ignores the actual state of women in islam. Accordingly, this article must be condemned as being unfit for wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.42.9.1 (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC) I completely second it. This article looks like a tourist brochure about how women have achieved "equal" status to men. If we talk about the recent case in which a 14 year old girl was beaten to death because she was raped by a man and had thus committed "adultery", I cannot describe the level of importance Islam gives to woman. Woman in general are third class citizens in Muslim countries -without any exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.128.198 (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

   Guys Guys! this is about women in islam not how muslim women are treated in "muslim" countries! Malekobaid (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not hijab!

The Rajasthani women in this picture are not wearing hijab! Original image can be seen here. The women are wearing a dupatta. Please remove this misleading image. The term hijab cannot be used to refer to any piece of clothing used by women to cover their head especially if that clothing has traditional name. As far as I know, hijab is more of a Islamic religious clothing and there is no reason to believe the Rajasthani women depicted are muslims. Thanks --Emperor Genius (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hijab is a concept not clothing. Hijab refers to any clothing that follows the Islamic rules (sometimes over-ridden by Islamic traditions).Bless sins (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

To say any concept of covering head is hijab is a ridiculous statement. Rajasthani women, overwhelming majority of whom are Hindus, wear dupatta and there is no proof that the women shown are Muslims. --Emperor Genius (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No, but any woman that covers her head out of Islamic modesty, would be considered to practice hijab. And of course, there are some Rajasthani women who are Muslims. Your point about there being "no proof", however, is valid.Bless sins (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a serious need for objective fit-for-purpose imagery, especially in this case. The objective user identifies hijab as a different concept as the dupatta, and are part of religious and cultural clothing influences, respectively. It is therefore in the interest of WIKI policy [[[WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE]]] to replace the image with another under the use of hijab as an Islamic piece of clothing, worn by a person who can be objectively identified as Muslim. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hijab User:Speeditor (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Terms.

Women who are guilty of lewdness ... confine them to the houses until death take them.--4:15

Males are to inherit twice that of females. 4:11

A woman is worth one-half a man. 2:282

Have sex with your women whenever and as often as you like. 2:223

"Unto the male is the equivalent share of two females." 4:176

^^^ this is what muslims call equality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.109.173 (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Great start for the article, but please watch the language used. More than once "Arab Women" was used. Not all Arab's are Muslim, and not all Muslim's are Arab. (Ppg183 (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

The above are not direct quotes of the translations in the Quran. They are interpritations of the words so please look them up for your self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.249.155 (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Rape of Christian women

I would be interested about the jurisprudence and sociology on the rape of so-called infidel women, who are often christian women living in minority situations in Pakistan, Iraq or even in the UK, which has many majority muslim areas. The issue of rape of non-muslim women for refusing to wear the hijab is very often a source of tension with other religions and states, and this is currently a very acute problem in christian-islam and western-islam relations. ADM (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This rape you are talking about is completely not allowed in Islam. The people who are doing these things aren't doing it on an act of faith. Islam doesn't condone this.

I would like to challenge the authors use of infidel meaning Christian. An Infidel is someone who does not believe in God be i called Allah or God. Islam believes in the three great religions and anyone of those religions are not infidels. An infidel could be someone of Hindu beliefs for example, for the do not believe in what the 3 great religions refer to as God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.249.155 (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Infidel can be used as a term for a person belonging to a monotheistic or Abrahamic religion, just a few minutes ago I read on wikipedia that Crusaders were not referred to in the Muslim world as Crusaders or Christians, but as Infidels or Franks. The Islamic perspective you're coming from is a very liberal one, and not necessarily representative of how non-Muslims are viewed and referred to in the wider Muslim world. However if you still have a problem with the author's use of the word 'infidel', might I suggest the use of the word 'Kafir' - a word that specifically means non-Muslim, although it does have perjoritive connotations (but this shouldn't be a problem as 'infidel' shares those connotations). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.146.245 (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In contrast such an idea that - of other Abrahamic religions being considered believers and not infidels - is completely and not at all liberal. After all, within the Quran, the term 'believing people' is a reference to Christians, Muslim and Jew since they all believe to some extent in a prophet of God. Indeed Jews and Christians are also given tidings of Heaven, if they believe. Concerning them the Quran states that:

Some of them are believers, but many of them are disobedient. (Ch.3:V.111)

I would also like to add that Muslim belief holds that Hell is simply a place where one goes to pay for ones sins. Thus Hell is temporary and all men and women end up in Heaven and technically believers. So non-Muslims are given full rights due to the fact that we are all still God's servants but the previous writers claim that this is liberal thinking is wrong.

Perhaps the following article would help clear any doubts you may have upon the nature of Islam's relationship with other religions:

Religions from an Islamic perspective

--91.104.98.161 (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The text is plainly wrong

The first line is "The status of women in Islam is that they are equal to men before God" and attributed to this website http://www.themodernreligion.com/women/w_status_gen_ques.htm. This website(http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/010-women-worth-less.htm) shows that Quran treats women inferiorly than men. The second and third lines are from a "the Ethiopian Muslim Museum". I am going to delete the first paragraph of this article -probably written by some Islam adherent and I hope that it will stay deleted until real quotes are included in the article.

I believe the [17] link you've added, would violate WP:NOR Faro0485 (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The text sums up Wikipedia. Wrong and baseless. Wrong citations. Wrong references. Wrong text

Wow. It is wonderful to know that women in Islam is equal to men. Well maybe they are equal. Who knows. Maybe except when they are counted less than a man in the Quran or have to prove they have been raped by "witnesses" or have no right even to drive(see Saudi Arabia) or thrown acid on their faces if seen with Men or go to school or hide their faces in the hizab or allow their husbands to marry more than once or being killed in honor killings usually involving rapes. Sorry lazy to look up references. I have seen the things that I have described with my eyes. Please use Google for references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.79.40.134 (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"have to prove they have been raped by "witnesses" " Not just any witnesses but those who saw the "act of threading the needle" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.27.86 (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Objectvity Fail

This article needs some serious, serious work. It is supposed to present the facts, without bias, and in this it fails miserably. I am no expert on Islam (thus I am not editing this myself), but I know that there are some serious injustices to women that are supported, even commanded, by Islam. The author also obviously has some serious issues against other religions, stating unfair and inaccurate things about other religions besides Islam. This is a problem, and this article needs some serious fixing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.50.2 (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Very very true. This is more of a propaganda piece than an encyclopedia article. 88.112.62.225 (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed on all articles about Islam, it is mostly sugar coating for Islam, and political correctness on Christianity and Judaism.Tallicfan20 (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am so sorry to have to agree with the statements above. Although the whole article is very well documented in theory, it does not, at any point, reveal the real practices, the real status, the real treatment that is given to women in the islamic states. I have traveled many times and for long periods of time in islamic states as Iran or Saudi Arabia, and the reality is far from the "sugared" version presented here. I'm an atheist by upbringing, so i observed the situation of muslim women not from the christian but from the human rights point of view. So if anyone dares to make the necesary addnotations, perhaps a muslim woman who can tell the story of the real islamic law, please do this in the name of the magnificant example of objectivity, profesionalism and human solidarity that is Wikipedia. Thank you.

the arctile is right, the injustices, the wrong-doings to women in islamic countries is grounded in culture, not in religion. the most islamic cultures men have political power and intend to keep it resulting into not awarding women the rights they have, because of culture, not because of islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.199.28 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

       The culture of such states are the religions. Religion is so ingrained in their culture, that they are one in the same  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.150.178 (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC) 

This article needs to be adjusted - I think the POV of the author is a little too evident for this entry to be considered objective. A lot of items were glossed over and one view is dominantly presented throughout all passages. In order to be fair (this project is under the feminist tag btw) to women quite a few changes must be made.CivEngAlyssa (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well, religions are themselves grounded in culture. So it's only natural that islam is the strongest or most extreme in the area where it originated.204.44.0.4 (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Saudi Arabia

It may be the bias of the article, but it doesnt really seem to touch on the lack of womens rights in Saudi Arabia for more then one sentence, like how in public they remain distant from other males in stores and such among a list of other things. It may be my personal opinon but for a article about Woman in Islam it seems to be a signifcant place of note that requires more of a presence in this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SNUBBIRTH13 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one seeing a giant space below early historical background? If not, someone needs to fix it because it looks terrible! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.51.211 (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is one long piece of apologist propaganda, that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Repeated claims that "things were worse for women before Islam" are common on Islamic web sites, but are not supported by facts. This article talks about how Islam gave women property rights, while ignoring the fact that Muhammed's first wife Kadija was a wealthy merchantess who hired him as a servant, before Islam existed. So clearly women were fully capable of owning property and businesses before he came along. Later, a hadith recounts his murder of a woman who was the leader of a non-Muslim tribe; his men conquered the tribe, and tied the woman to camels and drove them apart, to rip her to pieces, while Muhammed stated that no woman should be allowed to rule. So, clearly, there were female tribal leaders in the "world without Islam". Saying over and over again that it wasn't so, without any historical proof to back it up -- and with Muhammed's own wife disproving the argument -- is disengenous, and unworthy of Wikipedia. (though I do find it interesting that in a few places Islam is credited for Kadija's property ownership, when in fact that obviously predated Muhammed.)

The whitewash in the sexual crime section was incredible, it claimed that four witnesses were needed to prove zina, which is just not true. I fixed that. I could not find a citation for a recent survey I read, so I could not add it, but apparently in Indonesian women's prisons, *80% of the women are serving time for the crime of having been raped*...because rape can't be proven, but complaining about rape is proof of zina. The injustice is mind-boggling. Yet this article not only overlooked the problem, but actually misrepresented the facts, claiming you need four witnesses to prove zina as well. That's just patently untrue. The writer must have missed the story out of Saudi Arabia last week, where a Phillipina maid who was raped and beaten by her employer tried to flee the country, but when they found out she was pregnant, they threw her in jail. Being raped is a crime in Islamic countries.

This is really a terrible article, bias-wise, one of the worst I have ever seen on this site. The degree to which it twists facts to mislead the reader is execrable. It would be better not to have it here at all, than to have this much misinformation presented. The whole thing exists to whitewash Islam, and it doesn't even do that well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.172.218 (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about what Islam says about women (or what Muslims SCHOLARS believe Islam says about woman) NOT how Muslims treat their women. Actually most Mulims nowadays are not even considered religious and most practices done by Muslims are considered un-islamic or sins. However, those who practice them link these practices to Islam. Reason: ignorance and confusion of culter and religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.228.66 (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

women rights

does Islam cal for voilation towards women?
why are women treated as animals in the name of Islam?

I may not know much about Islam but I do not think that the true Islam calls for this voilent treatment towards women. Why by taliban girls education is bieng condemned? We girls are also human biengs and we have been gifted with life by ALLAH then why still in the 21st century we girls suffer for even basic needs of life in the name of relegion?? I would be very thankful if anyone would be able to answer my questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.44.41 (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC) slam has presented an unusual theory of carnal gratification, which is most beguiling, blissful and buffeting. It holds that sexual urge does not perish with death because the man is Muslim, he will be resurrected and given a place in paradise where he will enjoy the choicest sex day and night. Again, sensual pleasures are reserved for man only, and houris i.e. the most beautiful virgins, who inhabit paradise, are totally submissive to their male master. This view represents the Islamic sexual psychology for being consistent with the Prophetic stand point of "Dominance-urge versus Feminine Charm" because here woman surrenders herself completely to man along with her physical, emotional and artful beguilements. Thus, pleasing man, becomes her only pleasure.

If the reader can remember that Adam (the Biblical genitor of humankind) defied God to gain the favour of his woman (Eve), it is not difficult to understand that a virile man shall live and die for Islam, which promises the choicest sex-after-death in the form of paradise, dwelt in by the most beautiful damsels and the prettiest boys. Here is a short description of paradise, which Islam presents proudly and solemnly:

"This is the similitude of Paradise, which the Godfearing have been promised: Therein are rivers of water unstaling, rivers of milk unchanging in flavour, and rivers of wine - a delight to the drinkers, rivers too, of honey purified; and therein for them is every fruit " (Muhammad XLVII: 15)

Here the "similitude" does not mean a "metaphorical description" as the Muslim scholars pretend, but a true statement of paradise. The following quotations from the Koran will leave the reader in no doubt to this effect:

" for them (the Muslims) is reserved a definite provision, fruit and a great honour in the Gardens of Bliss reclining upon couches arranged face to face, a cup from a fountain being passed round to them, white, a pleasure to the drinkers ..... and with them wide-eyed maidens flexing their glances as if they were slightly concealed pearls." ( The Rangers 40: 45 )

Whereas Chinese have preferred flat-chested women, the Arabs are fond of rising bosoms. So, in keeping with the Arab taste, the Koran declares:

"Surely for the God-fearing awaits a place of security, gardens and vineyards and maidens with swelling bosoms." ( The Tidings 30 )

The attraction of paradise is made more impelling when wine is made a part of paradisiac living:

"Surely the pious shall be in bliss, upon couches gazing: You find in their faces the shining bliss as they are offered to drink of wine sealed, whose seal is musk and whose mixture is Tasnim, a fountain at which to drink those brought nigh." ( The Stinters 20: 25 )

For better illustration of the point under discussion, I may refer to Hadith Tirmzi, volume two (p 35-40) which gives details of houris, the ever-young virgins of paradise:

1. A houri is a most beautiful young woman with a transparent body. The marrow of her bones is visible like the interior lines of pearls and rubies. She looks like a red wine in a white glass.

2. She is of white colour, and free from the routine physical disabilities of an ordinary woman such as menstruation, menopause, urinal and offal discharge, child-bearing, and the related pollution.

3. She is a woman characterized by modesty and flexing glances; she never looks at any man except her husband, and feels grateful for being the wife of her husband.

4. A houri is a young woman, free from odium and animosity. Besides, she knows the meaning of love and has the ability to put it into practice.

5. A houri is an immortal woman, who does not age. She speaks softly and does not raise voice at her man; she is always reconciled with him. Having been brought up in luxury, she is a luxury herself.

6. A houri is a girl of tender age, having large upright breasts. Houris dwell in palaces of splendid surroundings.

Now, add to this description of houris, what Mishkat, volume three says on pages 83-97:

7. If a houri looks down from her abode in heaven onto the earth, the whole distance shall be filled with light and fragrance

8. A houri's face is more radiant than a mirror, and one can see one's image in her cheek. The marrow of her shins is visible to the eyes.

9. Every man who enters paradise shall be given seventy-two houris; no matter at what age he had died, when he enters paradise, he will become a thirty-year-old, and he will not age any further.

10. Tirmzi, volume 2 states on page 138:

A man in paradise shall be given virility equal to that of one hundred men!

It should be noted that men who are so potent, shall not be inclined to anything except love-making. This is the reason that, according to Islam, sexual gratification is the ultimate goal of life, and thus, the behaviour of Muslims becomes sexually oriented.

Also remember that Islam does not forget the fact that hetrosexuality is not the complete source of carnal gratification because some people have different tastes. So, it adds a stunning dimension to the paradisiac pleasures. The Koran says:

" God has……. provided them radiancy and delight and recompensed them for their (Muslim's) patience With a Garden, and silk; therein they shall see neither sun nor bitter cold; near them shall be its shades, and its clusters hung meekly down, and there shall be passed around them vessels of silver, and large drinking cups of crystal, crystal of silver measure very exactly. And therein they shall be given to drink a cup whose ingredient is ginger; therein a spring whose name is Salsabil Immortal youths shall go about them; When thou seest them, thou supposest them dispersed pearls, When you see them you see the divine happiness and a great kingdom. Upon them shall be clothing of silk and brocade; they are embellished with bracelets of silver, and their Lord shall give them to drink a pure draught. (Man 76: 10-25)

This coaxing description of the unageing lads is also found in Mount LII: 20:

"While they hand therein a cup one to another Wherein is no idle talk, no cause of sin, and there go around youths, their own, as if they were concealed pearls."

It is quite clear that besides the most beautiful virgins, there are also boys in paradise, who

1. are as pretty as pearls, 2. are ever-young because they do not age, 3. wear clothes of silk, and 4. are embellished with silver bracelets.

What is the purpose of these unusually attractive boys, who dwell in paradise, which is constructed in such a way that every brick of gold is followed by a brick of silver; instead of mud or cement, saffron is used to hold them together; even its pebbles are diamonds and rubies. He who enters paradise, shall be free from grief; he will live there for ever, remain eternally young and will never die.

The presence of intoxicating youths in such a luxurious environment must have some unusual purpose though the Muslim scholars claim that they are ordinary servants, who render their services to the lucky Muslims.

But what kind of services? An ordinary does not have to be ever-young, pretty-like-pearls, used to drinking wine (i.e. pure draught) and habitually wearing silken dresses and silver bracelets?

These boys cannot be ordinary servants. What are they? If I come straight to the point, the Muslims will charge me with blasphemy and call me an "Insultor of the Prophet" but I am nothing of the kind. I hold the Prophet in high regard and think of him as a great national hero, who bestowed an unusually high dignity on the Arabs. In fact, I wish he was born in India to raise its stature compatible with the natural bounties that this land possessses.

I may, therefore, give a short sketch of the sexual fascination that "boys" have displayed throughout history:

Homosexuality, also known as sexual inversion, means sexual attraction of a person to one of the same sex i.e. man to man and woman to woman. The latter is called lesbianism for its association with the Aegean island of Lesbos.

This deliberation is, however, concerned with male homosexuality only. Those who practice it, think of it as a delight but its opponents find it disgusting. The writer is neither its practitioner nor its advocate, yet it is a real issue because it has influenced the course of history, and therefore, requires a frank discussion whether one likes it or not. This is why the modern legal thinking holds it as no crime if the act takes place in private between consenting adults.

Is it a genetic condition or an acquired habit? Though one cannot give an exclusive opinion on the subject, one can refer to certain facts, leaving the final conclusion to the reader:

The huge systematic surveys of homosexuality that A. C. Kinsey conducted in 1948 and 1953 showed that 37 per cent of U.S. males had indulged in this activity. Again, the American anthropologist, C. S. Ford, and psychologist, F. A. Bench, studied primitive societies during 1951. In 76 communities, it was found that 64 per cent accepted it as a normal practice.

Homosexuality has been observed in certain animals such as apes; cows in heat are known to mount other cows, and so are cats, dogs, rabbits, lions and horses.

Amongst humans, it is more prevalent, and is especially noticeable in societies where sex-segregation is observed. The boys are stimulated by the boys and resort to this practice for sexual gratification. This may not be desirable owing to its effects on mental and physical development of boys before reaching adolescence. On the other hand, girls' passions are unduly suppressed to make them pious, pure and perfect. They are taught and subjected to a discipline of high morality. Thus value of virginity is raised sky-high, and men want to marry virgins only, even though they may have lost their own chastity during the early stage of their life. It may tame the sexual outlook of women but it certainly distorts the emotional view of boys, leading to the growth of a male-dominant society, which develops such vices as dowry and legal disparities regarding inheritance and matrimonial rights of the spouses.

A law of Physics states that dissimilar poles attract and similar poles repel. This rule applies, not only to inanimate objects but also humans, and its operation starts right from babyhood. Male infants are inclined towards their mothers, and females to their fathers for this reason, and not owing to any unresolved sexual emotions. Of course, both genders are born with a sexual blue print but it takes many years to mature; until this happens carnal drive does not count for anything, and requires no resolution. If this were not true, seeing babes copulate would be a common spectacle. However, exceptions are always there: some children may mature earlier and possess varying degrees of sexual intensity.

Regarding homosexuality, one may say that the said law of Physics breaks down, and as a result, the similars begin to attract.

The paradox is resolved when we realise that virility is a part of the dominance-urge: more virile a person, the greater the desire to have a harem or indulge in promiscuity: lek behaviour, which impels animals to possess numerous females for proving their dominance, establishes this fact firmly. Physically, man is no different from other primates: his urge of dominance is even greater: men like Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler, who would slaughter a million men just to look superior, support this point of view.

One may add that homosexuality, an age-old experience, is an epiphenomenon, which has always existed besides hetrosexuality. It defies the physical law of the opposites, yet it is governed by the enormity of sexual drive the same way as the brute might of atomic force equally applies to the negative and positive charges irrespective of their dissimilarity.

Sexual desires is one of compelling drives of man; he may commit any crime or sin to satisfy it: the Biblical story, which shows that Adam rebelled against God to please Eve, seeks to illustrate this point. Man's greatest drive is what I have termed as dominance-urge; sexual drive, being a part of it, is likely to transgress the normal patterns of behaviour for its gratification.

However, there is one difference between man's and animal's behaviour; he wants to justify his action on moral or spiritual ground, no matter how fake, fictitious or fraudulent it may be. He uses both religion (God) and reason for this purpose to relieve his conscience from the burden of guilt. A persistent desire to satisfy conscience shows that humanity is destined to achieve moral perfection, and the day is approaching when all political and economic barriers, which stand in its way, shall be broken down.

Man's story for giving homosexuality religious sanctity is really interesting. Though Greece is not the origin of sexual inversion, it is certainly the Greek ingenuity, which lent it the spiritual grace:

According to a Greek legend, Ganymede, the son of Tros, King of Troy, was so beautiful that Zeus, the king of gods, became enamoured of him. Disguised as an eagle, he swooped down on this young lad affectionately, and carried him off to be his cup bearer i.e., to serve the God intoxicating drinks.

The Greek legend has been frank and honest about the interpretation of this incident. It is not like the Muslim scholars, who pretend that G(h)ilman i.e., the ever-young, bride-like boys of paradise are there to serve drinks to the faithful, and nothing else. On the contrary, the Greeks believed that Zeus, the Chief God, had a homosexual passion for Ganymede. In Rome, he (Ganymede) appears as Catamitus i.e., Catamite, which means a young lad kept for sexual purposes. In pursuance of the Greek tradition, this practice became so rife amongst the Romans that some historians believe it to be the cause of their moral ruination, which eventually led to the decline of their political grandeur.

"Homosexuality seems to have been popularised by Socrates, the great Greek philosopher." Plato speaks of Socrates and Alcibiades as lovers, and describes the philosopher "in chase of the fair youth."

Writing further about Socrates, Will Durant adds, "he was not above giving advice to homosexuals and hetairai on how to attract lovers."

Repeating opinion about the greatness of Socrates, Will Durant says: "Or as Plato put it, with moving simplicity, 'he was truly the wisest, and justest, and best of all the men whom I have ever known."'

From the above, it is clear that homosexuality was not looked down upon in Greece, otherwise, Plato would not have showered such praise on Socrates, who had a homosexual relationship with Alcibiades.

Will Durant is a highly respected historian of the 20th century. His statement is confirmed by an account in the "International Library of Famous Literature, Volume 2 (P. 693): He (Alcibiades) was brought up in the house of Pericles, and lived on terms of intimacy with Socrates."

Socrates was not only a great philosopher but also a soldier of high stature. "At Potidaea he saved both the life and the arms of the young Alcibiades, and gave up in the youth's favour his claim to the prize of velour."

Pederasty, which denotes sexual relationship between an older man and a young lad, seems to have been initiated by Socrates, who also happened to be a mystic. Though mystical principles practiced throughout the world are of Vedic origin, mysticism entered Persia through Greece, and then returned to India as Sufism.

As the mystical model, Socrates, had only one shabby garment, which he wore throughout the year; he was fully reconciled with his poverty, and felt rich without possessing anything at all. Bearing extreme hardships was one of his great virtues. He could drink to his heart's content without ever getting drunk. He had made himself immune to the effects of cold and heat: when his fellow-soldiers "wrapped themselves up carefully, and put fleeces under their feet (in intolerably severe weather), Socrates went out only with the same cloak on that he usually wore, and walked barefoot upon the ice. He was also known for meditation from dawn to dusk, and whenever he did it, he was fully absorbed in himself. "

When we look into these Socratic qualities, it transpires that the Islamic mysticism (tasawwaf) has been built around the Socratic model. I have no doubt that the metaphoric eulogy of wine that the Muslim Sufi saints habitually sing in their poetry, is a legacy of the Socratic drinking habit, and so is their love of boys, poverty, Stoic contentment and meditation.

Socrates was an open book but Plato, who adopted his several views, has not demonstrated his frankness in stating some of them. One of the issues has come to be known as Platonic love, which emanates from the Socratic discourses:

According to Plato, man is composed of two part -eternal and mortal: the former is termed as soul, which is divine, whereas the mortal side being passionate and vegetative, is profane, because it has been assigned to man by the inferior gods, though at the behest of the supreme deity. When these appetitive passions are pursued, release of soul from the body becomes difficult, and man suffers from a very long cycle of reincarnations.

Plato states that the release of soul is possible through knowledge only; this happens when mind is led by Eros, the Greek love-god (the Indian Kama), also known as sexual desire, which is the source of affection, leading to knowledge. However, all love is not productive because it can lead in either direction - reason or passion, vice or virtue. These divisions, he is said to have inherited from the prevailing dualistic views.

Platonic love, which is essentially homosexual, was encouraged by the excessive Greek fear of over-population. It is for this reason that there was only one household in a hundred that brought up more than one girl; most daughters at birth were exposed to die. This caused a shortage of women, accelerating the need for homosexuality.

Apart from the social influence, Plato was guided by his philosophical vision, and did not support heterosexual love, whose purpose is procreation, which leads to the imprisonment of soul in the body. He held that people indulged in this kind of love because they wanted to live through the memories of their children. But those who have creative desire for soul, shun woman. Secretof spiritual begetting is, therefore, love of man by man. In other words, love of the leads to trouble but love of the similar gender guarantees immortality. This is the way of releasing the mind (soul) from the grip of the matter (body). Yet, he did not think that love between man and man implied carnal intercourse. This is a deliberate ambiguity because it evidently contradicts the function of Eros, which concerns gratification of sexual desire.

What was, then, Platonic love all about? It was a relationship between two males - one called Erastes, the lover, and another Eromenos, the beloved. Again, this relationship was between the socially equals, and thus defied the universal law of love, which acknowledges no barrier of caste, colour or creed. It is a philosophical attempt to invent a new type of pederasty, which inflates erotic desire but forbids sexual gratification in a vain hope to transform the carnal excitement into imaginative and intellectual energy.

This view is simply absurd for being opposed to practical realities of life. However, this theory holds that as a beloved looks a model of beauty to the lover, he inspires love and reverence in the soul of latter. Initially, it is Eros, the sexual desire, which stirs the soul through the beauty of the youth (beloved); the beauty of the boy as perceived by his lover, is reflected back, arousing him (the youth), too. Thus, lover Eros (passion) evokes a counter-Eros, which is a reflection of the inspired love. Therefore, Eros both inspires and is inspired in turn. As a result, beauty of the lover and the beloved becomes a mutual reflection in each other's soul, leading them to march in tandem towards eternity. What a manipulation of erotic love it is!

This mutual relationship between the two males assumes that the lover is a teacher (as Socrates was) to the beloved, but as far as knowledge is concerned, the latter is a student. The lover as a teacher looks upward in his own right whereas the beloved looks up by reflection, thus both climb the "ladder of love," but the lover is always ahead of the beloved in search of eternity.

Socrates, the originator of the above theory (modified by Plato) was the lover of Alcibiades, who became a celebrated Athenian politician and general. As a youth, he lived on terms of intimacy with Socrates for a long time. Socrates, the great Greek philosopher was a man of many virtues, and rose to become a mentor of some immortal mystical traditions, still followed in the east. But the truth is that he was tired on a charge of corrupting young boys, and sentenced to death. His greatness is marked by his fearleshasness: he did not escape from the prison when he was provided with such an opportunity, he preferred to drink hemlock (poison) and left this world as a brave man of integrity.

Alexander, the Great, though a Macedonian, proved to be the ambassador of the Greek culture, which had been imbued with homosexuality, having an intoxicating Divine flavour. He was not only a rare military genius but also possessed some great political and administrative qualities. He fell in love with eastern manners; he wore eastern dress and had two eastern queens, but his heterosexuality was just a cover-up for the eastern politics. He was a homosexual like the Greeks, whose culture he loved and practised. Hephaestion and Bago are two of his well-known catamites. Through him, and afterwards his generals, the Greek culture known as hellenism, flourished in the Middle Eastern countries. It was given an extra ictus by the fact that Alexander claimed to be a god and was acknowledged and worshipped as such throughout his eastern dominious. The habits of god are bound to have a quick and lasting influence on the character of ordinary mortals. It penetrated the guts of the Persian poetry so deeply that it has become living eroticism in the mystical form of versification and has spread to all the Muslim countries where the Persian language has flourished. .

The Arabian peninsula was no exception. Not only the South worshipped female deities connected with the Greek tradition but hellenism also reached the North, the land of the Prophet Muhammad. We find the name of Alexander, the Great, mentioned in the Koran as Dhool Karnain:

"They will question thee (Muhammad) concerning Dhool Karnain. Say: I will recite to you a mention of him ....."

One ought to note that the name of Alexander the Great was not unheard of in the Hijaz (the Prophet's country) because people were curious to know more about him. Again, the Koran depicts Alexander, the Great, as a righteous man to whom Allah spoke and also left the making of vital decisions:

We (Allah) said, "O Dhool Karnain, either thou shalt chastise them, Or thou shalt take towards them a way of kindness " (The Cave XVIII: 85)

It is quite clear that the Koran has not condemned Alexander, the Great. Instead, he has been displayed as a righteous man, whose judgement Allah trusted and respected! Obviously, his homosexuality had no bearing on piety. This fact is supported in the already quoted Mount LII: 20, which states:

"While they (boys) hand therein (paradise) a cup One to another wherein is no idle talk, no cause of sin, and there go around youths, own, as if they were concealed pearls."

These verses describe two facts clearly:

1. All Muslim men shall have "their own" boys who are pretty like pearls, and

2. there will be "no cause of sin;" it means that so liberal shall be the laws of paradise that lasciviousness shall not count as a sin.

That this interpretation of the above Koranic verse is correct and honest, is corroborated by the facts of history. About the high society of Arabia during its heyday, Professor Philip K. Hitti wrties in his famous "History of the Arabs" (10th edition, p. 341):

"The servants were almost all slaves recruited from non-Muslim peoples and captured by force, taken prisoners in time of war or purchased in time of peace The white slaves ( Mamluk ) were mainly Greeks and Slavs, Armenaisn and Berbers. Certain slaves were eunuchs (Khisvan) attached to the service of the harem. Others termed Ghilman, who might also be eunuchs, were the recipients of special favour from their masters, wore rich and attractive uniforms and often beautified and perfumed their bodies in effeminate fashion. We read that Ghilman in the reign of al-Rashid, but it was evidently al-Amin who, following the Persian precedent, established in the Arabic world the Ghilman institution for the practice of unnatural sexual relations. A judge under al-Mamun used four hundred such youths. Poets like abu-Nuiwas did not disdain to give public expression to their perverted passions and to address amorous pieces of their composition to beardless young boys."

These historical facts conform to the highly erotic Koranic description of the paradisiac boys, who are ever-young, pretty like pearls, dressed in silk and brocades, and wear bracelets. Above all, like Ganymede they serve wine in cups of crystal. These boys are not servants as the Muslim scholars pretend because a servant can be old, ugly and poorly dressed.

The Persians (Iranians) had acquired love of homosexuality from their conquering master, Alexander the Great and his Greek soldiers. This practice was made lawful among the Arabs by the Koranic description of the beautiful boys: al-Rashid and al-Amin were prominent rulers and leaders of the Muslim world, which treated them as the Model of Behaviour. This is the reason that the Qazis (Muslim judges) who were expected to live, and dispense justice according to the principles of Islam, kept harems of boys unashamedly.

Not only history testifies to what I have stated, the Koran and hadith (the sayings and life precedents of the Prophet) allude to even greater sexual freedom, and this is done through a maze of ambiguity and self-contradictions:

Islam apparently forbids anal intercourse with women. There are several hadiths to this effect on page 89 of Mishkat' volume 2. One hadith says that the man who sodomises his woman is accursed but another says:

"Your women are your tillage. Come to your tillage from back or front but avoid the ones who suffer miqad or menstruation."

"Miqad" means anus. The mullahs have deliberately tried to misinterpret it by saying that Islam forbids anal intercourse with women. In this hadith, it implies that a man must not use the back of his woman during her monthly period, otherwise it is permitted.

Look at the following hadith on page 87 of Mishkat, volume 2.

Jabir, quoting the Prophet said: "The Jews used to say when one sodomises one's wife, the children are born with squinted eyes, but Allah sent this verse which says: "Your wives are your tillage, come to your tillage from any side you like."

For the satisfaction of readers, I may add that the verse referred to in the above quoted hadith is to be found in the Koran (The Cow, 2: 220).

This discussion explains how Islam exploits the psychological weakness of man for sex, and prescribes Jehad as the sure way of getting into paradise, the abode of the most luxurious sex. Yet it claims to be the Divine code of enforcing virtue and forbidding vice!

Sex-after-death, which is a speciality of Islam, requires an investigation into the concept of Jehad, which is fundamentally connected with carnal delights

"Women are virtually enslaved."

Who wrote that in "Female employment" end of the second paragraphy? I'm removing it. Faro0485 (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Defensive Stance

It looks like there's a lot in this article that tries to defend wrongful allegations against Islam from others (probably predominantly Western countries). A great example is this beauty:

"As such the frankly offensive minority behaviours of dubiously selected, albeit Western feted undemocratic oil-rich Middle Eastern nations, with populations less than 30 million and whose sum total populations are less than Turkey are hardly source for unbiased comparison. Thus one must make a clear distinction between cultural and religious behaviours."

Things like these should probably be cleaned up, however I'm not really in much of a place to judge what is editorial and what isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.212.107 (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think there needs to be a lot more depth of content in this entry and that means looking past the glossy parts and it has include the negative effects and human rights issues and conflicts that arise. Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran - it's going to be difficult to include status of women in a comprehensive way which is why there wouldn't be much of a point in including that in here other than brief mentions (leave the status of woman and islam in each country to their own wiki entries)CivEngAlyssa (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

section on devorce

There is a part about divorce that i think should be corrected. During and time of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and during the caliphates the divorce rate was high. just like in western countries. Women would marry many times over, even at old age, which is now unusual and culturally unacceptable in more Arab countries. I don't have anything to site specifically but Anwar Al- Awlaki states it many times in his lectures and he cites everything, he mostly uses Al-Tabari and many Sahih hadith in anything he lectures about. Maybe someone who has access to his lectures could help out.

Also, for others who don't "agree" or feel like there is serious serious errors, should take effort to fix those fallacies, instead of making allegations of their own. This is probably one of the more objective pieces I've read about Islam, most of them have a tainted western spin on them. I hope this one doesn't turn into another one of those. objectivity is KEY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omsharif (talk • contribs) 19:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Could someone elaborate on the sentence "However, under most Islamic schools of jurisprudence, the husband must agree to the divorce in order for it to be granted." Under what conditions in what schools can a Muslim woman be granted a divorce from her husband if the husband does not agree to one? Kaldari (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hadith about women being rulers

Okay people, that hadith is UNRELIABLE. How many narrations are there? It doesn't matter if it's from Sahih Bukhari, the number of people reporting it counts. So we don't need that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TelusFielder (talk • contribs) 04:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Outrageous changes

This article has been changed beyond all recognition by am interest group without any discussion on it first. I intend to remove these changes in a couple of days, unless that contributor makes changes themselves. this is meant ot be a neutral article on women in Islam, not a justification for a particular viewpoint. Emmetfahy (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Right! We need to do a better job with some of these:

Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Suffrage in Lebanon

It is untrue that in Lebanon, proof of education is required for women to vote. Nothing in the law provides for it and the constitution makes no differences between men and women in lebanon.The source in note 111 should then be advised to correct information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.226.228 (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed that statement, because I found one pretty-specific source saying the educational requirement was dropped in 1957.[18]. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

the most biased article ever written in the history of Wikipedia

just awful..really awful...I mean in some paragraphs the article is biased towards Muslims in others it is biased to the prevailing sterotypes that westerners have about women in Islam ...just awful...please fix this, neutrality is what we are aiming for here

Sex Slaves

Mohammad and his compapnions had besides their wifes Sex Slaves. In the Koran this practice is mentioned. In the hadith this is mentioned. In the Sirat this is mentioned. In Islamic history the practice of Sex Slaves was continued. This "encyclopedic" entry does not mention it. This needs to be corrected. MuratOnWiki (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually it forbids forcing slaves to have sex with you, and says if your slaves ask to be freed you have to do it. "And to those of your slaves who desire a deed of manumission, execute it for them, if ye know good in them, and give them a portion of the wealth of God which He hath given you. Force not your female slaves into sin, in order that ye may gain the casual fruitions of this world, if they wish to preserve their modesty. Yet if any one compel them, then verily to them, after their compulsion, will God be Forgiving, Merciful."

However, that's more a primary source on Islamic doctrine. If you have reliable third-party sources on the subject which support your position in the matter of those historical facts, by all means present them, or be bold and include them in the article properly. Peter Deer (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Striking women

I think it is worth mentioning that Islam allows men to strike their women in certain conditions, see: http://quran.com/4/34 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.94.217 (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Y This is already mentioned. - Peter Deer (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Opening Statement reference to Koran

How can we begin an article with a line "While men and women have different roles within Islam, the Koran makes it clear that they are equal" which then has three reference but NOT ONE to the actual Koran? Just some guys interpretation. This is ridiculous and should be removed immediately. AFACI (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

Agree. It doesn't make sense to say that it makes something clear when the very next example contradicts it. That's not clarity by any standard. So I have tweaked it. Actually, by the time I got to it, the order of the claims had been reversed -- the one about equality was mentioned first.

I'm actually inclined to remove the seemingly absurd equality claim altogether but that might be a POV violation.204.44.0.4 (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

support for my edit in family obligations

don't have time to cut and paste the arabic here, from reliance of the traveler. can someone do a good citation, either from online or from sheikh nuh's translation? http://www.nku.edu/~kenneyr/Islam/Reliance.html

"M11.11

If the husband and wife disagree (A: in court, when neither has proof (dis: k8.2) ) about whether she received her support from him, her word is accepted over his. If they disagree as to whether she allowed him full enjoyment of her person, then his word is accepted over hers unless he admits that she first made herself available to him, but claims she then refuses, in which case her word is accepted over his.

@M11.2

Whenever the husband neglects to provide his wife's support for a period of time, the amount he should have paid remains a debt he owes to her.

@M11.3

The wife is entitled to annul their marriage whenever the husband is unable to provide her with the support obligatory for a nonaffluent person to pay (def: m11.2) and provide clothing or housing for her.

If she wishes, she may choose to bear with him (O: supporting herself with her own money), and it (O: the amount the husband is unable to pay) remains a financial obligation that he owes her (O: If she does not wish to tolerate his financial incapacity, she cannot annul the marriage by herself, but must establish her husband's inability to support her before the Islamic judge, who annuls the marriage or allows her to do so, since he is the one who judges the matter (A: and if there is no judge, she has two persons (Def: o21.4) decide) ). )

@M11.14

The wife is not entitled to annul the marriage when the husband is unable to provide foods besides the staple food, support her servant, or provide the support that must be provided by an affluent person or person between affluence and nonaffluence (def: m11.2).

• 2*Chapter M12.0: Support of One's Parents and Children

@M12.1

It is obligatory for one to support the persons listed below, whether one is male or female, when one has money in excess of one's own living expenses and (n: if male,) those of one's wife (O: meaning enough for a day and night, oneself taking priority over others, followed by one's wife, who takes precedence over other family members) :

-1- one's father, father's father, and on up;

-2- one's mother, grandmothers (from either parent's side) and on up (O: it making no difference what their religion is (A: since the religion of the family members is of no consequence in any of the rulings of this section) ) :

-3- and one's children, male and female, their children, and on down.

(O: Money in excess of one's own living expenses and those of one's wife means one is obliged to sell (A: if necessary to fulfill the obligation to support the above-mentioned persons) whatever must be sold when one has to pay debts, including real estate and other property.)

But supporting the above-mentioned persons is only obligatory when:

(a) there is poverty (O: a restriction applicable to both support of one's ancestors and one's descendants, meaning that it is necessary in order for it to be obligatory to support one's ancestor that the ancestor be poor, since if he has enough money, one need not support him);

(b) an incapacity (O: to earn a living) due to chronic illness, being a child, or to mental illness. (O: This condition is only applicable to support of one's offspring, not of one's ancestors. If an (A: impoverished) ancestor (A: such as one's father) were able to earn a living from a job suitable to him, it would nevertheless be obligatory for one to support him, and he would not be called upon to gain livelihood, because of the extreme respect due to him, as opposed to one's descendant, whom one need not support if the descendant is able to earn his own living, but who rather is called upon to do so

himself.

The upshot is that the support of whoever has enough money for their own support is not obligatory upon another family member, no matter whether the former is mentally ill or sane, a child or adult, chronically ill or well; because he does not deserve charity in such a condition-while a descendant able to earn an adequate living does not deserve support from his ancestors.)

" 65.96.74.249 (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Qur'an vs Koran

The Koran is the official English language spelling, not Qur'an or Qur'an or Quran. This is an English language article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmetfahy (talk • contribs) 20:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a commonly agreed upon spelling, see this discussion and the article Qur'an --Aronoel (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well in that case the original spelling should be used as the primariy one, with other disputed spellings listed at the start. Emmetfahy (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

See WP:MOSISLAM. Qur'an is as English of a word as jihad.

Also, at least be careful not to break links. There's no such template as "{{Koran|4|34}}".VR _talk 09:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Also the convention at Islam, Muhammad and Qur'an is all Qur'an not Koran.VR _talk 09:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this article, using the Koran with a Q convention, has a number of different spellings. The convention mentioned above is not as clear cut as is indicated. The use of a Q is a very recent innovation and is only causing confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmetfahy (talk • contribs) 20:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

N Not done and not likely to be done - There has been very lengthy discussion on the subject of the Koran vs. Qur'an transliteration. Qu'ran is the present preferred standard in accordance with consensus. Peter Deer (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A British Muslim's 'two cents worth'. I agree with the above in that such transliterations (Koran, Muslim, etc) are more antiquated than some Western people believe. The usage of Koran may be what AMERICANS tend to use but not Eastern media, international bodies, British-English people and your own government.Is it Koran, Qur'an or Quran and Moslem or Muslim? - Mohammed Amin

There are times, when we humans, we must move on and accept that transliterations Muslims do not agree with are unacceptable to use. 2.98.231.99 (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Muslims may disagree with whatever they want, this is a matter of language, not religion. — Matěj Grabovský (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The Islamic perspective on forced marriages.

This section is written like bad essay - it is one huge block of text followed by a random series of quotations - not to mention the use of the first person. Eldamorie (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I ended up cutting the whole section to here - I'm not sure that any of this is salvageable as it seems to be a mass of OR espousing a specific perspective on a topic that is not mentioned elsewhere in the article.

What is forced marriages? The Islamic perspective on forced marriages and can a women divorce her self from forced marriage? In a forced marriage, one or both spouses do not consent to the arrangement of the marriage. A marriage which is performed duress and without the full and informed consent or free will of both parties. What is the Islamic perspective on forced marriages? Forced marriages are definitely contradictory to the teaching of Islam and the Quran. In the verses of the Quran, the highest Islamic textual mandate, states clearly, in condemning marrying or inheriting women against their will, and it also emphasis that marriage is solely based on mutual consent of a man and a woman, which makes forced marriages extremely unacceptable and un-Islamic. Allah Almighty said in the Noble Quran: "O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower [money given by the husband to the wife for the marriage contract] ye have given them, except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good. (The Noble Quran, 4:19)" In addition to verse 4:19, quoted above, which condemns marrying women against their will, other verses of the Quran make it that marriage, is to shape by mutual agreement: “When you divorce women, and they fulfil the term of their (‘Iddat), do not prevent them from marrying their husbands (of their choice), if they mutually agree on equitable terms. This instruction is for all amongst you, who believe in God and the Last Day. That is (the course Making for) most virtue and purity amongst you and God knows, and ye know not”. (Quran Chapter Bakharah, The Cow, 2:232) Can a women divorce herself, from forced marriage? It is clearly forbidden in Islam to force women into marriage. If this is happening or has already happened to any woman, then Islam allows for her to divorce herself from the man she was forced to marry. The quotes from the Quran support my statement.

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: "A virgin came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and mentioned that her father had married her against her will, so the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) allowed her to exercise her choice. (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 11, Number 2091)" The above Noble Verse 4:19 and the Sayings of our beloved Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him clearly explain that according to Islam, whether the woman is virgin or not, her permission is a MUST. Her father or older brother can not force her into marriage as the Pagan Arabs and the Jews and Christians before Islam in the Middle East used to do; see Deuteronomy 25:5 in the Bible to see how women are forced into marriage.

Eldamorie (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Gender Roles

Seems like a lot of POV here. The bit about the 'single soul' refers to the 'soul' of men, from which their 'mate' was then 'taken' - not really equality as we know it. 'Equal in the afterlife' is also a bit rich since I can't find any mention of male houris in the Koran. The last few sentences are entirely POV and unsourced; the last source is, bafflingly, to the notorious 'and beat them' verse, which obviously contradicts the whole section. Logos384 (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. Your comment constitutes more a criticism of Islamic doctrine than a constructive suggestion for improving the article. - Peter Deer (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Tone

The tone of this article is not one that presents the argument objectively but one that presents it from the perspective of an individual defending against the belief that Islam marginalizes women. In other words, this article has a defensive tone and should be outright deleted and re-done by an individual with no bias to either side.

Could this be addressed more specifically? - Peter Deer (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Needs more global information

I'm going to take a crack at fleshing this out a bit, with more information on regional differences. The article as it stands is very Arab-centric (Indonesia is barely mentioned; Moslem communities in South Asia, Europe and North America are either mentioned in passing, or not mentioned at all). There's also not much information here on differences between Islamic sects, or how women's status in Islam has differed over the course of history, connections to pre-Islamic Arab culture, and quite a few other areas that I think deserve coverage in the article.

OttawaAC (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I added some information, and ended up rearranging some sections and subsections. There was more than one section on employment, for example, and more than one section on marriage and divorce, so I merged them, and hopefully the article is a little smoother reading at the moment. I rephrased a bit here and there, but nothing was deleted. The article could still use more information about Muslim women in Asia, Europe, the United States. I'll see if I can find more to add. OttawaAC (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that, among other things, this article needs more global perspective. On the other hand, it could use a little less, and some of it should be less culturally concerned and more concerned with doctrine and dogma. Peter Deer (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The article begins with an unsubstantiated assertion

   At the beginning of this article the Quran is said to state that 'men and women are equal', and yet all three references given in support of this statement are to secondary sources. Where exactly in the Quran does it state that men and women are equal? If this assertion is not supported by a direct reference to the Quran itself how can it be allowed to stand?
   The same sentence that claims that the Quran states that men and women are equal also quotes sura 4:34, which declares the opposite: that men 'excel' women, and that 'righteous women' should be 'obedient' to their husbands.
   The last two sentences in the first paragraph should both be removed, as they present as fact what are no more than interpretations of sura 4:34, in what appears to be an attempt to soften its uncompromising message. The penultimate sentence reads 'Although the Quran does say this, the superiority of men is interpreted in terms of strength by the context - men maintain women.' What does 'interpreted in terms of strength' actually mean here? Sura 4:34 is quite clear: the primary reason why men should be the 'protectors and maintainers of women' is that Allah made men 'excel' women. (Other translations use different words to 'excel', but the meaning is the same: that men are superior to women.) This has nothing to do with 'the context' of the economic and social relations between men and women, it is, according to sura 4:34, a fact of human biology ordained by Allah.
   The last sentence of the first paragraph reads 'This verse however refers to a relationship between a husband and wife, not as a society in whole.' Once again, this is not a logical interpretation of sura 4:34. The sura does not limit itself to the 'relationship between a husband and wife', it declares the superiority of all men to all women.
   Sura 4:34 is the central text in any discussion of 'Women in Islam', and it should surely be quoted in full. To omit the last part of the sura is to give a selective reading of one of Allah's main commandments regarding women: "As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them." It should also be quoted, rather than merely referred to, in the section on 'Behaviour within marriage'. Wibblywobblybibblybobbly (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Different spellings on Koran/Quran/Qur'an

Once again, different spellings of Koran/Quran/Qur'an have appeared in this article. What is the official English spelling? Emmetfahy (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It is more appropriate to write Quran (English: /kɔːrˈɑːn/ kor-AHN ; Arabic: القرآن al-qurʾān, IPA: [qurˈʔaːn], literally meaning "the recitation"), but it is also transliterated as Qur'an or Koran. So it is up to you which spelling you prefer.For further clearance you can check Quran. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I went by what the article "Quran" used, but would not object to this or any other article being consistent in whatever spelling was chosen. I changed a dozen "Qur'an"s to Quran simply because this article currently used Quran more than Qur'an. I have absolutely no objection to switching them all to Qur'an. Revert my last edit and fix the rest. If it appears in a reference or a quote, though, it should use whatever that source used. Apteva (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Flag this article for Clean-Up.

This article needs to be flagged for further attention, like Cleaning Up. It clearly has Issues that have all been carefully outlined above.

It does not read like an encyclopedia entry, relying heavily in on insider knowledge of the Quran, and Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larysa Fabok (talk • contribs) 13:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Female Labor Force Participation in Muslim Countries

I am writing a Wikipedia article for a class I am taking at Rice University (see above) about gender and development. After exploring several topics and Wikipedia articles, I have decided to construct an in-depth article on female labor force participation in predominately Muslim countries. This is vital information for a variety of reasons: it provides a few statistical indicators of female economic activity, indicates levels of gender inequality in the commercial spheres of Muslim countries, provides some indication of female empowerment in Muslim countries, and pools together labor force data between countries with a shared religion for cross-comparison. Unfortunately, from what I have seen, there is not a lot of detail on this topic. This page, for example, does not explore the topic in great detail nor across several nations. I propose to research 10 to 15 of the most populous predominately Muslim countries, or countries where at least 50% of the citizens practice some form of Islam. These countries, which will include Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, and Afghanistan, will be selected from the various regions in which Islam is concentrated to provide a representative scope of the issue. Accordingly, nations from Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia will be selected. Nations will be selected irrespective of Islam's status as the national religion because the labor market opportunities for women in Muslim countries will be, most likely, conditioned by Islam. By labor force participation, I mean the categories of jobs, wages, and industries in which women in predominately Muslim countries work as well as the percentage of women who work within these countries. Data on various subsections of Muslim women and their formal engagement with the economy, such as their particular religious sect, income as a percentage of household income, age, and duration of employment, would also fall within this study. This article will focus on contemporary data to provide an up-to-date schematic of this issue. However, historical trends of these variables, when present, will be touched on to provide depth and context to the article. I will also provide information on employment by sector, wage disparity with men, and unemployment figures to provide a full picture of the economic reality for the aggregate of women in these Islam-dominated nations. I believe this should be a separate article, unless someone can link an appropriate article under which all of this information can be placed, given the size, scope, and specificity of the topic. Furthermore, while this article does touch on the issue, it is already large and well-cited, and may be too broad for either efficient user searching or effective information sharing. Please let me know what you think. Any critiques of the approach or suggestions of sections to add would be appreciated. I have many sources including the ILO, UNWDR, the World Bank, UNESCO, and several published articles, but any sources of information you can provide would be appreciated too.

DanSCohen (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2013

Marital rape in Islam

Does Islam recognize forced sex in marriage as a form of abuse? If so, does it advocate for its prosecution under any law? Does the concept of marital rape exist under any shape?188.25.159.251 (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Notable women

I'm inclined to argue that the Notable/Famous women section should be removed. I'm fairly certain that when we make such lists, we limit them to people who are notable within the religion; for example, see List of Christians. We don't list people who happen to be in the religion who are notable for other things. Other thoughts? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Kurdish women

While this article is almost entirely negative to women in Islam (including the lead), there is no mention of Kurdish female fighters and women's rights there. And there is no other group sin the world (except the Tamil tigers, perhaps) that gives women suich a prominent role in the front line.(Lihaas (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)).

Is that group important enough to meet WP:UNDUE? That is, I don't know what percentage of Muslims women are Kurds; if it's a tiny fraction, we wouldn't want to overemphasize it here. But if you have some reliable sources, I certainly think something could be added somewhere. That would be better than just tagging the article as POV. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Dress code section

Realislamtruth - You have inserted the following text, and related commentary in "Dress Code" section: Nor is it right for you that ye should annoy Allah's Messenger, or that ye should marry his widows after him at any time.^{[Quran 33:53]}

1. This verse on whether men should or should not marry any of the 13 surviving wives of Muhammad is of historical importance, but is irrelevant to dress code for women in Islam.

2. Both about.com and somalilandpress.com articles you cite are WP:PRIMARY. Both sources suggest a controversy on dress code (a point already mentioned in the article). Both were summarized by you, Realislamtruth, with bias and in a non-neutral manner. For example, somalilandpress.com notes -

Quote - "Sheikh Mustapha Mohamed Rashed argued that Hijab is not an Islamic duty. He stated that Hijab refers to the cover of the head, which is not mentioned in the Holy Quran at all. “Nonetheless, a bunch of scholars insisted vehemently that the veil is both an Islamic duty and one of the most important pillars of Islam,” he added.

This reconfirms that there is a controversy on dress code for women in Islam, in this case between Sheikh Mustapha Mohamed Rashed and 'a bunch of scholars'. A neutral summary should note the controversy, not pick a side. Wikipedia is not a forum for advocacy or propaganda, see WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NPOV.

3. You are welcome to contribute. Find peer reviewed scholarly sources, or equivalent reliable sources. See WP:RS. Also, do not remove reliable sources cited by others without proper explanation.

LaraMagasin (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Follow only what the Quran says. The Quran is the one and only book of Islam.--Realislamtruth (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Wikipedia is not a blog or forum of opinions. Please see WP:WWIN, and reply constructively to the comments above. LaraMagasin (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Everybody agrees that Quran is the one and only book of Islam. Use its translations. Not the opinion of people who think of themselves to be Allah.--Realislamtruth (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Please acquaint yourself with the Wikipedia policies regarding reliable sources, verifiability, primary sources and secondary sources. We need the interpretation based on reliable secondary sources not your own personal interpretation of the primary source which is the Quran. So please refrain from editing until you have acquainted yourself with these policies. Thank you. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Realislamtruth - Have you read the originally cited Encyclopedia article on clothing, pages 149-151? The wikipedia editor who contributed that section did no original research. It is supported by paragraph 1 and 7 on those pages. I will add page numbers. Please do not edit war, while we discuss you edit on this talk page. LaraMagasin (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

(through alternate account) I have read everything and that is why I am fixing it.--Islamize (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The self admitted sockpuppetry of User talk:Realislamtruth has been reported here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Realislamtruth / Islamize / etc: What alternate account? I am not siddiqui or whoever you are obsessed about. Are you misrepresenting the originally cited Encyclopedia of Islam & the Muslim World (ISBN 978-0028656038) to claim it supports "cover their breasts and genitals"? I just searched the digital on-line copy. It never uses the words breasts or genitals. Which page number supports this? LaraMagasin (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Read it really. There are millions of "Quran says cover their breasts and genitals" proof out on web. Google it.--Islamize (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not in the habit of discussing with sockpuppets, but no, as per the policy of WP:Verifiability, which I have already linked, you are responsible for providing citations for the claim you add to the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:3RR everyone. Discuss the issue here to reach the WP:CONSENSUS. AnupMehra ^✈ 01:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:3RR doesn't apply when reverting disruptive edits such as the ones carried out by sockpuppets. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Even with the rather late admission of multiple accounts by this editor, there is nothing in Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses that legitimises the use of multiple accounts as they have been applied here. This is very clearly illegitimate sockpuppetry. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Realislamtruth / Islamize / etc: You revised the sentence and claimed the cited encyclopedia at the end the sentence supports the revised sentence. If you now admit encyclopedia does not support that sentence, and the proof needs to be googled, you are admitting to misrepresenting that source. Your edit is WP:OR. The burden of WP:RS proof is on you.

You are also misrepresenting Quran. Verse 24.31, etc support the version before you came along. Regardless, this article should rely on secondary and tertiary scholarly sources.

Please do not be disruptive to wikipedia. LaraMagasin (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Not always WP:3RR. Sometimes even WP:EDITWAR does the trick. It would be better if construct a better discussion here to reach a consensus. I'm agree with the present version of article and so with User:Saddhiyama & User:LaraMagasin. User:Islamize is expected to put forward his arguments in compliance with WP:PG. AnupMehra ^✈ 01:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Images and Original Research

User @182.182.68.43, aka User:182.182.57.82, User:182.182.112.205, User:182.182.48.22, etc has added a number of images.

I removed the following images as they are not directly relevant and WP:OFFTOPIC to the topic, and because the captions include unsupported opinions and WP:OR.

• File:Razia Jital.JPG Caption: Razia Sultana inherited the Sultanate of Delhi from her incompetent brothers, and is known to have been one of the most influential Muslim woman in history.
• File:The old wife and the new one.jpg Caption: Azim Azimzade painting regarding the criticism of Polygamy in Islam.
• File:The girl was born.jpg Caption: Female infanticide is strictly forbidden in Islam particularly in the Quran. (Painting by Azim Azimzade called "The girl was born" in 1937.
• etc.

Please provide reliable source(s) to add opinions/conclusions inside captions.

Some images may be relevant in other wiki articles. This article is not an image farm, see MOS:IMAGES. LaraMagasin (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It is necessary to provide a neutral point of view regarding the situation of women in the Muslim world.

Firstly i would prefer to present the different types of Hijab worn in the Muslim world; secondly I would like to present an example of the segregation of the sexes practiced in the Muslim world; thirdly I would like to present the accomplishments of Muslim women like Razia Sultana; fourthly I believe it is very important to present an example of a Muslim wedding for cultural reasons (such as the wedding of Dara Shikoh); fifthly I believe that the Fatimah's marriage to Ali is an example of endogamy practiced among early Muslims; sixth Abida Parveen is a very important contemporary figure in modern Sufism; seventh Islamic feminism does exist and should not be ignored, but encouraged.

We can ignore the paintings by Azim Azimzade, because they represent Azeri culture and not Muslim culture as a whole.182.182.68.43 (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutral point of view that is supported by scholarly citation is welcome, but your opinions without scholarly citations are not. Wikipedia articles are not a forum. You must provide WP:RS citations, without WP:OR and without WP:SYNTHESIS, for any content or caption you add.

It is strange for you to argue against Azeri painter, but argue for Sufi - after all, just like the Azeri painter, Sufi Muslims are neither "Muslim culture as a whole" nor majority. Similarly, your other pictures are WP:UNDUE to WP:FRINGE and do not give a balanced view of this topic.

Please do not re-add your opinions and incorrect captions in this article, while we discuss this on talk page and reach a consensus. Read WP:BRD. LaraMagasin (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The existence of women such as Fatima al-Fihri and Razia Sultana in Muslim history should not be ignored or rejected. Muslim women always had potential to lead their respective societies in many ways.`````` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.57.82 (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@User at 182.182.57.82 and IPs - Please do not cite blogs, advocacy websites, or other unreliable sources. Read wikipedia guidelines at WP:RS and WP:WWIN. Read WP:TALK for talk page guidelines. Please respect wikipedia community agreed guidelines. LaraMagasin (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The importance of Razia Sultana and Islamic Feminism are being deflected in this article, which does not do justice to the state of Muslim women and their contributions in the past and the present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.4.67 (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Abida Parveen is a very important contemporary figure regarding Sufism and women, her Sufi music is very well respected worldwide and many of her songs are about the state of women in Islam. She should not be ignored in this article's section on Sufism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.4.67 (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@User from 182.182.4.67 and various IPs: Once again, please read WP:RS and WP:DUE. Advocacy websites, self promoting websites are neither acceptable nor relevant to this article. This wiki article is a global overview of 'women in Islam', not an article on Razia Sultana, or painter from Azerbaijan, or one advocacy group on feminism, or others. Feminismeislamic.org website is not an acceptable source here because it reads like an advertisement. To include it or Razia Sultana or etc, you need to present secondary or tertiary sources that confirm it is WP:DUE and accepted in mainstream scholarly sources. You are doing original research and WP:SYNTHESIS, by misrepresenting the "harem" water fountain with your caption here. This is not an article on harem sub-culture found in the history of Islam. Before adding these images back, please explain on this talk page why your images and captions are WP:DUE with reliable sources. LaraMagasin (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Sufism is already mentioned in the article. See Sufi female mystics section. Sufism is not the majority denomination of Islam (Sunni is), nor is it the largest minority (Shia is). It is a minority, and it has been mentioned already. Highlighting it as mainstream Islam, or too much, is WP:UNDUE. LaraMagasin (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Azim Azimzade picture

I have removed the following image for now: Azerbaijani painter Azim Azimzade representing husband's domestic violence in 1937. It seems relevant to domestic violence section, but if it is offensive per MOS:IMAGES, I am okay with leaving it out. I await input from others. LaraMagasin (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

That picture wont be suitable i think. We dont have to put pictures to all sections anyway though.KazekageTR (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be suitable? LaraMagasin (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Cause it doesnt contains any Islamic thing though. It is a picture that you can put into any violence agains women article.KazekageTR (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This Azim Azimzade painting is one of his many on the state of Islamic women and life in Azerbaijan. Why is it not as Islamic, as some of the recent images added - Razia Sultana of Delhi, Aisha in the Battle of the Camel, etc.? We need a balance in images added - the condition of women in Islam, with historical images, needs to be presented with a neutral point of view, without undue positive spin. LaraMagasin (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Razia Sultana claims

@User from 182.182.4.67: This is meaningless advertisement - "Razia Sultana inherited the Sultanate of Delhi from her father Iltutmish, and is known to have been one of the most influential Muslim woman in the history of South Asia."

How and why is "Razia Sultana most influential Muslim woman in the history of South Asia"? If you explain it on this talk page, we can help you include it someplace in this article. LaraMagasin (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Because Razia Sultana is an example of a medieval Muslim woman who enthroned with great responsibilities, she was probably the only female monarch in the world during that period in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.48.33 (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

What "great responsibilities"? What did she do to make her notable to be included in this article? Was the impact limited to some Muslims, or did the impact affect the majority of Muslim world? Is there a reliable source to support those "great responsibilities" and the impact she had? LaraMagasin (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I checked the two sources cited for Razia Sultana. It does not say on page 100 or anywhere that "Razia Sultana was the most influential Muslim woman in the history of South Asia." The second source added today by user @182.182.4.67 and other IPs, to support the Razia Sultana claim, goes to this - an advertisement for websites on sale. Please do not vandalize or be disruptive. LaraMagasin (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Malala

I believe an image of Malala will also do justice in this article to the Millions of Muslim women who struggle to achieve education.````` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.4.67 (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Responsibilities of this article

This article should not be about bashing Islam (a relegion which Muslim women hold dear) or bashing Muslim cultures (because Muslim women respect their traditional cultures and customs). This article should advocate progress that should take place in the Muslim world and how Muslim women in the past, present and future can live in a more equal and prosperous world side by side with their personal religious beliefs, customs and traditions.

(note: Female genital mutilation is a heinous practice which should not be associated with Muslim cultures or Islam) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.48.33 (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic article, not a forum to "advocate" agendas. Please read WP:WWIN. LaraMagasin (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Mate no offense but we all know that in Islamic culture, women is not that getting 'hold dear'. I live in Turkey, and as you know Trukey is ahead of almost all of the other Muslim countires by women's rights, but even in here there are lots of issues going on with women's rights/lifes and some of them blames Islam for segregation of women from society etc. KazekageTR (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User talk:KazekageTR Thanks for letting us know where you live and your opinion. In future just keep it on a Forum or your private blog. Per WP:WWIN--Inayity (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the sarcasm and for that useless warning :)))) Now the article looks like a forum right?KazekageTR (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Space

Anousheh Ansari, Iranian-Born American Is World's First Muslim Woman in Space [1].

Anousheh Ansari is a great example of how Muslim women will thrive in the 21st century, she is an inspiration to all Muslim women who have dreams in science, technology and exploration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.127.128 (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Mate you're obsessed with this issue but this page in not a place for advertising people. There are tons of Muslim women who were remarkable in history. We can't put them all here. And your sections are totally irrelevant. You have to take your thoughts to talk page first, then apply them.KazekageTR (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

In literature

Muslim women have been heroines in traditional literature and well has been expected from their role in society.

In science

There are millions of Muslim women in science today they must not be ignored.

In Jurisprudence

Muslim women played a major role in shaping Jurisprudence

bt dont keep this article in the dark ages....

Omg dude are you ok? This page is not in the 'dark ages', what you're doing is totally useless irrelevant things. I cant see any article which contains Women in Christianity - Literature or Jurisprudence or Space titles anywhere in wikipedia. Nor Women in Judaism - Literature or Jurisprudence or Space, nor Hindu women in Literature or Jurisprudence or Space.... Stop that thing already.KazekageTR (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Historical figures

Al-Astrulabi and Al-Samarqandi should be discussed in the History section of this article.

A new article named Muslim Women in Science and Technology should be introduced

And so should a new article on Muslim Women in Literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.5.147 (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

'Should' ? So what are you now, an article recommender ? Man you're obsessed with those sections... KazekageTR (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for including a quote from a book

I haven't worked on this article before, but yesterday in the library I found a somewhat dusty book on the Muslim world and read a quote and I was wondering if it could be worked in. It isn't primary nor is it lengthy, and I think it might give a good overview for the lead. It's from a "Women in Islam" section of from a book by Facts on File, which I guess is a subsidiary of Infobase Publishing.

"Few subjects engage observers of Muslim society more strongly than the position of women. Equally, few subjects arouse so much passion among Muslims themselves. Positions are deeply entrenched. When voices speak, they tend to be those of partisans, of conservatives, of reformers, of male chauvinists, of ardent feminists, of ulama for whom the position of women has become the very touchstone of their capacity to defend Islam, of secular leaders for whom the position of women symbolizes the shameful backwardness of their people in the face of the West. Everyone has a position; objectivity is scarce."

The full citation is: Francis Robinson, Atlas of the Islamic World Since 1500, copyrighted during 1982 and reprinted in 1984. It was printed in NYC. I actually forgot to write down the page number but I was planning on going to the library later on today and I can get it then, I remember exactly where the book was.
I do think this is a good summary and it's as true today as it was in the 80s. The last line especially - "Everyone has a position; objectivity is scarce" - seems particularly well-suited for the lead as it would be the intro to the article. What do other editors think? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

And before I forget, the ISBN number was 0871966298. Can't believe I remembered to write that down but not the page number. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That claim - everyone has a position, objectivity is scarce - is too generic and vague to be useful to this article. See WP:DUE and WP:WWIN. LaraMagasin (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding User:LaraMagasin. Perhaps a full quote with those words wouldn't be helpful. Do you think the text would otherwise be useful as a citation somewhere in the article? For example, could we use it to cite a line such as "the topic often elicits strong opinions from people regardless of their point of view" or something to that effect? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Almost all sociology and hermeneutic articles elicit passionate opinions. Someone already added this to the lead section long ago, "Scholars and other commentators vary as to whether they are just and whether they are a correct interpretation of religious imperatives." I will get hold of the Robinson book, read it, check if citing it somewhere would be useful. LaraMagasin (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking interest User:LaraMagasin, it's not often that other editors are willing to go that extra mile. Let me (and other interested editors) know what you make of the book once you take a look at it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Collaborative Editing Failure: Page

This article is weak and not written in a balanced point of view. However, the suggestions recommend adding overly critical biased accounts of recent events that would seem to have a part in the local culture. The article is about 'Islam and Women': thus, current statistics of percieved phenomena addressing equality in Muslim countries; and objective explanations of internal phenomena these stats reveal. This is in line with Wikipedia's (WP:VERIFY) policy of including verifiable information from secondary sources in a discursive style.

This article breaks WP:NPOV for being out of balance on both sides and not objective, and is also breaking WP:SOAP as the many editors suggesting adding the abovementioned criticisms of "Muslim" countries and modern culture have actually seeped into the article itself. These unobjective Western users using this article as a soapbox (breaking WP:SOAP).

The talk page guidelines have clearly not been respected. All of the policies below have been broken in some way:

* WP:TPNO Hate speech,lack of positive output, lack of focus on the content,use of CAPS (excessive emphasis -> shouting)

* WP:NPA Personal attacks in the talk page at the Muslim world and back towards Western civilisation, as a form of hate speech

* WP:EXCEPTIONAL many subjective claims about unrelated fringe topics and specific subtopics such as rape

Speeditor (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

==================================================================================================

While this site has many articles that are considered sound, it is long-term unresolved disputes such as this, along with moderate to extreme right/left wing ideology and/or bias that generally make it into the article, (Covert and/or Overt) which make unbiased contributions nearly impossible to maintain. This is generally the reason scholars reject Wikipedia as valid source material.

As an example, I once read an article concerning Resident evil 5 that had actual racial slurs (The N-word is particular) replacing the cities and people described in the article, a year had passed before it was noticed or even corrected.

The article in which this dispute arises has yet to be resolved after 2 years, while there are plenty of contributions which display the proper academic credentials/expertise/motivation that contribute well to this site, these efforts are generally undermined by posts in which academic accuracy is of secondary/not considered as a motivation for contribution.

As it stands, it would nearly be impossible for unpaid semi, to anonymous posts in maintaining/editing an online encyclopedia as a form of legitimate information, as emotional/political bias could possibly make it into articles.

Alternate ways in which I see at the moment as a solution for the maintenance of this site as a source of a scholarly resource, is that contributions have the requirement to register *the actual identity along with a photo, if available/possible (*Real names/addresses on file, not displayed of course), while mandating anonymous contributions not be published at all.

Furthermore, if opinions/and or concerns use non-committal language in feedback/critiques it would in my opinion, further these disputes towards a resolution, as opinions/concerns would less likely need to be responded to in the defensive, making cooperation in the resolution of these disputes, possible.

Kezo2005 22:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kezo2005 (talk • contribs)

Quranic text on marriage

@Ozziegt: - you have added the following:

Note: Types of Marriage between the relations that are not permited are stated in this Ayat of Qur'aan

(...Arabic text)

Prohibited to you [for marriage] are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your father's sisters, your mother's sisters, your brother's daughters, your sister's daughters, your [milk] mothers who nursed you, your sisters through nursing, your wives' mothers, and your step-daughters under your guardianship [born] of your wives unto whom you have gone in. But if you have not gone in unto them, there is no sin upon you. And [also prohibited are] the wives of your sons who are from your [own] loins, and that you take [in marriage] two sisters simultaneously, except for what has already occurred. Indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful. Qur'aan-4:23

Please provide any reliable published source that states that the you above refers to "Women in Islam". If you meant Women in Islam, it would imply Quran is discussing same-sex marriage in Islam, and which type of same-sex marriages are not allowed in Islam. I have seen no scholarly reference that states any same-sex marriage is allowed in Islam.

The above passage seems irrelevant to this article and WP:UNDUE. Please explain why you believe it is relevant to this article. Per WP:BRD, let us discuss it before you re-insert it back. LaraMagasin (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to observe that marriage is a two-way process, and since the prohibitions listed all involve women it seems entirely pertinent to the article (though I do see that the sentence "But if you have not gone in unto them, there is no sin upon you." is arguably not pertinent!). Alfietucker (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

"You" refers to both men and women, so it is definitely relevant. Since the section is about endogamy, it seems relevant here to include what the Quran says about who Muslims are allowed to marry or not. I would say that if you do not feel this Quranic verse is relevant, than the entire section on endogamy is not relevant. Ozziegt (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I have reworded and added source for the pertinent content, in a way that avoids confusion with "gone in unto them", and avoids misleading the reader about same-sex marriage. Just quoting a personal unverifiable translation of Quran violates wiki policies such as WP:V and WP:NOTRS. LaraMagasin (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal translation, it was the Sahih International translation even though the original editor did not mention that. Your edit implies that only women have those restrictions on marriage when the restrictions apply to all Muslims. Ozziegt (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a wiki article on Women in Islam, not all Muslims, not everything in Quran, not all humanity, not everything in the universe. Blogs, advocacy groups such as Sahih International, personal translations, etc are WP:NOTRS and WP:PROMOTION. For acceptable sources for wikipedia, see WP:PSTS. LaraMagasin (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of accepted translations to choose from which say the same thing if you don't like Sahih International. True, this page is about women but at the same time it is misleading to imply something applies to women when a general statement can be made which is more clear.Ozziegt (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Men's rights

If this is an article about Muslim women why are men's marital rights being discussed? For example: "The woman’s husband, may however, marry and have sex with more than one Muslim woman, as well as have sex with non-Muslim slave girls who are unmarried or married to non-Muslim men." Ozziegt (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

As Alfietucker noted above, relationships that involve or affect women in Islam is pertinent. Heterosexual polygamy involves women, and is relevant. LaraMagasin (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Uncle-niece marriage

I've removed some recently added material which breached WP:OR: i.e. it was commentary on verses from the Qur'an, not made by a reliable secondary source, but apparently by the editor who was adding the material. However, I thought I should open this topic since (not being myself a Qur'an specialist) it seems likely that there is indeed a verse (4:23) forbidding marriage between uncles and nieces: if so, I would think this should be included in the article, though supported by a reliable secondary source. Could someone familiar with the relevant literature or with access to it do this? Alfietucker (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no source for the claim that uncle-niece marriages are common, so I suggest it be removed altogether. Furthermore, reference #158 mentions that uncle-neice marriage is prohibited and so it is not present amongst Arabs. There are some real issues with the credibility of this section. Ozziegt (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

As a follow up, I reviewed the cited works. One article explicitly states that uncle-niece marriage is not allowed in Islam and is not found in Arab society [ref: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2765422/]. Another states that there is uncle-niece marriage present in South India, but this article is not specifically about Islamic society and makes no mention of which community it is referring to [ref: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419292/].Ozziegt (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

A large portion of the sexual crimes section is applicable to both men and women so I do not think that it is relevant to this article. Any thoughts on this matter? Ozziegt (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Alfietucker is right about verse 4:23. Lets keep uncle-niece part out until WP:RS sources are offered. But, Ozziegt, there is no reason to remove first cousin sections, as you have done. It is supported.

On the sexual crimes section, if it is applicable to women in Islam, it is relevant to this encyclopedic article, even if it is also applicable to men. This article is not a guide on "What is applicable to women in Islam only, but not applicable to both men and women in Islam." LaraMagasin (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If you can point out which articles give the specifics about cousin-cousin marriage being the most prevalent go ahead and keep them. As I have said before, if you want to include something which applies to both men and women then the article should be clear that it applies to both. Otherwise it is misleading to suggest that laws apply to women as that may infer that women are treated differently when they are not in those cases. If you want to include everything that applies to all Muslims with the justification that is applies to women, than you might as well just throw the whole Quran in here.Ozziegt (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Just did a quick check on the South Indian uncle-niece marriages. It is found among South Indian Muslims (see Genetic Disorders of the Indian Subcontinent, ISBN 978-1402012150, Springer). It is also found among Indonesian Muslims, the nation with world's largest Islamic population. I do not believe this means we should insert uncle-niece back in somewhere, because 4:23 verse indeed forbids it. This needs a lot more study.

Ozziegt, the references cited in the article offer abundant specifics and discussions on consanguineous cousin marriages of women in Islam. Let me think a bit more on how to best address your "applies to both" concern. LaraMagasin (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Women in Muslim countries

I am opening this discussion because of this edit and the summary "Many things were sourced but were not related to the section being discussed and as a result were removed; women in islam does not equate to women in Muslim countries." Unfortunately there is no such article (i.e. "Women in Muslim Countries), and anyone attempting to find such an article is redirected to this article ("Women in Islam"). So, as things stand, any material to do with women under Islamic society or within a Muslim country has to fit in here. Maybe the material should be reorganised to make a distinction between what is taught in the Qur'an, and what is practised in various Muslim societies: but I don't think this is grounds for removing such material from this article.

Any other thoughts? Alfietucker (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

"Women in Muslim countries" is a complicated subject because the data and reports from many Muslim-majority countries includes data for non-Muslims in those countries. For example, Malaysia is 60% Muslim. Nigeria is nearly equal in its Muslim and Christian population. Turkey, which is 96%+ Hanafi Sunni Muslim, is a secular state with no official state religion and the word Sharia is not its constitution unlike many predominantly Muslim nations. Iran is mostly Shia, Egypt Sunni. Why lump them all into one article? There are already country specific articles such as Women in Turkey, Women in Algeria, Women in Egypt, etc. - which provide specific articles on women and local Muslim societies. This article should keep its focus on Women in Islam, with content summarized from WP:RS sources. LaraMagasin (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Point absolutely taken - I didn't in fact imagine that having an article "Women in Muslim countries" was particularly desirable, and only referred to its hypothetical existence in light of what seemed to me an unhelpful edit summary, as I mentioned in my opening post. LaraMagasin, I appreciate you reinstating the material that was cut and asking for a proper discussion about how it should be handled. Alfietucker (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

FGM and recent edits

I have removed one sided Muslims versus Christian comparison of FGM in select countries, because there is no scholarly consensus on this, and because this is WP:CHERRYPICK and WP:SOAP.

There is a link to relevant FGM articles, which per WP:SPINOFF, should suffice. LaraMagasin (talk) 10:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted Dar al ifta and related paragraph because it is WP:ADVOCACY. There are several Muslim organizations, in Indonesia/Malaysia/Egypt/elsewhere who have argued in favor of FGM - one should not WP:CHERRYPICK, choose sides in an encyclopedic article, see WP:NPOV. This article is not the place to get into this complicated subject. There are three wikipedia articles on FGM already, and this article should just be a neutral summary. LaraMagasin (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Right to vote in Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan politics in 1910s were complicated. To link or imply women's suffrage there in 1918 and Islam, 2 years before Azerbaijan became part of Soviet Union, is tenuous and WP:UNDUE. This article isn't about women in Azerbaijan, it is about women in Islam. Same goes for Turkey. LaraMagasin (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q4 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)