Wikipedia

Talk:Women in Islam/Archive 2

< Talk:Women in Islam
Latest comment: 2 months ago by StephenMacky1 in topic Talk: deletion of superfluous muslim male info
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Neutrality claims by user at IP 50.65.156.3

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User at 50.65.156.3 - You deleted text with three reliable sources, with the comment that it is not neutral. I reverted it. The NPOV policy of wikipedia states the following, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." In other words, if you have valid concerns about neutrality, you are welcome to identify alternate significant views with reliable sources. We can then summarize it. You should not delete content along with multiple reliable sources, because that is disruptive. LaraMagasin (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Explaining reverts

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I have reverted user Nawabmalhi's edits on female infanticide. The Economist and review papers are not unreliable sources, they are secondary reliable sources.

In the paragraph that names some women who have converted to Islam, I have re-inserted a few names of women who have left Islam. It is NPOV, and it relates to "women in Islam" who left Islam - which is as relevant as those whose joined Islam. Wikipedia is not a list, current affairs or newspaper see WP:WWIN. If you disagree, let us respect WP:BRD and discuss it. LaraMagasin (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I have also reverted user Mib2941 addition that was sourced from a blog at freemiddleeast.com. See WP:NOTRS for reasons. LaraMagasin (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Drive by tagging and removal of sourced content

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Wikiteame / Ankush 89 / User hopping @90.244.*.*: Don't delete sourced content, and explain your tags here with specific concerns. See WP:TAGGING for more. LaraMagasin (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ankush 89: You left the following reason in the tag here, "Women in Islamic nations still struggle for an equivalent position with men, they have to obey the pardah and burqah system in this 21st Century and for simple reasons the girls and womens are gunned down, tortured to death by extremist and orthodox jihadis".
This reads like personal opinion, and is unconstructive in helping improve this wikipedia article. Please respect wikipedia's NPOV policy, and do not indulge in Template:NPOV drive by tagging, or personal criticism of Islam, or personal praise of Islam. Explain your concern within wikipedia content policies and guidelines. See WP:WWIN and WP:NPOV for more. LaraMagasin (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV tag

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

NPOV originally added on this basis, don't think it's necessary. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Age of marriage section All consensus in classical Islamic jurisprudence points to the actual age of Aisha being 6 at the time of her wedding and 9 at the time of consummation, not 16 and 19. The text currently written in this section is completely without citation and is a false statement to gloss over the reality.

While I don't want to make the edit myself, being a layperson, I have sufficient knowledge of Islam to flag this with the hope that an editor will verify and correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UzairH (talk • contribs) 10:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


Women in Islam

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

The article women in Islam shall deal with the rights and obligations as prescribed by scripture - The Quran and Sunnah. It shall not deal with the rights and obligations of women in Muslim countries as all muslim countries do not follow sharia have regional variations in the application of sharia. In the section of endogamy a verse was added which a user said that it is relating to incest and deleted. But when endagamy and incest were separated the same user said that there is no requirement of separating endogamy and incest. The user is EastN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.68.59 (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The article shall follow the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. EastTN (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The material I moved out of the section on "incest" appeared to me to deal with the general question of consanguinity. If you think a separate section on "incest" is helpful, we can do that. But whatever we do has to be supported by reliable secondary sources, and not just our personal interpretation of the Qu'ran. EastTN (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

My question is that first you said to remove the verse that incest and endogamy are not same but when I separated incest and endogamy. You said it is same and should flow under same section. All other sections give verses verses from Quran followed by interpretations from secondary sources. I did not add my own interpretation. I added verse to give complte list of prohibited relations which were not given by other secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.69.78 (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I never intended to say that incest and endogamy are the same thing, and I apologize if something I said gave you that impression. The secondary sources for the particular statements I moved are all about the broad topic of endogamy. The question is moot now, because I've pulled them back out into a separate section on forbidden marriages. Note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a commentary on the Qu'ran nor a religious textbook on Sharia. That means that the article should not be written as a series short sections in which a verse from the Qu'ran followed by commentary explaining that verse. (As, in fact, most of it is not.) I would also note that you did not give a complete list of prohibited marriages. To do that, you would have to go down one more ayah and include Quran 4:24. Again, though, it's moot now - I've pulled the material out into a separate section and fixed the formatting on the quote from the Qu'ran. EastTN (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. However, my question is not moot, it is visible from history that you tried this verse to be removed by using double standard. Similar verses and primary sources are used in other sections and you know them. If the same standard shall used for all it would be better but you tried to show one side but not other. I'm thankful to you for coming to consensus in the discussion. As for the verses, I wrote they were about prohibited marriages due to relations or endogamy. I didn't wrote all forbidden marriages. The main article looked previously as incest is permitted in Islam. I think you are ignoring main question. But thanks for this. Wikipedia is wikipedia. It encompasses everything and you know that. Furthermore I shall be thankful to you if you apply same standard to every section of this article and DBN. To give information about Islam Quran is best source as Torah for judaism. Any lay person by making citation can't give information that is against Quran and that shall absolutely remain wrong. If article were about Muslim world rather than Islam then you are right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.69.86 (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

"...my question is not moot, it is visible from history that you tried this verse to be removed by using double standard." Are you trying to score some sort of point off me, or to improve the article? I've assumed good faith on your part and responded to your concerns in my own edits. That's how the process works. On the two specific issues related to the edits you questioned - quoting Qu'ran 4:24 and putting the material in a separate section - please take "yes" for an answer.
As for the appropriate use of the Qu'ran in the article, please take a look at the Manual of Style entry on the use of the Qu'ran and Hadith as sources. Of particular relevance here is the statement that "The Quran and the Hadith are considered to be primary sources, as defined in WP:PRIMARY. Therefore they should not be quoted to make an argument or imply a particular interpretation unless one can also cite a reliable secondary source that supports that usage." We may both have our own opinions about how the Qu'ran should be interpreted. Those opinions are irrelevant. We have to find reliable sources for any interpretations we include in the article. Simply quoting the Qu'ran and then offering up our own personal understanding of what it means or how it should be applied is not enough. It may also be helpful to look at the general policy prohibiting original research. EastTN (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Share of wife/wives

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There is consensus of muslims that wives of deceased will inherit from any type of his property - movable or immovable. I've found some material that speaks that wives can't inherit immovable property. This is cited from challengable islamophobic source - whose ruling has no importance in Islam. It is clearly written in Quran 4:7 that Quranic rule shall apply to any type of property. Furthermore I added another verse 4:12 to support the claim of other source which was removed. Henceforth I assumed good faith and explained here. Kindly make all citations reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.69.120 (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

We wikipedians shall write fact. It doesn't deal what islamophobes or critics of Islam falsely assume. It 's unreliable source and I removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabt of Tahzeeb (talk • contribs) 07:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You have provided no reliable sources to support your claim for a "consensus of muslims." We Wikipedians shall write what we can verify, not what we personally believe to be true. EastTN (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Women in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Violation of NPOV policy

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"Generalisations about Muslim women may not just be inaccurate but rather unhelpful." This sentence in the opening paragraph of the article clearly violates the NPOV policy. The nature of the article is to inform users of the role(s) women play in Islam and Islamic cultures, not to influence political opinions. 85.255.236.165 (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that a political opinion is being pushed. PepperBeast (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It's completely irrelevant to the article. Generalisations about any gender or culture are unhelpful, but it doesn't mean that kind of statement should be included on every page. It's the author's opinion, not a fact or citation, and has only been included because of the increased media attention Islamic cultures have received in recent years. 146.255.106.107 (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

slaves can own property

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

according to www.bbc.co.uk >history > slavery in islam. further more verse 4:25 allows this. please smatra improve article by removing unreliable source of skainga. Pixie dust 777 (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You are failing to provide a reliable source to back up your claim. Please do not re-add your unreferenced claim until you have read this guide, understand what a reliable source is and have added it below -- samtar talk or stalk 12:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

if samtar have please answer on talk page. Pixie dust 777 (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Pixie dust 777: I have, above your comment -- samtar talk or stalk 12:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

samtar please be neutral. you can see BBC is already added in other material of same part of article. if you think it is unreliable you can see quran 4:25. please explain and remove unreliable material and do no score with others. Pixie dust 777 (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


@Pixie dust 777 and Samtar: Pixie, the source you seem to be referencing - http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml
does state:

  • that slaves could own property

BUT does not clearly state

  • female slaves could own property.

In my opinion, this BBC source does not contain the cited information you are asserting. It is my understanding that female slaves and male slaves are regarded differently by Islam. Shearonink (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC) samtar in the section SLAVE AND ISLAMIC LAW. sub-section Slave rights it is clearly written.

  • slave may own property
  • slave may own slaves.

you can see it. what is your opinion is irrelevant when a reliable sourcr says opposite. so please don't war editig in section comparison with other religions

Pixie dust 777 (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit war

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

@Pixie dust 777: yet again you are attempting to remove referenced claims and replacing them with unreferenced ones. Please provide us with one reliable source which verifies your claim -- samtar talk or stalk 08:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

samtari have explained in section slave can own property with reference but you continously undoing it. BBC. samtar please stop warring let a reliable source be added. you are silent in the section slave can own property. are you scoring with others or trying to re-add unreliable sources. Pixie dust 777 ([[User talk:Pixie dust 777|talk]]) 10:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

See above re the BBC/slavery ref. Shearonink (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC) see above slave can own property Pixie dust 777 (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Pixie dust 777: you're really being disruptive about this aren't you? We've tried to explain that the source does not validate your claim, but still you refuse to listen. I'd love to assume good faith but you clearly don't have the level of competence required to edit here. You've edit warred and broken the three revert rule multiple times, so I'll let an admin deal with you as I've had enough of you sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending you can't hear us. -- samtar talk or stalk 07:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


New page proposal: Muslim Women in Sports

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am interested in creating a new page that would expand on the section about Muslim women in sports. In addition to discussing professional athletes in soccer, tennis, and volleyball, this page would explore other sports and amateur players. I would also give more attention to the social issues connected with this topic, including religious, cultural, familial, and structural barriers to sports participation and how Muslim women have overcome them. I am also looking for advice about the title of my page! My full proposal and bibliography can be found on my user page. Rjpg12 (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

translation error

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

the translation of verse 4:34 in the section domestic breach is missing. Men are maintainers and protectors of women because God has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property. the part they spend out of their property is missing. Smatrah (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

You're quite right-- I fixed the error, and linked to An-Nisa 34. PepperBeast (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Both verses4:34-35 are important for complete understanding of domestic breach. Smatrah (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

explanation of edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I have added a hadith in domestic breach. i have also added citation needed tag to unrefrenced material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatrah (talk • contribs) 10:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I have also added a hadith in menstrution section. Smatrah (talk) 07:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted your additions of hadith and Qur'an quote because they violate WP:NOR. Please consult its section on use of primary sources such as these (WP:PRIMARY). What relevance certain passages from primary sources have to a given topic, how they are assessed and interpreted, and what influence they have had on attitudes, teachings and legal rulings are all matters that have to be supported by citations to reliable non-primary sources. One of your edits also removed a sourced passage without explanation. Your citation needed tags seemed reasonable; please feel free to restore them. Eperoton (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

primary sources that have been published can be used. and those which can be understood by anyone who have access to them without specialized knowledge. Smatrah (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not what the policy says. It says that primary sourcing can be used to make "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". "For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot". Evaluating significance of a primary source like a certain hadith or Quranic passage in an interpretative tradition like Islam is covered by the instruction "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself". Eperoton (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

an-Nisa Order of Appearance

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Pepperbeast: I'm still new around here and to Quranic discussions, but could you clarify your rollback? The chronological dating of the sura's revelation and its textual order in the canonized Qur'an seem to me to be pertinent for a section about the sura in the context of this article. Triplingual (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

They may seem to you to be pertinent, but you didn't say anything about how they are pertinent or what effect they have on women in Islam or why it matters at all. Without explaining the significance, it's just a bit of Quran trivia. PepperBeast (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality of Dress Code Section

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Article appears whitewashed and facts are used to create bias narrative. 

   1) "speaks" of covering women's ornaments from outside the family needs to be changed to "speaks of HAVING TO cover.." or "women are instructed to cover.." The verse is clearly instructing or commanding, not simply speaking "of". Also it is not just "ornaments" but also "beauty" that is instructed to be hidden from strangers. 
   2.) The section of legally enforcing women's dress code in Islamic world makes it appear that it is just confined to Iran and Saudia Arabia, that it is "atypical." Looking at PewResearch Center, it shows that in 2012-2013, countries where some level of government required women to wear religious attire includes Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brunei,Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Russia, Iraq,Libya, Saudia Arabia, Sudan and Somalia.It should also be added, for neutrality, the countries where some level of government restricts women from wearing religious attire including Canada, France.... (its a long list).
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/04/05/restrictions-on-womens-religious-attire/
  3.) Even if it is not legally enforced, women's dress code can still be influenced by social pressure and social stigmatization. There is no mention of this at all, giving the perception that since legal enforcement is only in Iran and Saudia Arabia then everything is "ok" elsewhere in the Muslim world, or that it is "atypical" for women to be denied their right to choose their dress. Again looking at pew poll #s, many Muslim majority countries or countries with large Muslim community, outside of the balkan region and central asia, show 50% or lower believe that women should have the right to choose her own dress. Something like this shouldn't be taken lightly and needs to be emphasized. 1st link displays "right to dress in general" and the 2nd link shows "right to choose a veil."

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/08/what-is-appropriate-attire-for-women-in-muslim-countries/ http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-women-in-society/ Im not that familiar with wiki, may someone please make these additions and make it fair. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ch3wIe (talk • contribs) 18:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality - beating

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It appears to me that the majority of translations do choose to translate 4:34 as hit, https://quran.com/4/34-44 as does Wikipedia itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34 Does this article not need to be reworded to make this clear? --Russell's teapot (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

translater name

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can anyone tell the name of translater of verse 4:34-35. I have not found this translation in any standard translations If no one tells I ll change it to Abdullha yusuf Ali. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonymousSs (talk • contribs) 15:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Previous talk page

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Where is previous material of this talk page. There were many issues which were not yet resolved. Please share some in formation.Smatrah (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

This page has been archived. You can see the archive box on the right. At the time of the archiving, this talk page had not been edited in more than two months. PepperBeast (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

"Sexual crimes" section

Latest comment: 7 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion

@Smatrah:, the content under the "Sexual crimes" section states: "Sharī'ah law makes a distinction between adultery and rape and applies different rules". This IMO warrants a separate section for rape. Even more so, now that there is a dedicated article on the subject, Sexual Violation in Islamic Law (which you also have removed the link to without an explanation).

The claim that "rape is zina" is false. Even advocates of the zina POV have classified it under a separate name, calling it zinā bī al-ikrāh, or "coerced zina", and as stated above, it was understood to be different from consensual zina. Not to mention, there are jurists who have classified it under hirabah, a entirely separate offence.

I also think Eperoton's sub-headings (Traditional jurisprudence, History, Modern Laws) were quite useful. Made the section more readable. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree. The fact that the "rape is zina" claim exists might be worth mentioning, but separate headings are still appropriate and improve readability. PepperBeast (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, the section on rape includes content about modern laws which aren't based on Islamic law, and it would be misleading to subsume them under the Islamic legal term "zina". Eperoton (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Kindly see yourself that in the section of zina it is written that zina include rape, adultery and fornicatioon. Rape is zina bil jabar but also a type of zina as it is included in the name zina bil ikrah. Adultery and rape both are zina as already referenced in the same material. So I have included all material under the section of zina. You have also removed tags without clear explanation. Smatrah (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

And zina bil jabar/zina bil ikrah are distinct enough to warrant a separate section. And as mentioned, this is a one-sided view of rape. Others have classified it under hirabah. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Al-Andalusi's qualification is correct, and reflects not only other RSs, but also the cited author. The cited source says "According to jurisprudents, zinah can encompass several criminal acts that in modern categories would include adultery (of married parties), fornication (of unmarried parties), sodomy, prostitution, bestiality, and rape." Can encompass does not mean necessarily encompasses. A more detailed article on Zinah by the same author in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Women uses more explicit phrasing: "Muslim jurists sometimes included discussions of other illicit sex practices such as sodomy, prostitution, bestiality, and rape in chapters devoted to the subject." Furthermore, some of the modern laws discussed in the article use the modern term for rape and not any terms derived from zina. Algerian penal code does. The mention of Morocco's law and amendment was removed (not sure that was an improvement), but that code explicitly defines rape simply as nonconsensual sex ("Le viol est l'acte par lequel un homme a des relations sexuelles avec une femme contre le gré de celle-ci"). Eperoton (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you give a reliable source which says that rape is not zina. Furthermore why did you change the name of section. Sexual crimes is better as it also include qadhaf which is not illicit sexual intercourse.Smatrah (talk) 05:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Al-Andalusi has already pointed you to the survey of alternative viewpoints cited in Rape in Islamic law, Rape: A Problem of Crime Classification in Islamic Law (see pp. 433-438). I have no opinion on "Illicit sexual intercourse" vs "Sexual crimes". Eperoton (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not terribly committed to 'Illicit sexual intercourse', but labelling the whole thing 'Sexual crimes' seems a bit counter-intuitive for the (possibly large) segment of readers who wouldn't think of consensual sex between unmarried adults as a crime. Maybe we can come up with something a little less opaque-- like "Illicit and Unlawful Sex" or even "Rape, adultery, and sex outside marriage". PepperBeast (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Pepperbeast! Sexual crimes is better for two reasons. Firstly section also include qadhaf which does not fit in the illicit sexual intercourse. Secondly if someone thinks that consensual sex between unmarried adults is not crime then he will also think that such sex is not illicit. I Hope you will understand. Smatrah (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Smatrah, but you are mistaken. For various reasons, sex can be considered illicit, but not criminal. In large parts of the world, adultery can be called illicit, but isn't illegal. Maybe a better heading would be Sexual crimes and misconduct. PepperBeast (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Pepperbeast, you are confused. Crime means a shameful or deplorable action or state of affairs. While illicit means forbidden by law, rules or custom etc. It is according to oxford dictionaries. Illicit sexual intercourse cannot include qadhaf ( false accusation of zina against a chaste woman). So the suitable title is sexual crimes. Have you forgotten to explain 1st point. If you have a reliable source then please continue discussion.Smatrah (talk) 11:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Smatrah, maybe you could actually read what I wrote and that Oxford Dictionary. I suggested several alternative headings. I have no idea why you gave such a bee in your bonnet about this. And according to the OED, illicit means "forbidden by laws, rules, or custom". A thing does not have to be illegal to be illicit. It does have to be illegal to be a crime. PepperBeast (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Pepperbeast you refused to listen that qadhaf is also included in this section. Don't you? Sexual crimes is better name. You are dodging the issue. It makes apparently that you are doing in bad faith. Smatrah (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The "Sexual crimes" section title could perhaps be improved, but I still don't have a strong preference about it. The word "crime" also has a broader meaning, and the section discusses actions which are illegal either according to fiqh or state laws. However, "domestic breach" isn't standard either in legal or general usage and should definitely be replaced by "domestic violence". Eperoton (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Sins are not necessarily crimes, some may have been at a certain place and time. —PaleoNeonate – 21:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Adding: Similarly, scriptural punishment for a sin may also be a crime depending on where and when. —PaleoNeonate – 21:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I've updated the heading to say Rape, adultery, and fornication. This it at least less ambiguous and more neutral-toned than the original. PepperBeast (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
This heading is more ambiguous. It does not contain qadhaf(false accusation of zina against a chaste women). Why are you not willing to listen it?Smatrah (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not trying to ignore it, but I don't see how lumping it under 'sexual crimes' (an awkward phrase, incidentally) helps. Qadhf in this context is a false accusation of fornication or adultery, which I think fits perfectly well under the present heading. PepperBeast (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Advertizing?

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The section "Effect of globalisation on Muslim women's couture" may contain advertizing and includes external links to company websites in the form of references (I'm not sure if this is acceptable, versus a link to an article if the brand is notable enough to have an article). These brands are unknown to me but it's also not my field, more eyes appreciated. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Lot of advertising seems to be going on there. I'm sure it can be replaced by notable brands rather than the current unknown ones. Mavriksfan11 (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I cleaned up the section for now. —PaleoNeonate – 15:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Women in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Women in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

share of uterine siblings

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

In a section of behaviour within marriage the verse is misinterpreted. Verse 4:12 explains the share of uterine siblings in the end for this I can quote pickthall’s translation and as a secondary source . http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=700&Itemid=59 So I think my clarification in the verse is valid. Thinking you. Smatrah (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding clarification is fine. Source is fine. Just don't plunk it in the middle of a quotation (ie, a Qu'ran verse), and do use complete sentences. "Uterine sibling" is not a normal way to describe full or half siblings who share the same mother. PepperBeast (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok. If I write in brackets FROM MoTHER SIDE then it will be fine? The translation without it is misleading. You can see pickthal’s. You can see similar verses on Wikipedia, which have clarification in brackets, then why problem arises here?

Smatrah (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

No. Do not insert remarks into the middle of the Qu'ran verse. Add what you need to add to the article text, in complete sentences, and include your reference. PepperBeast (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Why not? You are trying to misinterpret me. My point

  • verse have some words in bracket which you think are okay.
  • verse should also have words that clarifies it’s accurate meaning.
  • I am not adding any new word from myself
  • I quoted primary source from pickthall. You would have said secondary’s source is compulsory so I gave secondary source.
  • it is part of translation other wise verse will be deemed incomplete.
  • I am not adding my remark. After all it is part of translation.

Smatrah (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC): Why are you

In the time it took you to type that, you could have added a sentence explaining the issue to the article. You reference is to Tafsir, not a Qu'ran translation, so it should be cited separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepperbeast (talk • contribs) 07:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I am saying again and again that pickthall’s translations n have it. And it is not tafsir. If you know about this topic you must have access to these translations. Smatrah (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, really, you need to stop. The verse is there, it's clearly translated, and it's well-explained in the context of *this* article. Leave it alone. PepperBeast (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Muslim Women and Islamophobia

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think this section of the article can use a lot of work. First of all, the scope is extremely limited, as it only touches on Muslim American women's experience. We should try to look beyond the United States to get other Muslim Women's experiences and conceptions of Islamophobia with relation to women. Second, I think for what this specific subject/headline deals with, it should be a lot longer. Perhaps, less statistics, and more of a qualitative, condensed history of Islamophobia with respects to women throughout history. --Esol518 (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Requesting wider attention

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature#Article_review. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.

Posting message here too for neutrality sake


Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 07:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The terms "Aurat", "Arvad", "Avret", and "Awrath" may refer to: Women of Asian religious or cultural descent and identity.

Self nomination for AFD since article copy pasted to Draft:Aurat for incubation because IMHO current article title Aurat (word) is misleading and confusing leading to western systemic bias and stifling the article growth. Please find Detail reason at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

I invite project members to review current and potential sourcing and weigh in on the AfD discussion. Thanks!

Bookku (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Islam

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi,

I came across this promising Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Islam (relating to women's rights) and myself supported the same editorially too. IMO since topic potential is vast many Reliable sources on Google scholar seem to be available hence the article needs more editorial hands for some more update and expansion along with appropriate references.

Pl. do join to update and expansion, your help will be most welcome.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Expand and update request

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please do expand and update

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word) has been relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Bookku (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Permission please

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, May i Translate this article to my leanguage? (bahasa Indonesia) فاتح باشر (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes - but please give attribution when you post it on that language's Wikipedia-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Rfc: Why participation of Muslim background women on Wikipedia as editors is so low?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi.

If you feel interested in, then kindly do share your inputs on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam#Why is editorial participation of Muslim women on Wikipedia so low?

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Peer review request

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Requesting peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Women in Islam/archive1,

Bookku (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Female Employment section

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hello,

I was glancing over this article when I found a grave mis-interpretation in the "Female Empowerment" section:

"Some scholars[74][75] refer to verse 28:23 in the Quran and to Khadijah, Muhammad's first wife, a merchant before and after converting to Islam, as indications that Muslim women may undertake employment outside their homes.

And when he came to the water of Madyan, he found on it a group of men watering, and he found besides them two women keeping back (their flocks). He said: What is the matter with you? They said: We cannot water until the shepherds take away (their sheep) from the water, and our father is a very old man.

— Quran[Quran 28:23]"

This portion mentions this verse (28:23) in relation to Prophet Muhammad's wife, Khadija, and her job as a merchant. The verse is NOT about Khadija's employment- it is about the story of Moses when he meets two women trying to water their sheep at a well (Just reading the verses before and after clearly shows that). If someone can edit this mistake that would be great- I'll be back in a couple of days and if it remains unedited I will fix it myself.

Thanks, SumayyahGhori (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I took out the above portion, which read:

Some scholars refer to verse 28:23 in the Quran and to Khadijah, Muhammad's first wife, a merchant before and after converting to Islam, as indications that Muslim women may undertake employment outside their homes.

 

And when he came to the water of Madyan, he found on it a group of men watering, and he found besides them two women keeping back (their flocks). He said: What is the matter with you? They said: We cannot water until the shepherds take away (their sheep) from the water, and our father is a very old man.

— Quran[Quran 28:23]

It was factually incorrect, as I mentioned before.

SumayyahGhori (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Reverts of students good faith edits and erasure from talk pages

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@ User:Helaine (Wiki Ed) User:Ian (Wiki Ed)

Greetings

Being an inclusivist, Whatever point of views and or limitations, personally I find instantaneous reverts of good faith contribution disturbing, because some one has invested his her valuable time. User:Suni0901 and User:SumayyahGhori seems to have taken some effort for this article Women in Islam as part of their course work or interest and unfortunately their contributions are being reverted almost instantaneously. User:SumayyahGhori seems to have edited this talk page too but both of theirs edits have got insufficient time. Among one one revert it's almost difficult to reexamine those reverts and support the new user. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not a friendly enough place for new users and for them best practice would be to post content first in sand box so even if it gets reverted some one like me who may wish to give positive support would find it easy to do so.

The second problem is talk page is being archived too fast. I don't know if if archiving can be delayed so enough time can be provided for deliberations of such contributions.

This article needed proper review too and I had started review page some one closed review without enough review contributions, users like User:SumayyahGhori could have joined review process. I find some of the ways of Wikipedia truly increasing difficulties of positive contributors. And some one notes any such comment thousands of opposing comments come without substantial help. Rather than spending time on reverting a good faith edit why one can't invest same amount of time in finding ways to what extent any contribution can be supported by may be searching and adding references etc. Waste others time waste own time is a horrible Mantra no positive contributor and inclusivist can help with.

Regards

Bookku (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Men are superior to women according to the Quran

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

According to 4:34. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? DarkLink (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

4:34 is already mentioned in the first section of the article. Also, 4:34 doesn't say that men are superior to women. It says men are the protectors of women. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Which translation are you using? Most translations from this page mention that men are superior to women. DarkLink (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

First part of sentence missing?

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The sentence immediatly before heading Women in Islam - Domestic violence seem incomplete - seems so be missing it's first part.

in other explanation the reason behind this inequality is that in a household a portion of the male's share has to go on into caring for the family and providing their needs, meanwhile the female can act freely with her share[167]

I suppose the missing first part got inadvertently deleted, but computer and link I currently work from are unsuitable for search through history for the missing part, so I can't correct and am just reporting. --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic .... ?

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings,

This is basically continuation of first round of discussion which took place previously @ Talk:Islamic literature and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)

Present Wikipedia tendency

An average tendency on Wikipedia seems to be of transforming word Muslim into Islam or Islamic wherever possible without visiting nuanced aspects. As a small example title Islamic feminism is nuanced and correct since it specifically refers to theory of Islam. But is it correct to redirect title Muslim women to Women in Islam those who are not exposed to nuances might think so. Some might take refuge to fallacy of Appeal to popularity, but nuanced view suggests otherwise. Pl. do read on below given copy pasted discussion from Talk:Islamic literature

Here comes concept of normative.

  • Quick google search of term Normative gives definition as "...establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm, especially of behaviour...."

Is present lack of nuanced approach, risks throwing in and enforcing a sided normative. All Islamic art can be called Muslim art, but whether all Muslim art can be called Islamic art. For example recently one Saira Khan recently openly declared of not being practicing Muslim, and still we can not list her in List of former Muslims so formally remains a Muslim at the most one can categories them in Cultural Muslim; take one more point, there can be former Muslim who reverts to Islam is it easy to classify their art Muslim or Islamic ? Or take example of M.F. Husain many of his drawings are of living things so whether it is safe to classify his art Muslim or Islamic ? :File:Khamseh Nizami 001.jpg is included in article Islamic Art how far it can be called Islamic Art or is it safer to call it Muslim art?

Those Wikipedians who do have lesser familiarity with Muslims or Islam usually tend to take position I/We don't have understanding on the topic, pl. go over to WP talk:WikiProject Islam, even when topic is critical of Islam that is categorized Islamic project pl. go over to WP talk:WikiProject Islam. Doesn't it risks throwing in and enforcing a sided normative?

Scholarship highlighting this issue

1) According to [1] Muslim is purely someone who practices Islam and Islamic is anything influenced by Islam or produced by Muslims.
2.1) According to M.M. Knight, when one does not speak for real Islam (i.e.'an abstracted ideal' that floats above, Muslim, human cultures but speaks for 'lived traditions') it is preferable to use the term Muslim instead of the term Islam or Islamic.[1]
2.2) M.M. Knight further says,terms 'Islam/ Islamic' imposes claim of normativity, which is distinct with lived experiences hence need not be conflated.[2] (My emphasis)

Question of Grammar

One copyeditor user Dakinijones points out his difficulties @ Talk:Islamic literature, he says:

...According to [2] Muslim is purely someone who practices Islam and Islamic is anything influenced by Islam or produced by Muslims. So I’ve done some of the (requested via women’s rights article) copyediting on that basis. Please correct my ignorances with sources if wrong. Thanks!...

Similar points of grammar have been discussed @ Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous) similar to [3] their point is architecture, music, art, thought are not humans so saying Muslim architecture, Muslim music, Muslim art, Muslim thought, should be avoided.

Since personally I am more concerned with normative I am okay with Muslim architecture, Muslim music, Muslim art, Muslim thought since those are more inclusive terms in spite issues of grammar inaccuracies, but terms are understandable to human mind; my human brain can very well understand those terms as 'architecture/ music/ art/ thought created by Muslims.'


Nuanced differences and other Wikipedia articles

Please see below given table.

List of articles With Word Muslim or Islam in title
Muslim Islam Comment
Muslim dietary laws This needs to be Islamic dietary laws ?
Apostasy in Islam Article Former Muslim of Ex Muslim needs to exist separately because title Apostasy in Islam has Islamic normative that atheists don't share?
Islamic culture Needs to be Muslim culture?
Islamic literature Needs to be Muslim literature?

Islamic Golden Age

Needs to be Muslim Golden Age ?
Women in Islam Need to be Muslim women?
Islamophobia Need to be Anti Muslim Sentiment?
  • Would term Muslim culture represent cultural diversity among Muslim communities over time and places reflect better than monolithic representation in term "Islamic culture"?
  • Can we draw a parallel, In between Your point differentiating between "Women in Islam" and "Muslim women" and Apostasy in Islam and Former muslims being both valid, and have entirely different normative directions?

I am very well aware of grammar related points of Maproom & Louis P. Boog maintained by them and others @ Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous) and not too keen to break grammar related rules but want other readers also to be aware of issues involved for wider consultations. Bookku (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Knight, Michael Muhammad (2016-05-24). Magic In Islam. Penguin. p. 24. ISBN 978-1-101-98349-2.
  2. ^ Knight, Michael Muhammad (2016-05-24). Magic In Islam. Penguin. p. 24. ISBN 978-1-101-98349-2.

Female Employment section

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all,

I have written about this previously, but feel that such a blatant mistake needs to be covered again. The portion on "Female employment" mentions Khadija, the wife of Muhammad, being a merchant, and then has an unrelated portion of the Quran underneath as "proof". The unrelated portion refers to an accounting of Prophet Moses when he reaches Madyan, and is not relevant to the employment of Khadija. I am referring to this section here:

"Some scholars[87][88] refer to verse 28:23 in the Quran and to Khadijah, Muhammad's first wife, a merchant before and after converting to Islam, as indications that Muslim women may undertake employment outside their homes.[disputed – discuss]

And when he came to the water of Madyan, he found on it a group of men watering, and he found besides them two women keeping back (their flocks). He said: What is the matter with you? They said: We cannot water until the shepherds take away (their sheep) from the water, and our father is a very old man.

— Quran[Quran 28:23]"

Source that verifies that this is untrue: (the literal Quran, verses 28:20 - 28:25 should be enough to prove this): https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/28:22

Khadija was a businesswoman, and there are multiple scholarly sources that could prove this without misconstruing a verse. Here are a few:

https://aiou.edu.pk/sab/gmj/GMJ%20Fall%202015/Article_2.pdf https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789811212154_0005 https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789811212154_0001 http://www.crimbbd.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/IJIMB_08.pdf https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3607074

If I can edit the page myself, I will do it- I know I was blocked a few months ago when I tried, so wanted to put this here as well! 71.178.243.216 (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Concubinage or 'Female slavery'?

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Let us consider following two sentences in first para in Women in Islam#Concubinage.

..However he is not allowed to sell or transfer ownership of his concubines.[1] Concubines were at times housed in harems which maintained their modesty and privilege. Some harems were guarded by eunuchs..[2][3]..
Whether above 2 sentences present complete picture or incomplete picture of female slavery in Muslim societies and Islam ?


  • Circassian had class system more analogous to caste, in wars and raids risk of all non–sunni women of getting captivated and enslaved was largely similar irrespective of social rank, at 'some other negotiated times' higher classes did not bother much of enslavement from women of lower classes. As some sources seem to indicate, 'few' among higher classes at times presented women (of non high class) to Crimean to avoid their raids is matter of further assessment of such sources. At times it seems that, slavery in Ottoman Harems was eulogized and later internalized by some Circassian communities itself post Russian forced migration. In later recorded period few Circassian women and or their parents willingly submitted to slavery in anticipation of better living standard in some Harem. In vulnerable times it made have sense to few communities that rather than getting handled by raiders and subsequently multiple traders, offering themselves to last trader in the chain itself is less exploiting option. But all that is not supposed to mean all captivated young girls accepted enslavement and sexual relations by masters willingly. Rather most humans will not accept any kind of enslavement willingly, But the apologetic in above quoted sentences and section seem to present only one suitable side in such a way that all young girls would have submitted to marauders willingly.
  • Now read innocuous sounding last sentence in above cited para from Women in Islam. "..Some harems were guarded by eunuchs.." . Answer a simple question 'guarded from whom? guarded for whom?' is the Wikipedia article answering the question or is it hiding the answer? Whether female slaves were allowed to move out without being emancipated if any one of them wished so?
  • Until a non–Muslim female slave did not accept Islam she had no strict religious compulsion to fallow veil/hijab or Purdah. So there is no question that enuchs were guarding non–Muslim female slaves in Harem from just stranger men (or were they doing that?).
  • Were any of female slaves presented as gift to other men? If answer comes yes how all of female slaves were concubines of the owner?
  • If many of the owners were selling and gifting some of their female slaves then how one can say before sale or gift they were concubines? So what is the name for that stage of female slave before having a child and accepted as concubine by some master?
  • Every sexcapade does not result in an offspring. So article paragraph sentence "..However he is not allowed to sell or transfer ownership of his concubines.." is just telling half the truth and hiding quite more. What happens to a female slave whom her masters exploited sexually but those could not bear offspring and remain barren for whatever reason?

So heading of the section 'Concubinage' can becomes cause of systemic dislodging of other aspects of female slavery in Muslim Societies and Islam. If not then the section title and the above discussed two sentences are giving a neutral picture of female slavery in Muslim societies and Islam?

References

  1. ^ Joseph, Suad (2007). Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures. Brill.
  2. ^ Anwar, Etin (2004). "Harem". In Richard C. Martin (ed.). Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World. MacMillan Reference USA.
  3. ^ Cartwright-Jones, Catherine (2013). "Harem". The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Women. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-976446-4.

I expect more women participation in this discussion rather than just male dominated Wikipedia discussions causing systemic imbalance, even if it takes long long time for women to join this discussion in sufficient numbers is okay for me so, please don't be in hurry to close the discussion.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Requesting inputs for the article lead image

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, This is User:Bookku requesting your valuable inputs for the article lead image @ Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam#Lead image.


Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Undue

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm noticing that there's a tendency to give WP:Undue weight to certain aspects of women in Islam. For example, there was already a section in the article on "Interfaith marriages", but 1Kwords created a second section on "Interfaith marriage ban for Muslim women". The sentence they added was an exact duplicate of a sentence already in the article: "Historically, in Islamic culture and traditional Islamic law Muslim women have been forbidden from marrying Christian or Jewish men, whereas Muslim men have been permitted to marry Christian or Jewish women." VR talk 14:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

My mistake, didn't notice the sentence was already in the article. Thanks for pointing this out. A Thousand Words (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I missed the info in the "Interfaith" marriages because I was looking at the Marriage / Forbidded marriages section, which says nothing about Muslim women beng banned from marrying any but Muslim men. That section should mention this since it's a form of a ban. A Thousand Words (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Summarystyle

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The prose of the current article is 141 kB. That's about 2-3x larger than WP:SIZERULE. Which means we need to start summarizing sections here (WP:SUMMARYSTYLE) and moving details to child articles. A similar effort is taking place at Talk:Islam#Article size needs reducing.VR talk 03:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: Expecting reasonable effort towards at least reasonable participation of Women users in women related discussions and not to hurry up discussion closures til then.
    • Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
    • Demand women's participation in decision-making at all levels
    • Equality of women and men under the law; protection of women and girls through the rule of law
    • Recognition of the fact that distinct experiences and burdens of women and girls come from systemic discrimination
    • Ensure that women's experiences, needs and perspectives are incorporated into the ... social decisions.
Thanks
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Is this wikipedia policy? Also, how would we know if female wikipedians have participated? Wikipedia doesn't force anyone to reveal their gender.VR talk 14:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Who knows better than yourself that even if given best policy scriptures humans get involved in technicalities, rituals, make novel interpretations but remain always first to forget spirit, merit and need of evolving with time to become more inclusive.
It's not even days for a newbie student I kept formalities on side though edits were far from perfect. If we inculcate spirit and look forward to merit then more inclusive policies can develop.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Requesting patience

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Greetings & welcome to Eninaa

@1Kwords and Anachronist: I suppose Ian (Wiki Ed) is Wiki guide to the education programme for new student editor Eninaa, who seems to be confused about citation style. It seems Eninaa instead of using citation tool from edit menu is referring to last reference number in reference section. We can request Ian (Wiki Ed) to guide Eninaa about using easy citation tool.

I suppose we other users can afford to give time to Ian (Wiki Ed) and Eninaa to communicate among themselves and accommodate new user's suitable edits with patience and little more effort.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Bookku. I left them a message on their user page about how to reference properly. I'm guessing they're working from a draft that's off-wiki. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I've seen similar mistakes happen on other articles (see my message here). I think Bookku's "requesting patience" title is apt. Let's be welcoming to the WP:NEWBIE. Perhaps they will return as a permanent wikipedian after their course.VR talk 22:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
From the course page it seems the students receive training in wikipedia editing (which I never did) so I don't consider them regular newbies. If I had to take a guess, there are already plenty of editors with a background in US academic humanities. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Added a vague tag to Eninaa's addition. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Bookku checking the source of Eninaa's edit which added the "Cultural Norms" section, it consists of Quranic Surah #4. Imho taking a WP:PRIMARY religious text and using it to write some form of analysis would, imho, be something akin to WP:OR original research, as no established expert in the field has come to these conclusions or presented this as a coherent analysis of the religious text. What do you think? A Thousand Words (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not a good addition. Maybe there were other sources for that text, Eninaa? VR talk 21:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Voxcanis, Ian (Wiki Ed), and Helaine (Wiki Ed): In perspective of above discussion, you might be having some fallback systems for crosscheck and corrections, may be we are not aware. If students mention their ref list at least on talk page or their user page itself other helpful editors can have a look at it.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

At this stage I think it would be very appropriate if the courserunners for student's course would take the time to respond. Although I think Bookku is right in encouraging patience, I still think a week's time is ample time for courserunners or student to respond. Meanwhile, I have added an Original Research tag to the section. A Thousand Words (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Morr0028 and Vxngo: Would it be possible for you, to request your faculty and batch mates to take note of the above discussion and respond. Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 24 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: T.sandzimier.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Esol518, Amandacohen24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LizSmith49, Suni0901.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eninaa, Vxngo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Review the term

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

‎The article is about Women in Islam every where including Turkey, instead of Islamic one can use word Muslim majority country. But term 'Islamic nations' appears several times in the article that need to be reviewed. Instead of 'Islamic nations' term 'Muslim majority countries' can be included that will help include technically secular but Muslim majority countries.

But again if we see in historical terms there were some Islamic states where Muslims were in minority, again in muslim women have been there in non Muslim majority countries too so some places as per context better term would be 'Muslim world'. IMHO

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Requesting inputs

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings,

Adequate and nuanced overview for even non– Muslim audience is expected out of the articles Muslims and Muslim world. Whether the articles are achieving that purpose adequately? Requesting and expecting proactive participation in providing inputs from non–Muslim audience too along with Muslim users.

Since the article Muslim world is tagged various improvements it can not be submitted to formal review process still I feel the article deserves more inputs for content improvement.

Requesting your visit to the articles

and provide your inputs @

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Honors World Religions

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AggieGM (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Niese05.

— Assignment last updated by Jad Mada (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Ref

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • Azim, Fahmida, and Yasmin, Seema. Muslim Women Are Everything: Stereotype-Shattering Stories of Courage, Inspiration, and Adventure. United States, HarperCollins, 2020. (Could not have enough preview @ google books may be need to discuss @ RSN if this book would work for ref.)

Bookku (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Dubious Taliban image

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Googleguy007: Perhaps you could explain your rationale for adding this image a little more clearly. On the face of it, you current edit summary, which explains the motive as to "make a diabolical terrorist organization look bad" seems somewhat questionable with respect to MOS:IRELEV. The section in question is about gender segregation, not violence against women or any of the more specific privations of the Taliban, a page that is already appropriately furnished with the image as a relevant one. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry if I came off as unclear, I was saying that showing images depicting the Taliban negatively is not an NPOV violation, not that that was my motivation in restoring the image’s. You do make a good point about the sections primary subject however I added the image thinking in terms of its relation to the sub-section on forced veiling and gender apartheid. I do think an image showing showing forced veiling is in order but your issues with it seeming to depict the general Muslim community in a NPOVio manner are well founded, I’ll look on commons for a better image when I get the chance (perhaps once showing an English language sign mandating head coverings). All the best. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

"10 steps behind" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The redirect 10 steps behind has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 2 § 10 steps behind until a consensus is reached. Anonymous 14:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Womens role models in islamic history

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Womens role models in islamic history 223.228.156.234 (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-03

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Momlife5 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Momlife5 (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Race in America, sec 2

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2024 and 24 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lovebug416 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lovebug416 (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Sport Section

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The sport section seems to be the least necessary section of all, and in the interest of readability, I propose it be removed in its entirety. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk: deletion of superfluous muslim male info

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Discussion on wether appropriate to delete unneeded male info in article.

In my view it doesn't add to the article subject, it only lengthens, and distracts from women in islam.

Ex: "Traditional dress for Muslim men has typically covered at least the head and the area between the waist and the knees,"

RCSCott91 (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

You can delete. There is already an article called Gender roles in Islam anyway. By the way, you do not need a consensus unless you get reverted. StephenMacky1 (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Women_in_Islam/Archive_2&oldid=1254837234"