Talk:Islam and domestic violence/Archive 3

New sources
Nawawi is one of the great Islamic jurisprudence scholars. He was a 13th century Shafi’i scholar. His work was used by Ahmad Naqib in writing "Reliance of the Traveller". This book is a "Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law". From the section m10.12, "Dealing with a Rebellious Wife", page 540,
 * AL-NAWAWI (Reliance of the Traveller)

"When a husband notices signs of rebelliousness in his wife (nushuz), whether in words, as when she answers him coldly when she used to do so politely, or he asks her to come to bed and she refuses, contrary to her usual habit; or whether in acts, as when he finds her averse to him when she was previously kind and cheerful), he warns her in words (without keeping from her or hitting her, for it may be that she has an excuse. The warning could be to tell her, "fear Allah concerning the rights you owe to me," or it could be to explain that rebelliousness nullifies his obligation to support her and give her a turn amongst other wives, or it could be to inform her, "Your obeying me is religiously obligatory"). If she commits rebelliousness, he keeps from sleeping (and having sex) with her without words, and may hit her, but not in a way that injures her, meaning he may not (bruise her), break bones, wound her, or cause blood to flow. (It is unlawful to strike another’s face.) He may hit her whether she is rebellious only once or whether more than once, though a weaker opinion holds that he may hot hit her unless there is repeated rebelliousness."

If the wife does not fulfill one of the above-mentioned obligations, she is termed "rebellious" (nashiz), and the husband takes the following steps to correct matters:


 * (a) admonition and advice, by explaining the unlawfulness of rebellion, its harmful effect on married life, and by listening to her viewpoint on the matter;


 * (b) if admonition is ineffectual, he keeps from her by not sleeping in bed with her, by which both learn the degree to which they need each other;


 * (c) if keeping from her is ineffectual, it is permissible for him to hit her if he believes that hitting her will bring her back to the right path, though if he does not think so, it is not permissible. His hitting her may not be in a way that injures her, and is his last recourse to save the family.


 * (d) if the disagreement does not end after all this, each partner chooses an arbitrator to solve the dispute by settlement, or divorce.


 * COMMENTARY OF BAIDAWI (source)

Baidawi was a Persian Shafi’l scholar who was so respected that he was referred to as "The Judge". Men are the maintainers over women just as rulers are over their populous, and Allah gave two reasons for this exaltation:
 * Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others

One is due to the completeness of men’s brain over women’s deficiency, their management skills, and their extra requirement of worship; this is why men were chosen to be prophets; religious leaders; rulers; and enforcers of commandments; legal witnesses in a court of law; fighters in the cause of Allah; receivers of more share of the inheritance and in control of divorce. The other is their duty to pay dowry to their wives and provide for them.

It was told that Sa’ad bin Al Rabee’a wife became disobedient so he smacked her. Then her father went to the messenger (saw) to file his complaint, wherein the messenger ruled in her favor. Then this verse was sent down, at which point the messenger said: we wanted something but Allah wanted another, and Allah knows better.


 * and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion

if you fear their disobedient Then advise them and leave them alone in the sleeping-places Do not share bed with them, or do not face them when sleeping on the same bed or do not have intercourse with them. Means in a non severe manner.
 * Admonish them
 * and beat them

And these three options have to be followed in the same order

Does Islam Allow Wife Beating?


 * Commenting on this issue, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former President of the Islamic Society of North America, states:

(emphases are my own addition to highlight germane points and to be duly corrected before inclusion) [last edited at 12:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC) by Brendon is  here  ] -

Discussion about the sources

 * I think that these would be appropriate references for the article. Al-Nawawi is already cited once in the article (current reference 24).  However, you need to ensure that you are using a reliable translation and not cherry-picking Islamic scholars' opinions to advance a point of view.  It appears that you have pasted this text (including the intros about the scholars) from Answeringislam.org, a polemic anti-Islam website.  This is where even a tertiary source could be useful to put this scholarship into question - can you find a recent scholarly book of some sort that describes these scholars' influence and authority? (I'm imagining a book published by a university press about Islam and domestic violence, or something along those lines.)  Also note that even if you have appropriate sources, it is not appropriate to simply cut and paste into the article.  Look at how Al-Nawawi is incorporated into the article now as an example of an appropriate use of sources. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The translation? "However, you need to ensure that you are using a reliable translation and not cherry-picking Islamic scholars'" - I know. I am working on it. Brendon is  here  14:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This article by people who appear to have some sort of relevant training (note: I haven't read it so reserve the right to change my mind) would be a better starting point than answeringislam if you are intending to improve the article rather than simply make it conform to your point of view. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * More possible sources:, , , , , , , . The appropriate way to look for sources is to start somewhere neutral (say Google Books or Google Scholar), type in keywords, and see what reliable sources come up, rather than starting at an unreliable website with a distinct point of view. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right. There are many reliable sources.
 * If needed, I'll purchase some books by Islamic scholars and read them, don't worry. I'll get some way to prove what I'm saying. Nothing is going anywhere. But, I see your point. Although I don't agree that it's a knock-down argument, I see the argument is valid. The same way intelligent design is still valid. It is what it is. I am working on it.  Brendon is  here  14:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about "answeringislam". So I won't comment about that, but I know this much that mentioning it would do more harm to me, than good. Don't worry I won't try to "push" the article towards my POV. I said, I'm working it. That's all I said. If you could only focus on what information I post and what references I provide on this page, I would be grateful (accepting or rejecting that request is, of course, up to you). Brendon is  here  14:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you provided text copy-pasted from answeringislam, which was a red flag! (From their "about us" page: "We want that Muslims come to faith because they become convinced of the truth of the Gospel through the soundness of the material we present, and we want our Christian brothers and sisters to develop their convictions about their own faith and about Islam for the same reasons: Because it is true." Clearly not a good starting point.) I tried to steer you in a more productive direction in response to what you posted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I only said, if you could only focus on what information I post and what references I provide on this page, I would be grateful. So, I don't know where you're taking this conversation. I am not a fan of answeringislam, I googled "wife-beating in Islam" the page showed up. That's all. I knew from its name that it must be a website of a competitive faith. I don't care about your criticisms of "answeringislam". Did I cite answering Islam website as a reference-link? Nope. I simply picked the quotations from that website. I told you if needed, I'll purchase some books by Islamic scholars and read them, don't worry. Hence, let's not digress too far off the topic. BTW, is my latest addition in the sources, trust-worthy enough? Or am I trying all this in vain? Brendon is here  18:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC) "There also appear to be at least some errors in the transcription of the quote." - then help me fix it or fix it yourself. I should humbly remind you, incessantly complaining about minuscule things is not going to help improve Wikipedia, am I wrong? I need your constructive support if we're going to improve Wikipedia (it doesn't mean that you're not giving me that support right now). Brendon is here  10:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the Siddiqi quote is a good source, at least for the view of a notable member of the Muslim community. I still think it would be even better if you could start with tertiary sources to put all these views into perspective in terms of their importance and whether they are mainstream or minority opinions. This source for example might be useful in that regard.  Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The bolding, however, is not original to the quote. There also appear to be at least some errors in the transcription of the quote.  Also, the original source seems to be IslamOnline.com, where this fatwa was submitted in 2004 by Siddiqi. The polemic sites also attribute the quote to IslamOnline.com. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "tertiary sources " - Initially whatever I posted was "primary source" so people told me to find secondary source, now that I have got some they are anything but okay. I already predicted this would happen 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. "The bolding, however, is not original to the quote." - yes. Of course, I'm not here to be poked and prodded like a third grade student. You very well know why I emphasized it. I emphasized it to show you what it says about the clarity of Quran on this issue.
 * "IslamOnline" - again, did I cite IslamOnline as a reference-link? And this doesn't look to me like a polemic website. Why are you digressing off the topic again and again? Former President of the ISNA is a prominent figure and not to mention a well-versed Muslim. If you're not interested in including anything that delivers the truth about Islam, then just say so and I may go somewhere else.
 * Doesn't some of these findings (which I have mentioned) directly corroborate the hadiths I have posted? Brendon is  here  12:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If a secondary source is hundreds of years old, it may have to be put in context by other tertiary sources. Wikipedia has high standards for appropriate sources, particularly in contentious articles, so you will just have to deal with this. Re IslamOnline, it's not a polemic site. It's a popular site for Muslims to learn about Islam.  I am just pointing you to the actual original source of the quote.  It's always best to track down where things were written originally, particularly if a quote is being reprinted by sources tending to criticize/misrepresent the views of their opponents.  (I go through this exercise whenever I'm writing articles--I'm not just picking on your sources.)  Re the transcription errors, if you just copy/paste from the original source they will be fixed.  There's one sentence at least where the initial "the" is omitted and there is an omitted or added quotation mark--I don't remember precisely.  If you simply copy-paste along with quotation marks, rather than adding bolding to editorialize, then you won't have this problem.  Do you have any proposed changes you'd like to make to the article text based on the sources that you have found? No matter what the source, it is not appropriate to copy/paste huge chunks of text because that is not appropriate encyclopedic style--but if you suggest actual edits, then other editors can help evaluate them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "It's always best to track down where things were written originally" - ✅, sometimes it's necessary. But sometimes just pointing out the original source of the quote, may be needless and digressive. That I am saying. But apart from that, you have a good point, which I won't deny. I see that no matter how trust-worthy hadiths may seem to me, they are not enough. I get it. My bad, I forgot verifiability is the ultimate threshold.
 * "I go through this exercise whenever I'm writing articles--I'm not just picking on your sources" - thank you for clarifying.
 * "if you suggest actual edits, then other editors can help evaluate them." - Please elucidate! I may want to "suggest actual edits" and want to have others' evaluation, but first clearly tell me what does that mean and entail? I don't want to edit the article myself. I would prefer if someone more experienced than me, did it with me or helped me do it. Brendon is  here  17:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you see in the article that needs improvement, and how would you fix it? I'm envisioning that you put text here that you would like to insert into the article, or that you would like to replace portions of the article text with. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See, I would like my new sources section to be evaluated properly (I'll keep on adding new sources here in this talk page but not in the article), and subsequently, if needed with other reliable sources, inserted in the article. But, given that I'm still a relatively inexperienced editor and a learner here, I would prefer if it was done by or under the supervision of more experienced user(s). I would like at least their feedback before proceeding any further. You may utilize the new sources as you deem fit. It's apparently not the right time for me to get in this action . Nevertheless, I'm preparing. Brendon is  here  11:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Brief summary of what we have got so far
(Note: 38:44 even describes a way to beat your wife and Ibn kathir corroborates this.) opposing claim:
 * 1) Quran, the clear truth and the best explanation sent down to make everything clear, says if a wife is disobedient to her husband, her husband may first admonish here, second refuse to share bed with her and finally beat/hit her.
 * 1) Quran doesn't even say "beat" in 4:34,
 * 2) Quran's translation was wrong till now. From Yusuf ali to Pickthall to Muhsin khan to Al-Hilali/Khan to Ibn Kathir to Rodwell to Arberry, all were completely wrong about Islam.
 * 3) Daraba can be used to mean separate from them, so here "idribo-hunna" must mean "separate from them" (although there is another phrase اضربوا عنهن Adriboo Anhunna that means "separate from them"). Anybody who says otherwise is just sorely mistaken.
 * 4) Quranic verses with the verb form iḍ'rib: ' and ' : iḍ'rib — “Strike” ' : iḍ'ribūhu — “Strike him” ' : fa-iḍ'ribū-fawqa — “so strike above” and wa-iḍ'ribū — “and strike” opposing claim:
 * 5) You're cherry-picking, they are out of context.
 * 6) Several Sahih (authentic) hadiths, which are subscribed to by millions of muslims (including jurists and scholars) around the world, are claiming that Muhammad hit his wife Aisha, let others hit his wives in his presence and eventually allowed beating wife, although he had first prohibited it. opposing claim:
 * 7) Including hadiths is a great idea but Hadiths are primary sources
 * 8) don't tell the correct/complete story in their proper context.
 * 9) Find secondary sources. Hadith are not secondary sources (even though hadiths are not religious text themselves and are just narrations of people who were closest to Muhammad about Muhammad, they are not secondary sources) because WP:ISLAM says so.
 * 10) It's tantamount to quote mining if we include these hadiths and let the readers decide.
 * 11) Several prominent scholars (from past to present) are claiming that "Quran is clear about this" and it allows for beating a disobedient wife, provided that first two options of admonishing and refusal to share beds with them are exhausted. opposing claim:
 * 12) These are good sources but the websites (which I didn't mention in the first-place) are unreliable.
 * 13) Translations may not be reliable. (as though those Scholars who say Islam doesn't allow beating are intrinsically more reliable.)
 * 14) I still think it would be even better if you could start with tertiary sources to put all these views into perspective in terms of their importance and whether they are mainstream or minority opinions.
 * 15) UAE supreme Islamic court explicitly says beating is allowed provided that the abuser doesn't injure his wife. opposing claim:
 * 16) Yes, but where is the association of those judgments with the specific hadith you quoted?

Note: this is basically asking for a reliable source for the claim that is yet to be made because no one is making the claim that "these specific hadith are used as justification for domestic violence"..this article is about Islamic doctrine and domestic violence.

Come on now. It doesn't get any clearer than this. Brendon is here  10:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * References

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Islam and domestic violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070414164755/http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/sau-summary-eng to http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/sau-summary-eng
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110813095734/http://www.ncdsv.org/images/Muslim%20Power%20and%20Control%20Wheel.pdf to http://www.ncdsv.org/images/Muslim%20Power%20and%20Control%20Wheel.pdf

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible WP:NPOV Violation
This passage [|here] isn't NPOV. It should probably be removed, but for such a controversial issue, a talk page discussion is probably the way to go. Any thoughts? . ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I removed the 2 paragraphs on the grounds that they are WP:OR. For example, "Muhammad believed women were inferior to men with regards to intelligence" is based on WP:Primary sources which is problematic on its own. Further, the sources make no reference whatsoever to domestic violence to begin with, which makes their inclusion here a violation of WP:SYNTH because there is an implied conclusion (not supported by the sources) that domestic violence happens in Islam because Muhammad believed that women were inferior to men. The end of the paragraph with the "woman is considered to have been created for his pleasure" claim is uncited, and and is a false one as Muslims unanimously believe that human beings were created for the sole purpose of worshiping Allah. As for my other edit ("Violence against non-Muslim women and girls"), this is Counter-jihad propaganda and the link to Islam is unfounded and does not hold up to scrutiny, not to mention the abysmal sources. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

, what is your defense for the restoration of the sexual assault claims to an article on domestic violence and Islam? where do you see the connection? Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Domestic violence is violence against women. It is about male supremacy and the wider context is relevant. Please restore the consensus until a new consensus is reached per WP:BRD. Please do not edit war. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the removal of the paragraphs that cited only religious texts; this was pure original research.
 * However, Al-Andalusi's arguments against the paragraph about violence against women are mostly groundless. Sources like The Guardian and The New York Times are not "abysmal" sources, they are reliable sources. The reports in those sources are factual, and easily verifiable that countries like Sweden and Germany have experienced a disproportionate number of incidents of rape perpetrated by Muslims, and those countries are trying to do something about this. The deleted paragraph doesn't claim that a culture of rape is a characteristic of Islam, although including it in this article does have that implication, I'll admit. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not according to Wikipedia: "Domestic violence is a pattern of behavior which involves violence or other abuse by one person against another in a domestic setting, such as in marriage or cohabitation". Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The paragraph has Counterjihad and Eurotrash propaganda written all over it.
 * The described sexual assault/rape claims are not reported as domestic violence. Again, why is this content here?
 * The title "Violence against non-Muslim women and girls" is statement that claims non-Muslims are particularly targeted among possible targets.
 * The first source is an opinion titled: "Sweden Opened Its Doors To Muslim Immigration, Today It’s The Rape Capital Of The West". This IS an abysmal source. It correlates between the rise in the number of reported sexual assaults and the increase in "Muslim" immigration. A disputed claim. Rape in Sweden goes into more analysis.
 * "Muslims have also targeted children in sex trafficking schemes and child rape." Cites The Guardian, but the article makes no such claim. The word "Muslim" is not even there in the article.
 * NY Times on immigrants being taught wisdom from Norway. And this is relevant here because?
 * Breitbart is a crappy source.
 * I don't see any good intentions behind including this content here. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you,, that the New York Times article is substantial and it is used several times through out the paragraph. The cultural context discussed in the article is important to understand the general cultural factors that have importance to our article. Al-Andalusi does have a point with the Guardian article. While the individuals mentioned are Muslims, the Guardian article does not connect that fact with the behavior involved. A better source would be needed. PS, Your last concern about miss-implications is valid. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

As there is a consensus for this section, I'll insert an edited version largely relying on the New York Times. I omitted the Guardian article but left the sentence with a note for a citation if one can be found. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No consensus was ever reached, and the content remained largely unchanged. Let me make it clear to you Jason, if you are to insert your Counterjihad propaganda crap again into this article, then you leave us with no option other than to report you to ANI. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You do not have veto-power. Your argument, that this type of background material shouldn't be in the article, wasn't accepted. Several people agree with me that it should. I agreed with you that the Bretibart source isn't reliable and the Guardian source doesn't support the given statement. But we have a consensus for the rest. Stop edit-warring and accept the consensus. And please stop the personal attacks. They don't intimidate me but they create a hostile atmosphere that might discourage new editors from contributing. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * What's reliable here is a NYT article, which is misrepresented in the section, and a Guardian article, which has nothing to say whatsoever on the topic. The offending paragraphs (they used to be even worse) are not neutral, they suggest that Islam is a rape-friendly culture and that Europe is being flooded by rapists, and they lack reliable sources to verify the statements made. Also, I see no consensus for anything whatsoever; edit summaries by and others merely indicate that "there seem to be reliable sources", if I may paraphrase. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , You don't agree that Amatulić, Flyer22 Reborn and myself are in agreement on the need for this section? We also find it needs to be rewritten to avoid miss-implications. Are you agreeing with Al-Andalusi that the New York Times citation has no relevance for our article? I want to understand clearly your objections. I thought we had an agreement on the need for a section but that it required more work. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Misimplications? I don't see a need to rewrite what was cut for all the right reasons. I am not really interested in parsing the arguments of others here, and I don't see there is consensus for a need for such a section. In general, if we're going to have content of this kind, this possibly inflammatory kind, in an encyclopedic article, we should require strong sourcing--that means books and academic articles, not a few newspaper articles from here or there. And note the comments below. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The whole NPOV, Islamophobia, RS stuff aside, how is the paragraph in question at all about domestic violence? Only one sentence about spousal rape and honor killings seems remotely related. On top of all the other concerns, the paragraph is COATRACK.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * [here via ANI] - Completely agree with and  above. Non-neutral paragraph which misrepresents the only reliable sources it uses and is tangential at best to the subject of the article. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 20:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Drmies etc. Section was POV synthesis which used unreliable sources and misrepresented the one reliable source. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the removal too. In my initial comment I expressed some reservation about the implied connection between Islam and a culture of rape, and I agree that the connection with domestic violence is tenuous. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, the entire "women in islam" section has little, if any, connection to domestic violence except insofar as to insinuate that there is a connection. It would be one thing if it were actually a summary of women in Islam given as background/context, but instead it selectively highlights e.g. clothing, leaving us to assume that one is connected to the other. This may be unpopular, but given we have a pretty well developed article on the subject, I removed the section save the main links pending the addition of an adequate, less contentious summary (ideally one which attempts a connection between the role of women in Islam and domestic violence). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , good move. Yes, no connection, besides implication that is. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with the removal of that too - there was nothing about domestic violence in it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Marital rape in Islam
Does Islam recognize forced sex in marriage as a form of abuse? If so, does it advocate for its prosecution under any law? Does the concept of marital rape exist under any shape?188.25.159.251 (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Islam promotes humanity and condemns any kind of abuse, be it domestic or forced sex "Marital rape within marriage". One can be prosecuted if found guilty. Yes Marital rape does exist..I have seen this happen. Saeeda abbas (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Addition of more religious text and WP:BURDEN
I have just reverted the addition of yet another tract of religious text accompanied by exactly zero reliable secondary sources that discuss it. That is an ongoing problem with this article.

Please avoid adding religious text without also including a discussion of the context &mdash; and that discussion must not be your own views or interpretation, but the views and interpretations properly attributed to reliable secondary sources, per Wikipedia editorial policies and guidelines WP:NPOV, WP:OR,WP:RS, and WP:BURDEN. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The expression qawwam is an intensive form of qa’im (‘one who is responsible for’ or ‘takes care of’ a thing or a person). Thus, qama ala I-mar’ah signifies ‘he undertook the maintenance of the woman’ or ‘he maintained her‘ (see Lane VIII, 2995). The grammatical form qawwam is more comprehensive than qa’im, and combines concepts of physical maintenance and protection as well as of moral responsibility‘ (Asad).” 9 Tafsir Ishraq Al-Ma’ani – Being A Quintessence Of Qur’anic Commentaries [Iqra Welfare Trust – Second Revised Print, 2001] by Syed Iqbal Zaheer, VOL. II (Volume 2), page 236)


 * The hadith is self explanatory while i provided the verse which was posted was not translated properly so i gave a correct one alo the other hadiths have no explanations either.
 * ~Arsi786 (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * In my revert there were two issues.
 * One was Quran 4:34, which you changed significantly without explanation. I have fixed the citation using the Wikipedia Cite Quran template to point at the actual translation it came from. The translation by Marmaduke Pickthall is the most concise translation and uses words that speak directly to the topic of domestic violence, which is the subject of this article.
 * The other problem was the addition of the hadith. No, it isn't self-explanatory. An encyclopedia article isn't an indiscriminate list of anything that might pertain to the article topic. If you want to include additional text, you need to accompany it with citations to reliable sources that discuss that specific hadith in the context of domestic violence. You didn't provide such sources, and we generally don't cite the WP:PRIMARYSOURCE without also citing scholarly discussion about the source. Until that context is provided, the hadith doesn't belong in this article about domestic violence. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * How is it concise when he mistranslated the word and there other version who also use the word protector and my verse does not remove the beating part also pickhall uses the word scourge and not the beating one?
 * ~Arsi786 (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Pickthall is (I believe) the most contemporary translation, and we tend to favor the works of more recent scholars when possible. However, I'm not really too concerned about which translation is used as long as it's relevant to this article. I won't object to you changing it again, as long as you also change the citation to point at the appropriate translation (the citation currently uses the parameter t=p for "translation=pickthall", so change that parameter accordingly).
 * My main concern was the addition of the hadith with your own personal commentary and no reference to any discussion by reliable secondary sources about the relevance to domestic violence in Islam. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

addition of Hadith along with secondary source that grades it sahih
I have added following with reference

It was narrated that Sulayman bin Amr bin Ahwas said: “My father told me that he was present at the Farewell Pilgrimage with the Messenger of God. He praised and glorified God, and reminded and exhorted (the people). Then he said: 'I enjoin good treatment of women, for they are helpers of you, and you have no right to treat them otherwise, unless they commit lewdness. If they do that, then forsake them in their beds and hit them, but without causing injury or leaving a mark. If they obey you, then do not seek means of annoyance against them. You have rights over your women and your women have rights over you. Your rights over your women are that they are not to allow anyone whom you dislike to tread on your bedding, nor allow anyone whom you dislike to enter your houses. And their right over you are that you should treat them kindly with regard to their clothing and food.' ” (sunan ibn Majah vol. 3 book. 9 Hadith 1851) [5]

The above Hadith is graded Sahih by Darussalam.[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatrah (talk • contribs) 10:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

mistranslation
In a hadith it was writtern that there was amark on herdue to domestic violence. This waswritten within brackets showing that it was translater’s view that he thought mark was caused due to beating. So i think it should be removedto make hadith better. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatrah (talk • contribs) 10:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Non objective parts in the article
Q: in what encyclopedia does it say (peace be upon him) after mentioning Muhammad? How does that adhere to objectivity?

In addition, where do all the extra additions in brackets come from while quoting the quran or hadith? How exactly did you decide that -first- you condemn your wife, -second- don't share the same bed with her and only then -third- are alllowrd to beat her -lightly-. Such interpertations do not appear in the original text and should not appear in an objective encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.232.134.166 (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

We Have a problem

 * I explained all my reasons and the hadith which your giving do not support domestic abuse one did then the prophet later clarified they are not the best among you. Scholars of islam have gave there views on the matter that is enough you gave richard Spenser as well as a polish institutes views on the matter are not credible one as one of them is a christian apologetic and the hadith about a women having a bruise is not even relevant here firstly the prophet didn't side with the man and the women came to the prophet to complain her husband is impotent not about her being abused and her desire was to return to her ex who divorced her and the marriage was consummated as she claimed he was impotent while the guy said I did satisfy her. The second hadith is false please show the full hadith the prophet didn't hit aisha just because she left the house and there is another hadith from aisha herself that states the prophet never struck a women or a servant.

The hadith in question

Rifa`a divorced his wife whereupon `AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. `Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) came, `Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" When `AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment, `Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa`a." Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa`a unless `Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." Then the Prophet (ﷺ) saw two boys with `Abdur- Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that `AbdurRahman said, "Yes." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,"

https://sunnah.com/bukhari/77/42

Aisha said the Messenger of Allah (saws ) never struck a servant or a woman. https://sunnah.com/abudawud/43/14

....She said: When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'A'isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He gave me a nudge on the chest which I felt, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?....https://sunnah.com/urn/221270

The hadith you gave about treating your wife like a sex slave if she is pregnant at the time of marriage is weak (daif) its not credible https://muflihun.com/abudawood/12/2126 so please researcher properly Arsi786 talk 00:48, 21 February 2020


 * Along with the recent unexplained deletions and additions of the article's content as well as the various-Editor-selected-(all Primary???-source)-Hadiths {quoted}  - there are potentially many more hadiths which could be quoted in this section   === In The Hadith ===  below is a selection:
 * "Passages coming from the Hadith maintain the idea of wife beating in the following verses: Bukhari (72:715) - A woman came to Muhammad and begged her to stop her husband from beating her. Her skin was bruised so badly that she it is described as being “greener” than the green veil she was wearing. Muhammad did not admonish her husband, but instead ordered her to return to him and submit to his sexual desires. In a different place, Aisha said: “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women”. This is Muhammad's own wife complaining of the abuse that the women of her religions suffer relative to other women. In Hadith Muslim (4:2127) - Muhammad struck his favourite wife, Aisha, in the chest one evening when she left the house without his permission. According to Abu Dawud (2141) at first, Muhammad forbade men from beating their wives, but he rescinded this once it was reported that women were becoming emboldened toward their husbands. “Beatings are sometimes necessary to keep women in their place”325. Abu Dawud (2126) describes a situation when a Muslim man thinks he is getting a virgin, then finds out she is pregnant. Muhammad tells him to treat the woman as a sex slave and then flog her after she has delivered the child. Ishaq/Hisham 969 - requires that a married woman be “put in a separate room and beaten lightly” if she “acts in a sexual manner toward others”. According to the Hadith, this can be for an offense as petty as merely being alone with a man to whom she is not related. Kash-shaf (the revealer) of al-Zamkhshari (Vol. 1, p.525) - Muhammad said: “Hang up your scourge where your wife can see it (...). "
 * https://kpfu.ru/staff_files/F1555215559/SOCIAL.PROBLEMS.IN.EUROPE..finalis_.3.pdf#page=222
 * Note the researchers are investigating Social problems in Europe: Dilemmas and possible solutions. They have identified verses in the Hadiths which they consider may contribute. They may be right or they might be wrong, but it remains their findings.  This is an Encyclopedia.  You are welcome to add content to a possible new section >>  Hadith interpretations that do not support domestic violence. [being commentaries on hadiths which explicitly prohibit beatings]
 * I recommend that the findings of the above examination, and the source from which it comes, is RS Wikipedia content.
 * I recognize Robert Spencer has been deemed as not a RS.
 * I recommend all direct Hadith {quotations} should be removed. Koreangauteng (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Please look through the above evidence I have provided the proof you have given are not sincere and are vastly different from the hadith's in question Arsi786 talk 01:25, 21 February 2020

Misleading sentence
Mcphurphy inserted All four Sunni schools of jurisprudence institutionalised wife beating as a form of discipline against rebellious wives. But the source says, The source actually says our major Sunni legal schools that “institutionalized” the exegetes’ cosmology by rendering wife-beating a disciplinary means of returning rebellious women to their right place in that cosmology.

Clearly the verb "institutionalize" is not referring to "wife-beating" but to the "exegetes' cosmology". Removing until we can find a neutral way to include this.VR talk  04:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How about "The discussions in all four Sunni law schools institutionalised the viewpoint of the Quranic exegetes by turning wife-beating into a means of discipline against rebellious wives."
 * That should accurately represent what the source said: "This argument is supported by references to both exegetical literature on Q. 3:34 (chapter 2), and to discussions in the four major Sunni legal schools that “institutionalized” the exegetes’ cosmology by rendering wife-beating a disciplinary means of returning rebellious women to their right place in that cosmology (chapter 3). " Mcphurphy (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what that sentence is trying to say, and it should be omitted. The sentence is referring to exegetes, but doesn't explain much about it. The source says lots of stuff about Islam and domestic violence and it is not necessary to quote everything it says.VR talk  03:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well if you are not sure about this then that means you do not have the competency needed to edit about this. So you should not ask for censorship. Mcphurphy (talk) 04:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please mind WP:NPA.VR talk  09:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

POV statement
The following is a POV statement: The Hanafi jurists say that it is the husband's duty to physically discipline his wife's disobedience (nushuz). They permitted the husband a lot of leeway in the severity of the beating. The Hanafi scholars assert that the husband is allowed to hit his wife even if that causes wounds or broken bones. Their only condition is that the beating must not kill her. It is at odds with numerous sources. It is also being taken out of context, where there are two steps of admonishment and abandonment before the hitting. Also removing until this can be included in NPOV way.VR talk  04:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a quick google search turned two sources that contradict this. This reliable source points out that the Ottoman-era Hanafis recognized abuse as grounds for ending the marriage, arguing "a true Muslim would not beat his wife, therefore a man who did so was not a true Muslim".
 * There is also this source, according to which it is not allowed for a husband to injure his wife in Hanafi fiqh.VR talk  04:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What you call a POV statement is actually a faithful representation of this source describing the position of the Hanafi school. It reads:
 * "According to Hanafi jurists, husbands were required to discipline wifely nushuz; they could discipline their woves physically, and there was a great deal of leeway in the extent and severity of hitting permissible to them. Though they offered moral exhortations to husbands to live with their wives in kindness and equity, Hanafi jurists maintained the principle set out by Ahmad b. Ali al-Jassas that there is no retaliation (qisas) in marriage, except in the case of death. A husband was permitted to hit his wife without any liability, even if the beating resulted in wounds or broken bones, as long as he did not kill her."


 * And perhaps you did not notice, but admonishment and abandonment have already been mentioned in my text straight after, just as it is in the source.
 * Your second source is a modern source, whereas Ayesha Chaudhry has studied the pre-modern Hanafi literature and described the classical Hanafi position. Modern fatwa sites, catering to modern sensibilities, are not an accurate representation of the classical positions.
 * Your first source says that the Ottoman Hanafi judges allowed divorce in case of beating ""by recognising doctrine from other legal schools." In other words Ottoman judges were taking from and applying the rulings of other law schools, and not from the rulings of their own Hanafi school. Allowing divorce in case of domestic violence is a Maliki allowance, and in the past century or so some Hanafi scholars have borrowed the Maliki ruling in this matter. Since a number of women started "apostatising" because Hanafi law did not grant them the right to seek divorce in case of husband's cruelty. But since the Maliki law did, one Hanafi scholar Ashraf Ali Thanawi borrowed the Maliki ruling and allowed women to seek divorce because of cruelty. See pg. 78 of this source. The Ottoman Hanafis you speak of were doing the same kind of "borrowing." So you should not use Hanafi scholars who borrowed Maliki positions and push that to mean that that was the view of the Hanafi school itself. Mcphurphy (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No its not a faithful representation, it cherryquotes as usual. The source is saying that a husband faces no liability under the law of qisas for injuring his wife. That doesn't mean the husband can't face consequences under other laws. Your quotation not only misses that point, it also misses the point about kindness and equity. It also quotes the source backwards. The author clearly writes about admonishment and abandonment before hitting, yet your text writes about it after hitting. You also seem to not have included the two sources that I cited that both offer a viewpoint different than that of Choudhary. WP:NPOV requires all significant viewpoints to be presented.
 * Finally, borrowing from another school of thought is common Sunni practice. Which is why, having a section on "Hanafi" doesn't make a lot of sense to begin with. Scholarly opinions often derive from each other and this happens across schools of thoughts.VR talk  03:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your first four sentences are WP:OR.
 * Your claim that I am quoting the source backwards is false. Here is how the source worded it:
 * "According to Hanafi jurists, husbands were required to discipline wifely nushuz; they could discipline their wives physically, and there was a great deal of leeway in the extent and severity of hitting permissible to them. Though they offered moral exhortations to husbands to live with their wives in kindness and equity, Hanafi jurists maintained the principle set out by Ahmad b. Ali al-Jassas that there is no retaliation (qisas) in marriage, except in the case of death. A husband was permitted to hit his wife without any liability, even if the beating resulted in wounds or broken bones, as long as he did not kill her. Within these parameters, Hanafi jurists emphasized the importance of following the three prescriptions of admonishment, abandonment and hitting sequentially, interpreting the "and" (wa) between each prescription as sequential rather than conjuctive"


 * Now compare that to my phrasing. It follows the exact same order.
 * "The Hanafi jurists say that it is the husband's duty to physically discipline his wife's disobedience (nushuz). They permitted the husband a lot of leeway in the severity of the beating. The Hanafi scholars assert that the husband is allowed to hit his wife even if that causes wounds or broken bones. Their only condition is that the beating must not kill her. Within this framework the Hanafis emphasised the need of following the sequence of admonishment, abandonment and hitting."


 * I have already explained the context behind your other two sources. They are Hanafi scholars borrowing and applying rulings from other law schools. I am happy to include that there are Hanafi scholars who did such "borrowing" as long as the borrowing aspect is emphasised. And if you are going to write about it, then you will also have to write the history of why they borrowed rulings, given on pg.78 of this source. Mcphurphy (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually "As a result, Hanafi legal discussion of a husband’s disciplinary duties followed the three prescriptions in Q 4:34 — admonishment, abandonment, and hitting" comes right before the text you quoted. There is no need to "emphasize" the borrowing aspect when the reliable source itself says that Hanafi scholars recognized abuse as grounds for divorce only "in part by recognizing doctrine from other legal schools".VR talk  04:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay I have catered to your first concern by shifting text. As for the second part, I think its very important to include the history of why some Hanafi scholars started borrowing. Did you read the source I provided you? Here, I will give you the link again. Mcphurphy (talk) 04:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The edit still takes that quote of context, not explaining this is Ayesha Chaudhry's view of what the Hanfis believed under the law of qisas (and not necessarily under all laws). It omits her statement Though they offered moral exhortations to husbands to live with their

wives in kindness and equity... that precedes the statement. Your wording also makes the steps sound conjunctive rather than sequential, which is the exact opposite of what the author says in that very paragraph.
 * And we must include contesting viewpoints that I've presented above. Also you do realize that Ottoman jurists predate Ashraf Ali Thanwi, right?VR talk  09:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Mcphurphy (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So its the mainstream Hanafi viewpoint for around 500 years now. Borrowings and changes in position are not actually uncommon within Islamic schools of thought. For example, Abu Hanifa denied capital/hudud punishment for homosexuality (by rejecting the comparison to adultery and classifying it under tazir) but it later became relatively Orthodox for his school. Likewise Imam Ashari rejected certain Mutazilite points that later became Orthodox for his school as well. While the circumstances should be mentioned, I don't see the need for the heavy emphasis that it is a non-Hanafi borrowing.119.152.137.241 (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Thats WP:OR. No source says its the mainstream Hanafi position. In India the Deobandi Hanafis did not change their position until the 1930s. And the Barelwi Hanafis still give fatwa on the basis of the classical Hanafi position. Read their books. Besides, Hanafis still do not have capital punishment for homosexuality. But that is another topic. Mcphurphy (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the fact is that Islamic scholars and ""Islam"" have viewed Domestic violence and marital rape negatively for quite some time now and the question is whether is borders on criminality or not. Just do a google search on the issue. Now, it's true that many traditional Islamic scholars still equivocate with the three step rebellious wives process or the "light beating with the miswak:", but that's not really comparable to the severe medieval positions of certain early Hanafis. If you're going to make totalizing redflag statements on Islam as a whole things aren't going to progress far. I'll leave it to VR or Rperotron for now. 119.152.137.241 (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:REDFLAG is right, in that Mcphurphy is not just misrepresenting sources but also representing radical viewpoints in Islam as the mainstream ones.VR talk  17:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)