Talk:Divorce in Islam

Misc
Well I found the about.com article (http://islam.about.com/od/marriage/ss/stepstodivorce.htm) a thousand times more useful than this. I'm not going to edit this because I am not an expert (I came here to learn) but I think someone knowledgeable should look into it especially the two types of woman0initiated divorce in particular the version where she keeps the dowry, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.99.100.158 (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

"For the majority of the world's Muslims divorce is a right pertaining to men and not to women." - I'd like a source for that. I've seen women issue the Talaq in Indonesia, which is predominantly Sunni, Mali and in Western Sahara. I'm not expert on this, and have not looked into this further, so I'd like a source. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:25, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I just moved that part from another article, its not my words, you are invited to change that if its inaccurate.

--Striver 16:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC) Why there is no information about khula which for women is kind of no fault divorce although with no mehr. -anon

What is that? Never heard of it, Add it. --Striver 13:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Standard form extra-judicial divorce which parallels the talaq permitting the woman to remarry without the necessity of muhallil or halalah. I am surprised that anyone monitoring this page has not heard of it. David91 14:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hadith

 * ''Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Of all the lawful acts the most detestable to Allah is divorce.

--Striver 12:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * ''It remains to be seen exactly what Dr. Salamah is upset about. Even though many Sunni 'ulama (though certainly not all) may believe that Mut'ah is abrogated, nonetheless a Sunni man may do exactly the same thing as Mut'ah even if he does not call it that by name. This is because of the leniency that Sunni Islam has on the matter of divorce. Divorce has almost no conditions in Sunni fiqh. In Shi'ite fiqh (which accords with the Qur'an), divorce requires two witnesses. Furthermore, one is not allowed to divorce one's wife if he has had sexual relations with her since her last menstrual cycle. Rather, he must not have any sexual relationships from the end of menstrual cycle to the end of another (about one month), and then he may recite the Talaq. This, however, is not a condition according to Sunnis. As such, a man may divorce his wife at the drop of a hat.


 * ''In this case, we see that a man may marry a woman in a permanent marriage (Nikah), with every intention of divorcing her after he has sex with her. He may marry her, then have sexual relations with her, and immediately announce that she is divorced. This is haram according to Shi'a fiqh, yet it is absolutely halaal according to Sunni fiqh.

--Striver 12:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.zawaj.com/articles/talaq_scales3.html

--Striver 17:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This article contains distortions and lacks important information. For one, Talaq is not synonomous with Divorce in Islam. Talaq is a type of divorce in Islam (with sub-types), and there are other types. It comes from the Arabic root tallaqa, meaning to set free. No, women cannot initiate this. There is also khul': mutual divorce. This is seen as being initiated by the woman, but it must be accepted by the man. There are financial issues that are important in each type. Divorce may be granted by a judge under certain, relatively rare circumstances: desertion or abuse (the latter especially in Maliki law-- North Africa).

The best source for this article would be John Esposito's Women in Muslim Family Law. I will be changing this article soon and citing my sources, including Esposito.

reference
One of the references has the url of the link instead of a little number. Looking at the wiki markup, it has "ref" and "/ref" exactly like the next reference, which has the little number. Down at the References section the first says "Cite error 8; No text given."

I have no idea how to fix it. anonymous 07:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Islamic term??? Talaq is the literal translation of the word Divorce
I am really wondering why the term is attributed the adjective "islamic"? Talaq is the Arabic word equivalent to divorce in English. This term is part of the language and it does not relate only to Islam (Arab Christians and Atheists use the same word to mean divorce). I think the article either should be deleted or make it redirects to Divorce in Islam and not the opposite. Will perform the changes if there's no objections. Bestofmed (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This may be relevant (copied from Glossary of Islam): "Separating concepts in Islam from concepts specific to Arab culture, or from the language itself, can be difficult. Many Arabic concepts have an Arabic secular meaning as well as an Islamic meaning. One example is the concept of dawah." Kaldari (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Triple Talaq is not required to perform divorce (it is more a metaphorical tradition)
The interpretation is completely wrong. Triple Talaq is a practice or a tradition not recognized by the Sunni Scholars (that is wahy it is named a tradition). In traditional Talaq procedure, one vocal Talaq is sufficient to proceed. To fulfill the Triple Talaq you have to perform divorce three times (in other words marry three times and divorce three times); automatically one can not marry for the fourth time (only after an intermediate marriage). see Triple Talaq for more (I am going to verify that article too). Bestofmed (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
The page we currently have at Talaq started out as a disambiguation page, and has since developed into a short article that, as has been commented on the talk page, is not nearly as good as this one. I found the second paragraph to be practically incomprehensible. I really don't understand why Talaq needs to be a disambiguation page, since the only pages it links besides this one are a redlink and a couple of stubs that are closely enough related to the topic discussed in Talaq (Nikah) that you'd have no trouble finding the information by just reading the Talaq (Nikah) article. I'd like to suggest that we move the current Talaq (Nikah) article to Talaq, leaving Talaq (Nikah) as a redirect and doing away with the old content of Talaq. Does anyone have strong feelings on this? - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 03:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to simply "Talaq" for now. Kaldari (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Women granted divorces
The article mentions that Islamic women may be granted divorce under certain conditions, but it doesn't explain what those conditions might be or how they vary among different schools or regions. Could someone elaborate on this? Women in Islam also needs elaboration. Kaldari (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like there is an entirely different procedure for women to get divorced. See the article khula. This article, however, seems to only cover men seeking divorce. I'm not sure if talaq is used to refer to both or not. Perhaps khula should be merged into this article. Kaldari (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge
There is a merge discussion here Pass a Method   talk  13:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work on this. I've attempted to reorganize some of the content so that the material specifically related to talaq is under that section, and isn't confused with khula. It looks like some of the material under the Aftermath section may apply to both, so perhaps that should be reorganized further. Unfortunately, my knowledge is too limited to assist further in this, and there seem to be very few reliable sources in English. Kaldari (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move to .--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Divorce (Islamic) → ? – The current name is at variance with our normal method of disambiguation. Topic (disambiguator) is generally used to distinguish same-name articles about unrelated topics; for example, Black Mountain (Belfast) and Black Mountain (San Benito County, California) are unrelated peaks that just happen to share a name. You'd never cover both of them in the same article unless you were writing about mountains in general. Divorce is a very different situation: while the process and implications of divorce in Islam are different from the process and implications of divorce in secular US courts, they're both still divorce, and if "successful", both end up with the parties being un-married. The topic of this article is essentially a subtopic under the broader topic of divorce; therefore, it shouldn't get parenthetical disambiguation. My only reason for filing an RM instead of being bold is that I'm not sure which of these two titles is preferable. Please indicate which title you support, and if you think either one is better than the current, please mention that as well. Nyttend (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Option 1 Divorce (Islamic) → Divorce in Islam
 * Option 2 Divorce (Islamic) → Islamic divorce

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support "Divorce in Islam" per nom and WP:NCDAB (prefer natural disambiguators). The article is about a topic (divorce) in a specific context (Islam), i.e. a subtopic (cf. Divorce in South Africa or Marriage in Islam).  It is not about an entirely different meaning of the term "divorce" (cf. Divorce (film)).  But I am not keen on "Islamic divorce" for the same reasons.  —  AjaxSmack   03:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support "Divorce in Islam", per reasons given by AjaxSmack. Kaldari (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Divorce in Islam; this is a subtopic, and using a title that matches our usual conventions for subtopics helps to make the article findable, as well as helping to avoid POV problems. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NCDAB. Neljack (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support for option 1. Brilliantly done, Nyttend. Red Slash 22:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Divorce in Islam. I can see where parenthetical title is not suitable. I don't care for "Islamic divorce." Adjectival modification of noun following, sounds pov somehow. Student7 (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

quran reference
I have added references to what the quran says about the topic.

Expecting some user to revert the changes because they do not want to see what the quran has to say about it.

Lets see who does it first and how long it takes.

Not my first time this has happened.

Regards,

Khawar Khawar.nehal (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead
If you want to articulate your concerns about material discussing fiqh or the banner, please do it here. The article has serious WP:PRIMARY violations, and is missing the bulk of material discussed in academic sources: differences between madhhabs, relationship between historical theory and practice, modern transformations of the divorce law itself, and attempts to reform divorce norms through changes in judicial procedure. I've been planning to improve this article for a while and reading some academic treatments, but I can also share some entries from Oxford encyclopedias through email if someone else is interested in working on it. Eperoton (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Article contain Idaho rule on which a whole article is given. It tellsnikah Muhallil on which a whole article is written. It tells Eelaa which is cited to secondary source. Kindly rather than making a tag of primary article. Please rather than making tag simply remove primary sources which are not supported by secondary source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemia pattinson (talk • contribs) 11:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Removing material without non-primary sourcing is fine, as is adding non-primary citations, but all WP articles should stand on their own. Please don't remove maintenance banners until there's a consensus that the issue has been resolved (see WP:MTR). And why did you remove the sourced statement about differences between madhhabs again? Repeatedly removing sourced content without explanation is considered highly disruptive. Eperoton (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Banner is about primary sources not consensus. Please kindly mention the point on which there is no consensus so that we may reach consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemia pattinson (talk • contribs) 02:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. Consensus is required to remove a banner.  This article still relies quite a bit on primary sources.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  22:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of Quran and hadith citations without non-primary support and a couple of unsourced sections. We could replace the primary sources banner with a more general refimprove banner ("needs additional citations for verification"). Eperoton (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with refimprove. Pepper Beast    (talk)  22:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

You are also misunderstanding. Where is it relies only on primary sources without secondary source. tell so that we may remove it rather than making a banner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemia pattinson (talk • contribs) 22:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We're tying to improve the article with better refs, not just chop bits out of it.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  22:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've swapped the banner for refimprove, and hopefully this will let us get past the distraction of debating the banner., these banners are an invitation for other editors to help improve the article. It's normal to have them on for months or years, until someone has the desire and time to do so. Personally, I hope I'll be able find the time to improve the sourcing and content sooner than that. We can remove the banner after the issue has been addressed. Eperoton (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Websites
Let's not use website citations, since these are generally not RSs for generalizations and need to be contextualized within the spectrum of Muslim opinions. For example, the book on al-islam.org is by US-based modernist authors, while IslamQA.info is a hardline Salafist source. I can share with you the relevant entries from Oxford encyclopedias via email if you like. Eperoton (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm 100% down with adding better refs-- was mostly doing a quick-and-dirty to prevent deletions for uncitedness.    Pepper Beast    (talk)  02:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad this article is finally getting some improvement. It used to just be total chaos. Keep up the good work! Kaldari (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Classical vs modern
I've introduced a tentative separation between traditional jurisprudence and modern developments, which are to be expanded. It may not be entirely clean, as it looks like some of the refs may be describing modern laws. Eperoton (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Block replace
I'm replacing the description of classical jurisprudence with a summary of two entries of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Women. Some of the replaced content was based directly on primary sources. Some cited secondary sources, but since the article didn't differentiate between classical jurisprudence and modern national legislation, I wasn't sure what some of the sources referred to, and some referred to specific national codes. If you find that something important is missing and you can access the sources to verify what they're talking about, please restore the content. I also rolled back some Quranic quotations (the sources don't quote these passages and they can be quoted in footnotes if needed) and merged the discussion of iddah and nihah halala into the main body of text, since the concepts have their own articles. Eperoton (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I'm planning to add a section on historical practice and expand the section on modern practice soon. Eperoton (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of edits
You reverted an edit here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/911476550
 * However, a lot of links to "triple talaq" lead to this article which is why I added that sentence (explaining what triple talaq is). Please put it back in a way you deem fit. I don't have time for an edit war!
 * The problem isn't the material. The problem is that you've stuck it in the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the article.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  17:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about wikipedia, so please put that sentence wherever you deem fit. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:2818:B4FD:0:0:0:1 (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We have a paragraph on the recent triple talaq controversy in India in an appropriate section. What other information do you think should be added there?
 * The article currently covers modern reforms only in very general terms. There are dozens of Muslim-majority countries with sharia-based family law, and they all have their own more or less distinct histories of modern sharia-based legislation on divorce, so the topic is quite large and complex. Ideally, we'd like to cover it in some detail. As it is, only a very broad typology of reform and the recent Indian controversy made it into the article, since it has been featured prominently in Indian news. It already has coverage way out of WP:PROPORTION compared to the other aspects of divorce law and other countries, so we should be wary of over-emphasizing it even more. Eperoton (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Pepperbeast just removed a whole section (vide https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/911890313) which I had links pointing to from other articles. Please see if that can be incorporated into this article.
 * There was a link in the article titled, Triple talaq in India which lead to the section you just deleted. Please put that section back here or at least edit the link in the Triple talaq in India section (I tried and failed). Thanks!
 * There was a link in the Love jihad article, but the sentence with that link has been deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:282C:AEB5:0:0:0:1 (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is another link here also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Muslim_Women_(Protection_of_Rights_on_Marriage)_Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:282C:AEB5:0:0:0:1 (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The point I am trying to make is that we need that section here or else we need to correct the links everywhere else! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:282C:AEB5:0:0:0:1 (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As Pepperbeast indicated in the edit summary, the addition was redundant. We already have a section on traditional legal theory and pre-modern practice of Talaq al-bid'ah and triple talaq in this article, which Triple_talaq_in_India links to. The content we have here is much better sourced than the content in the other article. I don't see anything from the other article needs to be added here. Eperoton (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Quranic principles and Sūrat aṭ-Talāq
The section you're trying to add a main link for is "Quranic principles", so a main article on the topics would be a general article about Quranic principles of divorce. As you can see from the text of the section, it cites several surahs, and in fact Sūrat aṭ-Talāq is not among the explicit citations. I don't know if the title of the surah makes you think that it's the principal source of Quranic principles for divorce, but it's not, and the article on it is not the main article on the subject. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Khul' into Divorce in Islam
The Khul' article has had quality and verification issues for more than a decade and would be better redirected in this article with the more pertinent details copied over from Khul'. There is already significant overlap, such as in the Qur'an and Hadith references and general principles and considerations. The academic literature meanwhile does not tend to focus on Khul' as a subject in its own right, but normally covers it within the wider context of divorce/family law and jurisprudence. Khul' would be better off as a redirect to a condensed, well-sourced section in this article on divorce in Islam. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Khul' in Summary format
There's a stale being merged template from last year, which was based on only the proposer's view. I've had a look at executing this, but think that doing so would unbalance Divorce in Islam, an important topic. Hence, I propose that we keep the current Khul' page, maintaining the current WP:SUMMARY structure, which seems to work well for readers. Klbrain (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * This episode has somewhat faded from memory, but the purpose of this proposed merger appears less with a view to bloating this article, so much as condensing/dealing with the mess at khul' which is a medley of overly long quotes, and large sections of prose quite clearly taken more or less from a single source apiece. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That was part of my concern. I'd rather than editorial decision regarding refining the text be made first through editing, rather than using merging as a surrogate for a hard prune. I have looked at the Khul' article and each section is referenced, and there are a number of references to what seem to be reliable sources, rather than just one source. Can I therefore suggest that we leave this in the current WP:SUMMARY structure, as a merge without expert editing seems inappropriate; and we seem to have no editors with the necessary subject expertise willing to put in that editorial work. Klbrain (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no objections. As you note, clearly I haven't had the will to enact the merger. I'm not sure I am even persuaded by my own original logic any more. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OK; I've removed the templates; Khul' remains linked with a main template. Klbrain (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)