Talk:Islam regarding intentions to marry

Foster Siblings & Marriage
The page Islamic_adoption says, "Islam also rejects the notion of an adopted child becoming a biological part of the family, hence, the adopted child is counted as a non-Mahram." If you look up Mahram, you'll see that this contradicts the bullet statement in the "Overview" section which say: "A Muslim cannot marry a foster relation as such relations are equated with blood ties." Philolexica 18:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

whole lenght
I have a hard time deciding what should be presented in its whole lenght and what should be summarised and linked... any suggestions? --Striver 04:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Merger
I agree with the merger: the article has little to do with its title and the information placed in it would be more appropriatly placed under Islamic marital jurisprudence. Stoa 23:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I put up the tag and thus also naturally agree that this should be merged.--Jersey Devil 03:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Dissagree, the main article is a hub, its not there to present any single topic at lenght. Take a closer look, all sections have sub-sections. --Striver 08:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This one is worse, the intro is written very badly and there are only three sections here for the whole article—and most of the info is a copy and paste of ahadeeth. In Islamic marital jurisprudence, the sections are short because they have the main article links for each one, so there is no need to write that much info. This article doesn't "present any topic at length" either. It is very lacking in info and would be more appropriatly placed as a section under Islamic marital jurisprudence. --Stoa 17:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Im not putting up a fight, just stating that i dont agree with the proposal of merging. I could agree that the article needs improving, but the hadith are important to the topic. They could be trimed down, but take a look at Jewish view of Jesus for another article full of quotes. I mean that it is not unprecedented. If you feel for it, you could explain the hadith instead of having them quoted. --Striver 08:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits of hadiths
Recent edits by User:KazakhPol edited some hadiths, changing e.g. "the Prophet" to "[Muhammad]". Some of the edits (on non-hadith text) were good obviously, but shouldn't the hadiths be preserved as quotations? I'm not reverting those changes because of the possibility that I've misunderstood what hadiths are, e.g. the edits may be valid if they are not direct quotations. --SLi 17:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)