Talk:Islam and domestic violence/Archive 2

Credentials for two recently-incorporated sources

 * Dr Alamgir Hussain
 * ‏Dr James Arlandson

also, as requested, here is a third party published source for Robert Spencer on this subject.66.29.115.69 (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * James Arlandson isn't a reliable source on Islam, as was determined here and elsewhere. FPM too is widely accepted as being an unreliable source on Wikipedia as determined here.  ITAQALLAH   18:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Further, Dr Hussain has been published by Academic Press who say of themselves "[we are] an independent scholarly press specializing in monographs, revised dissertations, primary sources, bibliographies, textbooks, and other books reflecting scholarship in the humanities and social sciences". Robert Spencer is published by Prometheus Books, which has been around since 1969, and which according to its WP article "publishes scientific, educational, and popular books, especially those of a secular humanist or scientific skepticism nature" and there's various reputable names on their roster including the odd Prize-winner here and there.66.29.115.69 (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You raise a lot of red herrings. Prometheus books is likely a respected publisher in the area of secular humanism, but not particularly established or reliable on Islamic studies. Likewise... Spencer, whose qualification pertains to early Christianity, is neither an authority nor a reliable source on Islamic studies. Can you elaborate a little more on Hussain? What is his qualification in? And precisely what books has Academica press published of his (do note that he didn't author this 'Beyond Jihad' book that you attribute to him)? He seems to be more of a political commentator.
 * In any case, 66, you aren't likely to succeed in inserting unscholarly polemical material from sources like these.  ITAQALLAH   18:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 66, you are continuing to insert unreliably sourced material of partisan flavour. Your latest source, who appears to be an unreliable and clearly untrained individual, says "Aisha, in the  Qur'an  states: "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing woman" and that means a Muslim woman"!! The standard of sourcing is getting progressively worse.  ITAQALLAH   03:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Compromise proposal
Earlier, I inserted this text as a compromise (Itaqallah removed it without really discussing the substantive differences between this and what came before): "Critic of Islam Robert Spencer argues that Aisha's statement that 'he struck me on the chest which caused me pain' in constitutes evidence of domestic violence of Aisha by Muhammad.(Spencer, Robert. Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't. Regnery Publishing (2007), p182. Critics of Islam have also argued that Aisha's statement 'I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women' in evidences abuse of Muslim women. (http://www.islam-watch.org/AlamgirHussain/islams-rebel-women.htm Secular Islam Summit: Islam’s Rebel Women Make Their Mark, by Alamgir Hussain (PhD))(http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={B46F5A5D-E35D-4673-88D0-FBCF931ACAF8} 'Muslim Feminism?' by Robert Spencer. FrontPageMagazine.com, April 24, 2005)" I think this is a fair compromise between the two sides here.  This article is not solely about what Muslims say about the topic, it is about what others say as well. If people are notable for their criticism of Islam and are presented as such in the article, it is fair to present their views. Allowing only those with doctorates in Islamic studies to have their views presented in the article results in views mainly (or solely) with those sympathetic to Islam. In this compromise, Spence and Arlandson are presented as critics, not as scholars. I think their criticism is notable and should be included. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not about only having views of qualified individuals related (though it's important). If the specific criticism is really and truly noteworthy, it will have been reported by third party reliable sources (i.e. ), instead of us determining what critiques are most appropriate upon surveillance of polemical sources. The same goes for apologetic material, it wouldn't be acceptable to cite pro-Islam websites or Zakir Naik or Ahmad Deedat (who, like Spencer et al., are noted for their comments on Islam) on this issue either. I contend that Spencer is not a reliable source. In fact, he is a questionable source making some rather dubious claims... his views on this topic aren't worthy of discussion unless other appropriate sources have picked up on them.   ITAQALLAH   19:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as dubious claims go, I don't think that these claims are as crazy as a lot of the others Spencer et al make. How else, frankly, could the statement "he struck me on the chest which caused me pain" be interpreted?  This is one where the primary text standing alone is nearly sufficient.  Spencer's criticism does seem to be notable in this instance, because it was published by Regnery Press, which seems to be a reliable source for seeing what criticism is notable. The other stuff that has only been printed by polemical websites I understand may not be notable. I'll do some searching in Google Books and see if I can find any better sources for the Bukhari 72:715 statement. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, the other statement can also be attributed to Spencer in that same book on the same page.

"Critics of Islam including Robert Spencer have argued that Aisha's statement that 'he struck me on the chest which caused me pain' in constitutes evidence of domestic violence of Aisha by Muhammad. They have also argued that Aisha's statement 'I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women' in evidences abuse of Muslim women. (Both statements referenced to Spencer, Robert. Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't. Regnery Publishing (2007), p182.)"
 * How about that? I would definitely be open to some scholarly commentary on the verses to rebut the criticism if you have any but I didn't see any in my Google and Google books searches. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The second sentence in my paragraph could also be sourced to Spencer, Robert. "When Islam Isn't Islam." Human Events (April 18, 2005). I'm not entirely sure how important a conservative magazine Human Events is because I know nothing about the world of conservative magazines. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Analysing primary sources is not as simple as you might imagine. Here's one example. Aisha said: "The Messenger of God never did hit any of his wives or any of his servants. Neither did he hit anything with his hand, but for God's sake, or for stopping maharim (prohibitions), or (in this case) his revenge is for God (not for himself)" [Muslim, Book of Virtues, no. 4296] (cited in Roald p. 149, also translated here) - note the narrator. Surely you can appreciate that it's not always an issue of just picking out narrations which depict things in a certain way. I discussed your narration above. She uses the word lahada, which means push (not daraba, which means strike). Muslim scholar Gibril Haddad claims poor translation, saying that it is more appropriately rendered 'He pushed my chest with a push that made me sore'. I'm not advocating using these sources, just so you know.  ITAQALLAH   20:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned earlier, I take issue with quoting Spencer or any questionable source directly. If there is a third party reliable source which says Spencer says such and such, then I think that's acceptable.  ITAQALLAH   20:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a third party publishing Spencer's claims has less credence than a third party reporting on Spencer's claims. Surely a notable publisher giving views air time means that claims have some significance. (I'm open to being convinced that these aren't notable publishers because I really don't know.) In any case, I would prefer an explanation and a rebuttal of Spencer's views to nothing at all. If anything it allows readers to be able to discredit what Spencer is saying and see how critics' views differ from scholars' views. Maybe I'll work up another proposal when I have more time to think about it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way do you have a citation for the daraba/lahada translation issue? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I provided one forum link above providing a fatwa from an IslamToday website, but I can't find the original page. Some forums connected to Gibril Haddad post his comments on the issue too. None of it is suitable for use here, though. I guess you can do a google search for lahada etc. to see what you can find.  ITAQALLAH   20:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Regnery press isn't a third party here (i.e. independent of Spencer), it's the publisher of Spencer's books. It is a publishing house which is reputed for its material on conservative politics (see its 'Politically Incorrect Guide' page), not Islamic studies, and is frequently used by Spencer. Hence it's not an independent source which actually discusses his views.
 * The point I'm making is that questionable sources themselves shouldn't be referred to directly. Some of Spencer's critiques are noteworthy - you'll see them mentioned in reviews, reports, articles (and so on), some really aren't. It's decided by whether independent reliable sources have deemed it significant enough to mention (irrespective of whether they are valid or not).  ITAQALLAH   20:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (Deindent) Ok I've been doing a bit more looking... It seems that both of these claims are also made by Spencer in the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, which does appear to be notable. It received a 1700-word review in the National Review, smaller discussions in other sources, and was on the NYT bestseller list for 3 weeks (#14 one week, #15 two more weeks for nonfiction paperbakcs). If any criticism of Islam is notable, I think this book surely is.  (It's currently the 3rd-bestselling book on Amazon about the history of Islam, which I find shocking.)  It seems like enough notable people are discussing this issue on both sides that it would be good to include balanced coverage of the claims and rebuttals. What do you think of this?
 * "Critic of Islam Robert Spencer has argued that offers evidence of evidence of domestic violence of Aisha by Muhammad. In Abdul Hamid Siddiqui's translation, Aisha narrates that 'he [Mohammad] struck me on the chest which caused me pain'.  Other scholars, however, have translated this verse differently. Gibril Haddad's translation is 'He gave me a push or slap on the chest which made me sore'; he interprets the gesture as 'a Prophetic gesture associated with driving away evil influence (wasw?s) and conferring blessing.' Anne S. Roald has offered  as evidence of a positive relationship between Aisha and Muhammad; in it, Aisha narrates that Muhammad 'never did hit any of his wives or any of his servants.'"
 * (Cites: Spencer, Robert. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam. Regnery Press (2005), p70. Haddad, Gibril. "The Imposition of Hands in the Sunna." Roald, Anne S. Women in Islam: The Western Experience. Routledge (2001), p149. ISBN 0415248965.) The Haddad source is kind of questionable -- looks self-published and non-notable -- but could be good as a place-holder until better evidence is found. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just found a better source than Haddad--it's where I'm guessing Haddad gets his translation from. Evidently in Al Minhaj bi Sharh Sahih Muslim, Imam Nawawi says "The word "lahada" according to the lexicographers means, "to push" (dafa'a)." I get this from a web forum (which also shows the original Arabic), so hopefully someone who reads Arabic can confirm the translation and find the original citation in the online Sharh here. Here's what my new proposal looks like:
 * "Critic of Islam Robert Spencer has argued that offers evidence of evidence of domestic violence of Aisha by Muhammad. In Abdul Hamid Siddiqui's translation, Aisha narrates that 'he [Mohammad] struck me on the chest which caused me pain'.  Medieval Islamic scholar Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi, however, wrote in his commentary on Sahih Muslim that the verb used by Aisha, lahada, is equivalent to dafa'a, meaning push rather than strike. Anne S. Roald has also offered  as evidence of a positive relationship between Aisha and Muhammad; in it, Aisha narrates that Muhammad 'never did hit any of his wives or any of his servants.'"
 * (Cites: Spencer, Robert. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam. Regnery Press (2005), p70. Al-Nawawi, Yahya ibn Sharaf. Al Minhaj bi Sharh Sahih Muslim, [need precise citation]. Roald, Anne S. Women in Islam: The Western Experience. Routledge (2001), p149. ISBN 0415248965.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Spencer's book being a best-seller (many controversial, patently unreliable books can be best-sellers) has no bearing on whether he should be used in this or other articles IMO. If these critiques are noteworthy, and I don't believe they are, they will have been noted by reliable sources. I appreciate your good-faith efforts... but I really feel the whole discussion should be avoided given the lack of reliable sources on both sides (Nawawi's statement, so you know, can be found here under ( ‏( فَلَهَدَنِي ).   ITAQALLAH   20:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is continuously beating around the issue as to whether Spencer should be used. Everyone should realize that there is community wide consensus that Robert Spencer is an unreliable source. Unreliable source means no inclusion, and I haven't seen any exception to that policy. I can certainly ask the talk pages of WP:V and WP:RS, if you want.Bless sins (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan
Is this article correct in stating that there is no law against domestic abuse in Pakistan? Reading through Dawn newspaper, the perpetrators of abuse are always booked under the Womens Protection Act. Wouldn't that be a law against abuse? A quick search shows that Musharraf signed this bill into law in 2006 Inf fg (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That appears to have to do with the punishment of women in cases of rape. There was a law proposed in early 2007 relating to domestic violence specifically, but as of early 2008 it hadn't been passed. I can't find anything more recent. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Syria
Could we add something about the idea of honor killing to the article? Common particularly in Syria, where the law is rarely enforced, and when it is only allows for 2 year prison terms for murdering a wife/sister/cousin who a man thinks is engaged in a sexual relationship. Fuzbaby (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Namus
This whole section on Namus does not belong in this article, and none of the sources appear to connect this cultural notion to the topic at hand. I have removed it for now.  ITAQALLAH  17:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Revision
I was very surprised when I came across this page ‘domestic violence and Islam,’ for it is such a critical and significant topic, yet it does not encompass a lot of topics that are imperative, such as different interpretations of the Qur’an, definition of domestic violence and its implications on Muslim communities. I’m envisioning a major expansion of the article—which in my opinion much needed for an important topic like this—and have already finished writing the rough draft. This includes the definition of domestic violence in relation to Islam community that I mentioned, how Islam affects women in general, and different interpretations of Qur’an—conservative, feministic, and misinterpretation view—. Also, I want to expand and edit the exiting entry, such as treatment of the domestic violence in Qur’an because I think the actual paragraph of verse 34 of An-nisa, which is subjected to different interpretations is needed to be written down so that the readers know exactly what was referred. I also want to add Ahmed Ali’s translation, which translates differently from others, to offer the discrepancies of translations. Ahmed Ali’s translation of word Idribuhunna as ‘‘to forsake, to avoid, or to leave’ should be added under proper and improper occasion of beating to delineate the similar argument. Furthermore, ‘availabilities of remedies for abused wives’ title sounds awkward and I want to change it to ‘Solution.’ Lisa Hajjar in her article “Religion, State Power, and Domestic Violence in Muslim Societies: A Framework for Comparative Analysis” proposes to ask a series of questions in order to analyze if a country is working towards solution against domestic violence such as: Has the state signed and ratified the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and if so, is this authority used effectively to prohibit and punish domestic violence? Are there national laws and/or administrative sanctions prohibiting domestic violence? Also, I want to expand the divorce section under the ‘availabilities of remedies for abused wives’ which requires expansion by wikipedia. I found data of domestic violence in Morocco and Allah’s words in 2:231 from Qur’an about the divorce and how women should be respected and without revenge after the divorce. Also, I want to add the ‘legislature and law enforcement’ section under the ‘Solution’ and mention how it is re-enforced by King Hassan II in Morocco. I know I have a lot of reference to Morocco about the domestic violence, but that’s because it was mentioned a lot in a lot of literatures that I was reading. But it would be great if other people can look up case studies from different countries and add to it. Chloe.s.kwon (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of merging two articles
Regarding merging this article with Islam and Domestic Violence, I'm a little confused why the articles wouldn't be merged (aside from needing to do some clean-up work.)

How about if I take a stab in User:CaroleHenson/Islam and domestic violence and see how that seems to come along? If it seems to be a problem for folks, or there is another issue against merging, no harm done.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't see anyone weigh in with concern about merging the article, so I went ahead and copied in the merge article for folks input. I will still continue to work on the table of information about use - and law/remedies available for victims.  If there's anyone who is Islamic, it would be great to have a set of eyes check over some of my copy-edits/merging of information, specifically in the Woman in Islam section.  Any thoughts about the changes?--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Reintroduction of summarized info
It seems that these edits are reintroduction of topics that are now summarized in the article, which:
 * means that there's duplication of points
 * the article is longer and less concise
 * the piece about Moroccan law is a complete duplicate, see this section, Morocco

To reintroduce the material:
 * can we get consensus that is a desired action?
 * rather than pasting the information in, merge the salient points and watch placement with the Quran section?

Thanks so much for the interest, it is definitely an interesting topic and I can see why there's interest in adding the additional information.

The question is, will people get lost in the material? And, what can be added to the existing article that is missing that will be helpful to the reader without making the content too long?--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * there is another issue i would like to point out. the huge "incidence of domestic violence among muslims"-section disrupts the flow of the article logically as the section has nothing to do with "islam and domestic violence", but rather "muslims and domestic violence", constituting coatrack. the section has to go. that would render the article more readable and open up space for further expansion.--  mustihussain   22:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * i removed the coatrack-content.--  mustihussain   17:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"The best solutions for stemming the tide of domestic violence..."
The sentence starting with "The best solutions for stemming the tide of domestic violence..." at the end of the introduction section of the article is clearly a point of view, rather than a statement of fact. It could be argued that the "best" solution is education, reducing poverty, or any number of things not mentioned. Even the the most efficacious solution can't be called the "best" without some degree of bias, as there is bound to be opposition to any policy. There is no citation for this sentence. If this was a statement made by some organisation or notable person, it should be attributed to them. Without this, it is an opinion written as fact, regardless of whether it's true or not. I've labelled it with [neutrality is disputed] and [citation needed] tags for now. TimofKingsland (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am going to get rid of this sentence soon, unless someone disagrees or fixes it.TimofKingsland (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

New Addition
I've added authentic material backed with reliable Islamic sources (Sahih hadiths, Qur'an) wherever needed. If any one takes issue with one of these inclusions please let me know here, before reverting the changes. But of course, you may rearrange the content freely. Add this → " " template on my talk-page, if you're worried I'll not be quick to respond. I repeat, please do it before reverting/erasing my changes. I can prove that these are all legitimate and reliable sources. Brendon is here  17:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed your WP:OR content, this is not a blog. Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hadith are regarded by traditional Islamic schools of jurisprudence as important tools for understanding the Quran and in matters of jurisprudence(Ibn Hajar, Ahmad. al-Nukat ala Kitab ibn al-Salah, vol. 1, pg. 90. Maktabah al-Furqan). Sahih Hadith are only second in authority after Qur'an. This article is about Islam and domestic violence and they are authentic Islamic sources..I have not picked them up from blogs. Stop reverting this. Brendon is  here  12:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The use of primary sources is not a good idea in an article like this one. Please find secondary sources that discuss these hadiths before inclusion.  The interpretation of primary sources (especially religious texts) should not be undertaken by Wikipedians, but by scholars. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "The use of primary sources is not a good idea in an article like this one." - Why? "Please find secondary sources that discuss these hadiths before inclusion." - So you mean in an article about Islam I'm not allowed to include quotations from authentic hadiths? Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material. So, Hadiths are themselves secondary sources gathered by Scholars. So Pardon me, I don't understand what is it that you are trying to achieve here. Brendon is  here  15:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Policy: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Here there are untold numbers of Quran verses and hadiths, and the selection and interpretation of them is a matter for religious scholars and other experts. The verses/hadiths could be quoted in the context of analysis by secondary sources, but assembling an article full of whatever hadiths you think are relevant is original synthesis. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "relevant", yes of course they are relevant. This is about "Islam and domestic violence" (between husband and wife) these hadiths discuss just that. Do you mean, I simply need to exclude these hadiths? We cannot insert the whole collection, can we? So we must insert whatever fits the description and are reliable. Now what's your issue with that? I repeat, Hadith are regarded by traditional Islamic schools of jurisprudence as important tools for understanding the Quran and in matters of jurisprudence(Ibn Hajar, Ahmad. al-Nukat ala Kitab ibn al-Salah, vol. 1, pg. 90. Maktabah al-Furqan). They are reliable secondary sources (they are not primary sources). Brendon is  here  16:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not original synthesis. I did not "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". I quoted the hadiths in full and in proper context. Brendon is  here  16:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

How on earth is a religious text a "secondary source"? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Quran is the religious text. Hadith are not religious text themselves since they are just narrations of people closest to Muhammad, but not revelation of GOD. Nevertheless they are used in matters of jurisprudence and understanding Quran better. Now you may argue that hadiths are x, y or z and it'll be your POV. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Brendon is  here  17:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So can I just restore my contributions? Brendon is  here  17:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There are times when using primary sources are appropriate. You can split hairs about whether the Quran is primary and the Hadith secondary, but for the purposes of Wikipedia the Quran and Hadith comprise a collection of primary sources that define Islam. Just as there are scholarly interpretations of the Quran, so too are there scholarly interpretations of Hadith &mdash; leading to widely-held acceptances (differing between Shi'ite and Sunni schools) about the relative merits and reliability of specific Hadith.


 * As an analogy, the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in the Christian Bible, are also secondhand accounts just like any of the Hadith. And the Bible is a primary source for information about Christianity. Similarly the Hadith are primary sources with respect to Islam, so it would be best to drop the line of argument that the Hadith are secondary sources. That argument won't get anywhere, trust me.


 * Given that the Hadith are primary sources, we can still include them because they are reliable sources for the statements they make. However, quoting any Hadith must be done without any interpretation whatsoever. And that's the problem here. I think it's a great idea to include such quotations, but doing so in the context of an article on domestic violence synthesizes an association between those quotations and domestic violence. That's fine if the association would be obvious and non-controversial to any reader of this article. Otherwise, reliable secondary sources are needed to establish that the association exists. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comment for the most part, Amatulic. However, I must clarify so that others who read this mind understand, I didn't bring the usability of the sources into question.This whole article is about association between Islam and domestic violence. I didn't interpret them even a bit, I quoted them in their entirety (from an authentic website). "That's fine if the association would be obvious and non-controversial to any reader of this article." - I think the connection is pretty obvious and direct. I don't think it should seem anymore "controversial" than what's acceptable in most cases (e.g. Holocaust denial, Piss christ, etc). 
 * I think WP:NPOV says something interesting which applies here. Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. Any interpretation should not carry more weight than it deserves. Now, if there are any other interpretation of these hadiths (apart from which I have presented) I am fine with their inclusion too. Include both, that's our job to present every valid information to readers. “While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship.” Brendon is  here  18:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Check this version and tell me if it has any unreliable or exaggerated claim. I will try to provide new references and/or validate my claim, or accept its deletion. Brendon is  here  19:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I stated earlier, the problem is the context. In the absence of any discussion of these Hadith by reliable secondary sources, this is just quote mining.
 * Some hadith are considered unreliable by Muslims, and there is no indication whether these are relevant from that standpoint. Without any secondary source discussion, it appears that the quotations were gathered together to give the appearance (i.e. synthesize a conclusion) that Islam promotes domestic violence.
 * Non-Christians, by analogy, often like to quote the Bible to demonstrate contradictions and moral bankruptcy, but a collection of quotes isn't really meaningful without reliable sources weighing in on relevancy and the proper context.
 * It would be far better to look at the numerous secondary sources available on the subject. Searching scholar.google.com for "hadith" and "domestic violence" yields a treasure trove of reliable sources; unfortunately one can see only abstracts or the first pages, so going to a library would be the way to obtain them. Here and there one can find full articles, such as this one &mdash; see page 3, which contains an interesting discussion about one ostensibly peaceful hadith about lightly tapping one's wife, and how that hadith tends to be applied.
 * If the reliable secondary sources covering this subject are so numerous, it makes little sense to include primary source quotations instead of the discussions available in the secondary sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Some hadith are considered unreliable by Muslims" - and theory of evolution is considered unreliable by Many. So what's your point? "there is no indication whether these are relevant from that standpoint." There is no indication whether intelligent design is relevant from any standpoint. Yet, we have room for both in wikipedia. Holocaust denial is controversial yet we have enough room to accommodate that too. How can anyone possibly say the we can't include authentic hadith in articles that deal with "Islam" and its doctrine? Besides, hadith are pretty self-explanatory don't you think? What more can we do? In hadith Aisha is clearly saying that Muhammad "struck me on the chest which caused me pain". What more context do you need? Hadith are clearly saying that Muhammad stated "A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife", what quote mining are you referring to (see below for the whole hadith)? In Al-Tabari Muhammad says about women that "they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves", what context are you referring to? Hadiths clearly say In Muhammad's presence his companions slapped his wives on their neck. This needless search for context has no end. It clearly says that it's okay. I'm including the quotes from hadth that were included. Tell me what context are we missing here and if it were so significant why the collectors of Hadith had left it out? Brendon is  here  20:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to know in what reliable source does it say that Hadith is a primary source? Brendon is here  20:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The text should not be restored. A centuries-old narration of what Muhammad said/did (I know this is what a hadith is) is a primary source. See WP:ISLAM: "The Qur'an and hadith are considered primary sources but they shouldn't be quoted in support of a particular argument unless also backed up by a cite to a reliable secondary source." Please inquire at the reliable sources noticeboard or WT:ISLAM if you'd like further input about appropriate sourcing. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't think that religious texts are "self-explanatory", especially when originally Arabic and read in English translation. This is why secondary sources are needed.  If your view of what the hadiths mean (whatever this "self-explanatory" view is) is accurate, then it will be presumably also be reflected in secondary sources. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Brendon, I sympathise with you. I'm sure you added the quotes in good faith, and you obviously did a lot of work. I know it would be disappointing that this work has been removed. Unfortunately, as the other editors have pointed out, the work you've done doesn't follow Wikipedia's policies. I'm not sure from your answers that you quite understand why using these quotes in the manner presented is against policy, so I'll expand on what some of the other editors have said. To give an analogy - it would be just as inappropriate to go and and insert all these quotations into the Culture and menstruation or Gender roles in Christianity articles. Adding those quotes — even though they are in the bible, their meaning seems clear, and they appear to be within the scope of those articles — could give the reader a skewed perspective of mainstream Christianity's view of menstruation today. Without a reliable secondary or tertiary source saying the quotes are examples of why Christians believe menstruating women are unclean (or something similar), they are being used out of context to convey an opinion, even though the quotes themselves are within the context of the articles. Including the text surrounding the quotes doesn't provide the necessary context either. Context in the sense I and the other editors are referring to would come from the relevance of those passages to real-world Christian beliefs and practices surrounding menstruation, not whether they are legitimate passages of the bible referring to menstruation. In the same sense, the argument about the context of the quotes you used is about the lack of a citation affirming their real-world relevance to Islamic beliefs and practices surrounding domestic violence, not whether they are legitimate quotations from hadith concerning domestic violence. This relevance needs to be affirmed by a cited reliable secondary or tertiary source.


 * Religious texts are open to interpretation, and are often contradictory. On top of this, the relevance of individual passages from religious texts to the practice of the religion varies — between passages and followers, and over time. Just because a passage seems relevant, and its meaning obvious, doesn't mean that's necessarily the case (see the article on 1 Timothy 2:12: I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.). That's why reliable secondary or tertiary sources are necessary to ascertain their relevance and meaning. If using the quotes you've found in the context of this article is readily accepted, these sources should be easy to find — a large amount of academic material has been published about the role of women in Islam. To quote Jimbo Wales:


 * If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
 * If your viewpoint is held by a significant [..] minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides.
 * If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. — (from here via here)


 * I think you might have suspected that your edits could be controversial, given that you started the conversation saying "If any one takes issue with one of these inclusions please let me know here, before reverting the changes [...] I can prove that these are all legitimate and reliable sources". I'm sure you've added the quotes to expand the information in the article, not to cause controversy or violate Wikipedia's policy, but in the future, if you believe that an edit you are proposing might be controversial or against policy, may I suggest you discuss it on the talk page before doing all the work? Otherwise you risk having the same thing happen again. The work you've already done need not be lost though. While it's not suitable for Wikipedia as it is, there are many other places to publish this material on the internet that do not have policies like Wikipedia's. If you feel some of these quotes are indispensable to this article, please find reliable secondary or tertiary sources that affirm their use in this context (not just the use of hadith in general). However, if you do this, please cut down the number of quotations to the most relevant ones (see WP:QUOTEFARM). If you're still not sure how your recent edits violate policy, try having a look at WP:ISLAMOR.


 * I hope this clears things up for you. Please don't restore the material as it is again, unless there is a consensus to do so. At the moment, you are the only editor arguing for its inclusion. — TimofKingsland (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hadiths that were included
These hadiths give us a complete story that's why they are "authentic". Hence, what context are we searching for? What is the context of that context? This search is endless. Hadiths do provide us with some context and we should make do with whatever we have. Now burden of proof lies on those make the next claim that these don't provide a complete story. I have done my part by providing a Sahih hadith that is widely subscribed to by Muslim and Non-Muslim scholars and Islamic Jurists. What more do we need? My point is, what we have is sufficient for inclusion.

--What context are you missing here? Brendon is here  20:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously, what is missing are reliable sources that claim these particular hadith are used as justification for domestic violence among Muslims. It may be self-evident to you, but that conclusion is basically WP:SYNTHESIS without reliable sources to back it up. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But, no one is making the claim that "these particular hadith are used as justification for domestic violence". So why do we need reliable sources for something we are not claiming in the first place?? Please tell me this. Brendon is  here  06:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see my answer in the above section — TimofKingsland (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your kind efforts, but I didn't find the answer I am looking for. Brendon is  here  09:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Having the quotes in the article is in itself a statement that these quotes are important to the understanding of the subject matter. If the quotes aren't relevant, they shouldn't be there. If you're claiming they are, cite a secondary or tertiary source claiming the same. — TimofKingsland (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If i may be so bold (don't mistake my politeness for sarcasm) I think you're asking for a reliable source for essentially proving the reliability of another source. If I provide one source you may simply reject it on the grounds of being unreliable or you'll ask me to provide another reliable source that proves the previous source was reliable. This cycle has no end to it. Hadith are talking about "domestic violence", because they are talking about Muhammad and his views about domestic violence. Since Muhammad was the prophet of Islam, Muhammad's interpretation counts. There is not scope of interpretation, no matter how forcibly one claims it. The hadiths are pretty self-explanatory. And if you are still not satisfied, leave everything as they are I will try to find some secondary source and then maybe we will discuss it here. Brendon is  here  12:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)