Talk:Women in Muslim societies

Change of article name and contents

I think Women in the Qur'an should be merged with this article, and then this article should be changed to Women in Islam. As it will allign this article with Rights and obligations of spouses in Islam. TruthSpreader^Talk 17:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• I would have to disagree completely, Rights and obligations of spouses in Islam, even where it to turn into a good article, has a much more limited scope than this. This article can incorporate, and indeed does, that rights and obligations of spouses in Islam. Added to that is that this is a better article which is free of quote dumping. So, no, it'd be a step backwards to do that. --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This article is an Islam related article, it is confusing that what are the Islamic rulings and what is currently being followed. Otherwise this whole article should be converted into a secular article. TruthSpreader^Talk 02:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This is also important to allign the article with Christian views of women and Role of women in Judaism. TruthSpreader^Talk 05:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with truthspreader. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, this article was originally called something like Islam and women, until someone changed it. The problem is -- and has been all along -- that Muslims have many views on the Islamically correct treatment of women. Add to this that diversity among the intelligentsia and the ulema is only the top layer on a variety of social customs, some of which seem (even to the non-Muslim observer) to contradict the Quran and Sunnah, but which are believed to be authentically Islamic by many Muslims. Some of those customs, such as honor killing, are getting extremely bad press these days, so there are many educated Muslims who deny that these are TRULY Islamic. I think it was one of those editors who changed the title of the article, trying to make the point that what Muslims do, or Muslim-majority societies do, is not necessary ISLAM. If the article is changed back to Islam and women, it shouldn't be censored to exclude all the embarrassing material, nor should it be written from the POV of a Muslim who is sure that honor killing is non-Islamic. Zora 21:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

But honor killing is non-Islamic. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is, embarassing issues like honor killing, cannot be explained through any phenomenon in Islam. What a husband can do maximum, I have already edited in rights and obligations of spouses in Islam? And I am pretty sure that any credible source wouldn't even accept honor killing, as punishments in Islam cannot be given by individuals, they have to be conducted by the Government. We can put a small section at the end of artcile that would lead to Criticism of Islam. TruthSpreader^Talk 02:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have created a working version for Women in Islam. It can be edited here: User:Truthspreader/Women in Islam. If someone can improve it, that'll be great. TruthSpreader^Talk 10:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

done!!! TruthSpreader^Talk 20:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You guys are darn sure that honor killing is not Islamic, but the prevalence of honor killing in many Muslim-majority countries -- and the failure of many local mullahs to speak against it -- suggests that there is a difference of opinion. The problem is coming up with published cites saying that it's Islamic, since the educated classes (the ones who write and publish things) are much more apt to reject it. WP has to give all views, including the deprecated ones. WP can't take a position on what is truly Islamic and what isn't; we don't issue fatwas. Zora 22:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

PS. Truthspreader, I just looked at your proposed article. It is simply not acceptable for a WP article to say "Islam says". People say and people have different views. You are trying to use the article to propound YOUR view of what is true. We have to give a survey of what all Muslims think -- even the ones with whom you disagree. Zora 22:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Dang it, that WAS NOT RIGHT!

Truthspreader, by "redirecting" everything to an already existing article (one which gives an "Islam says" version of things) you erased this article and its talk page. That is censorship, pure and simple. If you repeat that, I'll take it as vandalism. There is no consensus on a move and there are strong objections to the direction in which you are heading. WP is not an opportunity for dawa (if that's what your username means). We give all views. Zora 23:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to understand your point but just look at Christian views of women and Role of women in Judaism. They don't even have a section on criticism, even though they might had (if not today, which I will disagree) problems with women rights. In Islam, there is definitely no clergy, there are no two opinions about it, but all the primary sources have to be interpreted by scholars and because there is no clergy, scholars can disagree. I myself, feel to some extent, that the article's scope is little because I have very few references, but it doesn't mean, that we should not strive to reach this goal. And I am against the approach of learning religion in which a street guys opinion is also given. As I wrote before, I am trying to write Women in Islam and not Women in Muslim societies. And sometimes I feel that wikipedia has become a news website more than an encyclopedia. TruthSpreader^Talk 05:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I edited women in Islam to be a replacement for this article. If somebody can give some constructive ideas, that'll be great. TruthSpreader^Talk 07:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The street guy's opinion is important, if this is what outsiders see of Islam. Furthermore, I think it's interesting that the Muslim clergy doesn't seem to be combatting the street guy's views in any way. Frex, an Islamic party in Jordan, the Islamic Action Front, agrees that honor killing is Islamically wrong, but refuses to support any reform in laws that let men kill their female relatives with impunity. The reason given is that the reform is motivated by "Western ideas". Funny that Islamists will strenuously oppose things like music or pictures of humans, prohibitions for which there is no Quranic warrant, but un-Islamic honor killing is just not an issue. Islamists are also opposing the repeal of the hudood laws in Pakistan, which are also conceded to be un-Islamic.

What some clergy SAY doesn't take precedence over what many Muslims DO. Zora 08:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you really want to keep these ideas on wikipedia, I would strongly recommend securalization of this article. For the issue of Hudood law in Pakistan, there are Islamic Scholars that are battling for women rights, although, they are not getting much fame among Mullahs, which I think are more or less politically motivated than religiously. Just take a look at this transcript of discussions among different scholars on this contraversial issue of hudood laws, and you'll find that some scholars strongly oppose these oppressive laws and even ask to repeal them.[1][2]

Secondly, Islam logo should be removed from the article and the problems in this article should be dealt with political understanding than Islamic understanding. This is the only way to get around (at least to my understanding). If someone can give comments, on how to do it, that'll be great. TruthSpreader^Talk 08:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Another way is to expand the criticism section of women in Islam and then redirect this article to there. TruthSpreader^Talk 09:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason that the article HAS the current title is that someone felt strongly that the way many Muslims treated women was un-Islamic and that it was wrong to use a title like "Women and Islam" to discuss women's position in societies like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Now you're trying to remove this article, limit discussion to the way things SHOULD be, and tidy everything else away. Look, this is a large subject, it's a controversial subject, and it deserves its own article. I'm glad that you believe that executing women who have been raped is wrong, etc. I'm sure that many Muslims share your views. I don't believe that Islam is inherently evil, like some of the WP editors I've encountered. I think that the article should point out that Muslims have different views, that different countries have different laws, etc. I don't want the good expunged any more than I want the bad expunged.

I'm willing to think about removing the Islam template. Perhaps if we had a template for "Contemporary controversies about Islam" to put there instead ... Zora 09:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I asked User:Striver to make a template for contemporary controverseries about Islam and then put it here. Once that is done, a disambiguation page will be created at Islam and Women and then all the Islam labelling will be removed, including Islamic reasoning or defence for any offence, and more secular reasons will be put. TruthSpreader^Talk 16:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you can't do that. Your intent seems to be to erase any connection between your version of Islam and embarrassing aspects of the treatment of women in Muslim-majority societies. You seem to be believe that it's all secular, cultural, political -- Islam can't be blamed for anything. Well, that's one POV and it should be represented. However, there are also critics outside Islam who say that Islam as it developed and is practiced today is inherently misogynist. You can't discuss women's issues without allowing those critics their say, or mentioning the controversy. Zora 18:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

PS -- I take strong exception to having Striver make a template. I will try to come up with something myself. Zora 18:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My only concern is that, we should not have a fork POV of the same issue. If you have some other plan, I am ready to listen. TruthSpreader^Talk 18:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Women as theological figures

Can someone with the relevant background knowledge develope the appropriate areas of Women as theological figures article, and also create a parallel article to Religion and politics/Christianity and politics Jackiespeel 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Image change

The previous image of the girl from Hyderabad was a very inaccurate representation of the true Muslim society. According to Islam, the current image of the girl in proper Muslim attire (taken from a flickr user--see Image Summary for details) is much better representative of what the Muslim women should look like, as opposed to the fancy dressed-up girl from Hyderabad that was used prior. Rather, that was a representation of Hyderabad culture, which this article is not about. Simim 06:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Simim, you are one Muslim among millions, and you cannot tell anyone else what is true Islam and what isn't. I changed the caption, which implied that what that girl is wearing is "proper" and other dress is "improper".

I do think that that is a better picture, if it's fair use, but it should be only one of many. We need a gallery of Muslim women wearing different forms of hijab, or none at all. Zora 06:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the woman in the new picture is more pretty. So, I go for it. --Aminz 06:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

i think Picture on page is perfect.

Khalidkhoso 17:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Women in Islam

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

Discuss at Talk:Women and Islam. I am going to copy this discussion and put it there.--Sefringle 03:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)