Talk:Rape in Islamic law/Archive 1

Move article?
Shouldn't this article be called "Rape in Islamic law"? At a glance, Azam's book seems to use "sexual violation" in the title, but mostly "rape" in the body, and it doesn't look like she discusses other types of sexual violation. The blurb begins "This book provides a detailed analysis of Islamic juristic writings on the topic of rape..." The other sources overwhelmingly use the term "rape". Eperoton (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Rape of slaves
the article goes to great lengths to not spell out what Islamic Law thinks about the rape of slaves, even though we can guess it from peripheral parts. This is unencyclopedic Wefa (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * We have a good selection of RSs cited here. We should review them, and if they discuss rape of slaves, we should reflect how they cover it. Some of them may not, since traditionalist interpreters of Islamic law from the modern era often don't consider the provisions for slavery as being relevant for modern discussions of it and don't mention them. I'm sure there's a historical discussion somewhere in RSs, though. Eperoton (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Or, alternatively, there are probably RSs discussing how ISIS ideologues interpreted classical Islamic law to justify sexual slavery and rape. It would be good to find a scholarly discussion and not just vague allusions to Islamic law in mass media. Eperoton (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Add info about unbelievers
I think this article may be missing what Islamic laws say regarding the rape of unbelievers. Thinker78 (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC).
 * This article only tells us that Islam prohibits rape of Muslim females... but with tons of deliberate biased efforts, it tries to hide what Islam says about Non-Muslim Beautiful Women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.196.32.143 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

NPOV
This edit is deeply problematic as it presents one view as the only view. It adds "According to the Hanafis, the right of sex belongs to the man and he may force the woman to have sex with him."

This is ridiculous. Hanafi scholars most certainly do not condone rape. Here is an example of those who condemn marital rape. I'm removing this. If you wish to add it back, make sure you follow WP:NPOV.VR talk  02:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Vice regent. I just checked the NPOV policy and it speaks about not giving equal validity to all sources. We can't give a modern fatwa website the same credibility as a scholarly work on the opinions of classical scholars. I would also request you seek consensus before making sweeping changes. I would also urge you to check the sources before removing the content. Both here and the other page. Thanks. Mcphurphy (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The views of those certain hanafi scholars was right but its not the consensuses among the hanafis either to make that claim.Arsi786 (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC) There is no other opinion reported from the followers of Imam Abu Hanifah. That passage was actually part of a list where the views of each Sunni school was given. If there was any other opinion in the Hanafi school, it would have been included. Secondly, the Dar-al Ifta source is not an acceptable secondary source. Its a modern fatwa website catering to modern sensibilities so it is giving an apologetic answer with no reference to what the traditional scholars/classical jurists say. Moreover, if we are to use a primary source, a better option would be to use Al Hidaya in which the official positions of the Hanafi school are codified. And in it, it quite explicitly says that a man may force his wife.
 * 1. Your claim that there is no consensus among Hanafis is incorrect. The book "Islamic Jurisprudence According To The Four Sunni Schools Al Fiqh 'ala Al Madhahib Al Arba'ah" says "The followers of Imam Abu Hanifah said: "The right of the sexual pleasure belongs to the man, not the woman, by that it is meant that the man has the right to force the woman to gratify himself sexually."

This was an accurate summary of what the cited academic source said: "Non-Hanafis did not penalize a husband for forcing sex on his wife, but neither do they explicitly authorize it in the way that al- Khassaf does. For all, marital rape is an oxymoron; rape (ightisab) is a property crime that by deﬁnition cannot be committed by the husband." Please restore that.
 * 2. My text in the article was: "The other three schools (Shafi'i, Maliki and Hanbali) neither forbid men from forcing their wives to have sex nor do they expressly say anything in favour. For all Islamic law schools, the concept of marital rape is an "oxymoron.""

But it was an accurate representation of the original source. You can verify it on pg. 180 here. I will quote the relevant passage here: "Even short of rape, there is not much room for sexual mutuality in a system of marital rights built upon a male-ownership view of sexual licitness. Traditional Muslim jurists discuss a woman’s right to sexual activity within marriage, but her rights to sexual access to her husband (and even to non sexual companionship) are virtually unenforceable. Indeed, these jurists think of sex as “the husband’s right and not his duty,” so it makes little sense to compel him to do it. Thus, a Muslim wife’s right to sexual pleasure, though morally acknowledged in the scripture and literature, is legally meaningless" So please restore this verifiable content instead of deleting it, please. Mcphurphy (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 3. You removed the following text I wrote: "However, Islamic jurists say that wives cannot force their husbands to have sex with them. They assert that while women have sexual rights over their husbands, those rights are legally unenforceable. This jurists explain that this is because sex is a man's right and not his duty"

(1) You do know that's not a consensus right its the view of hanafi jurist a consensus is when all or a majority agree to it and if you bothered to look at the fatwa site its one of the biggest in egypt and is run by mufti's and I never removed the sources I just combined as al hedaya is written by a hanafi scholar. (2)Which a false statement where shafi did speak against it and kecia ali made it clear that not all hanafi scholars called for it to be forced and she was quiet on the maliki view I have shown the full quote not selectively chose certain parts. (3) Irrelevant its about rape not about that a muslim women can force her husband into it and she can report it if her husband neglects her for more that four months if you bothered to read the kecia alis book. Arsi786 (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Mcphurphy (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all please keep in mind WP:CIVILITY. You are claiming the absence of consensus without proof. We know from the source material presented so far that the Hanafi view allows forced intercourse with the wife. I have already explained why we can't accept the Dar al Ifta source.
 * Secondly, I do not understand your 2nd point. I have merely quoted the original source material against the text I wrote. And anyone who reads it can see that what I wrote was an accurate representation of the source material.
 * Thirdly, that book is by Asifa Qureshi. Not Kecia Ali. And I do not understand what you mean as what you are saying is not quite clear. Mcphurphy (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Mcphurphy, I provided a source that directly contradicts the statement you're pushing, and you can't just ignore it. :::::Further, you are practicing extreme Cherrypicking. The Ayesha Chaudhry book that you inserted says on page 150 that some traditionalist scholars "categorically prohibit marital rape" and those that don't at least "voice strong discouragement". Somehow you omitted that content from your edit.VR talk  08:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats in a footnote and cites a modern Hanafi scholar Ibn Adam. I think taking modern scholars as representative of classical views is disingenuous. The same Ayesha Chaudhary documents how classical Hanafi scholars such as Ibn Nujaym and Al-Nasafi permit "marital rape." To understand Chaudhary's work I suggest reading this book review which explains the meaning of her work: "Chaudhry critically analyses four tendencies in respect ofthe issue of physical violence against wives. The “traditionalist” approach accepts the Islamic tradition’s patriarchal and hierarchical cosmology and defends theright of husbands to discipline their wives including physical violence. The “neo-traditionalist” approach maintains this right of husbands, however placing re-strictions on the right of husbands to discipline. The intriguing aspect of this approach, which is common among many modern-day believers, actively mis-represents the Islamic tradition, thereby falsely portraying the tradition as justmand gender egalitarian for the most part."
 * I also urge you not to make more edits while we are in the middle of a content dispute. Mcphurphy (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. Maybe we can go back to the last stable version until we reach consensus here?VR talk  09:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The last stable version was actually this. It was stable for over a month. I think the onus should be on the removalists. As a compromise I am prepared to include the Dar al Ifta content to showcase the views of modern scholars. Mcphurphy (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You idea of "onus" is opposite to what WP:ONUS says "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." So the content should stay out if there's no consensus, especially if its recently added.VR talk  15:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I took a closer look at the sources, and once again you're distorting what they say. For example, Shafi'i doesn't legalize marital rape, but instead says that if a wife refuses sex, the husband can refuse her "companionship". This is a far cry from recognizing marital rape!

Another issue is the quote "For all, marital rape is an oxymoron; rape (ightisab) is a property crime that can't be committed by husband by definition." This is a refusal to classify marital rape in the category of ightisab. This is not a refusal to criminalize marital rape. Marital rape can still be categorized under other headings and still be punished. For example, this source indicates that rape in Jordan is classified under ightisab, whereas rape in Egypt is not classified under that category but is classified under hatk'ird, and that both of these are crimes. There are other sources that indicate that tradition Islamic law distinguished marital rape from other forms of rape, but nevertheless prohibited both which are already in this article.VR talk  15:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to resolve the above in this edit. What do you think?VR talk  16:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked through your edit and I think it suffers from imbalance and doesn't keep in mind the dominant vs minority factor in representing the opinions. I will post up my proposed version here in a while. Regards, Mcphurphy (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed version
This new proposed version is more faithul to the sources. I noted you did not represent Dar al Ifta or Noor accurately so my version includes them with a rewrite.

The book Islamic Jursprudence According to the Four Sunni Schools reports that "the followers of Imam Abu Hanifah said the right of the sexual pleasure belongs to the man, not the woman, by that it is meant that the man has the right to force the woman to gratify himself sexually." In discusssing the scenarios where a woman is no longer entitled to her husband's financial support, Hanafi texts say that her presence in the husband's home still entitles her to financial maintenance. They treat the wife's disobedience differently to the other traditions. They say that a woman who is still in the husband's home is still entitled to maintenance despite her sexual refusal because the husband can still have sex with her against her will. Abu Hanifa and his students disagreed in case the wife had legitimate grounds for sexual refusal. Abu Hanifa supported a wife's sexual refusal in case her husband had not paid her dowry. However, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad al Shaybani disagreed and said that the husband who has not paid the dowry is still allowed to force her and is not sinful for doing so. Another text reads "is lawful and he sins" which shows a differentiation between the action's legality and morality. However, in case the dowry had been paid there was no questioning of the husbands's right to "have sex with her against her will." They agreed that it was permitted because she is a wrongdoer for refusing the husband. In reporting these views, Al-Khassaf does not even raise the possibility that forced intercourse could be sinful.

In discussing the disciplinary procedures a husband has to follow in respect to a disobedient wife, the Hanafi jurist Al-Kasani says that when it comes to the abandonment step the husband can abandon his wife in bed but still have sex with her whenever he wants. This means a wife has to have non-consensual sex. Al-Kasani asserted that marital rape was permissible. Others in the Hanafi school such as Ibn Nujaym also held marital rape to be acceptable conduct for a husband. Ibn Nujaym states that a woman is entitled to maintenance as long as she is the husband's house because he can force her to have sex. Another scholar, al-Nasafi added that since soundness is not a wife's soundness is not a condition for having sex with her the husband will not be liable if she dies due to the intercourse. Al-Nasafi understood this to be the position of Imam Abu Hanifa.

The non-Hanafis neither expressly sanction marital rape, unlike al-Khassaf, nor do they penalise husbands for it. The sum of Islamic judicial opinions from the four Sunni law schools is that rape under Islamic law means "Forcible illegal sexual intercourse by a man with a woman who is not legally married to him, without her free will and consent. Most interpretations of Islamic law do not criminalize marital rape. Kecia Ali states that jurists rarely discuss this issue but forced sex with a wife might be an "ethical infraction" and if it involves physical violence it could "conceivably" even be a legal infraction. However, in the conceptual world of the jurists rape is a property crime which "by definition cannot be committed by a husband or owner, who possesses an entitlement to, or ownership over, his wife’s or slave’s sexual capacity." Hina Azam puts it in other words as "coercion within marriage or concubinage may be repugnant, but it remained fundamentally legal."

According to A.M. Noor the punishment for marital rape is not similar to the strict punishment for ordinary rape. In his view it is treated as an act of domestic violence which entitles her to seek divorce and prosecution. Similarly, according to Georgetown University professor Jonathan A.C. Brown sexual abuse within marriage was conceptualized as harm inflicted on the wife rather than violation of consent. According to Brown, the historical record shows that women were able to go to court and force their husbands to desist and pay damages in such cases. According to Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah the Islamic scholars define marital rape to be when a man asks his wife to have sex during her menstrual period or in an abnormal way. If a husband uses violence to compel his wife to have sex, Dar al-Ifta holds it to be a sin and states that a wife can complain against him in court and have him punished. Ayesha Chaudhary claims that although some traditional scholars prohibit marital rape, other traditional scholars offer room to allow it even while discouraging it. For example Ibn Adam says that a husband cannot force his wife to have sex if she has a legitimate reason to refuse. This leaves room for a husband to rape his wife if she does not have a legitimate reason to refuse. However, Ibn Adam still discourages it.

However, Islamic jurists say that wives cannot force their husbands to have sex with them. They assert that while women have sexual rights over their husbands, those rights are legally unenforceable. This jurists explain that this is because sex is a man's right and not his duty.

Comments on proposal

 * I strongly disagree with the above version. The normative Muslim view is that a husband may not rape his wife and this is substantiated by sources, some of which are already in the article. Yet your version delegates that to the end while leading with the WP:FRINGE opinion that Islam condones rape. This is a gross violation of WP:UNDUE. You use of the term "the followers of Imam Abu Hanifah" is quite misleading because while there are a few followers who had that opinion, the vast majority don't. You also bring in totally irrelevant topics like the issue of dowry and husband financially supporting his wife. As I mentioned above, these aren't relevant to the topic of rape. Finally, you actually misrepresent the sources. For example, the source says that medieval jurists do not penalize husbands for ightisab in marriage, not that they don't penalize husband for sexual assault on his wife. In fact, the sources note that sexually hurting the wife is a crime, yet interestingly you omitted that in your version.VR talk  10:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Your text "Most interpretations of Islamic law prohibit marital rape" is misleading. Its nowhere mentioned on pg. 429 of the Arab Quarterly source which you have cited. I can cite the entire page if need be to prove its absence.
 * Your text "According to Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah, marital rape is a sin" is WP:CHERRYPICKING. What the source actually said was this "Islamic scholars describe that marital rape occurs when the man asks his wife to have sexual intercourse during her menstrual period or in an abnormal sexual position or during fasting hours in Ramadan." In other words their definition of marital rape does not include forced sex in normal circumstances.
 * My response: Can you pinpoint which source says that the "normative" Muslim view is that a husband may not rape his wife? Just saying this is "substantiated in the sources' won't do.
 * My response: Your claim that the "vast majority don't" is unsubstantiated. However, to steer clear of the majority/minority debate, I merely quoted the book. Hence "followers of Abu Hanifah" is in quotation marks. So these are not my words, but the source's own words.
 * My response: Dowry and financial support are not irrelevant. They are linked. You should read pg. 83 of the source to understand how Hanafi jurists link this to marital rape. It is accessible for you or anyone else to read. The Hanafi scholars essentially say that if the husband has paid dowry he can force but he does not have the right to force her if he has not paid the dowry.
 * My response: There is no source misrepresentation at all. Here is what the source said on pg. 120 "Non-Hanafis do not penalize a husband for forcing sex on his wife, but neither do they explicitly authorize it in the way that al-Khassaf does." Now compare that to my text "The non-Hanafis neither expressly sanction marital rape, unlike al-Khassaf, nor do they penalise husbands for it" Anyone who reads it can see that its a proper representation of the source. Mcphurphy (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Literally every source in the section, except Kecia Ali, says that sexual violence by a husband is penalized. And Kecia Ali doesn't say that sexual violence by the husband was never penalized (see more on that below). Thus, that is the normative view.
 * You said:In other words their definition of marital rape does not include forced sex in normal circumstances.. Read the next paragraph, they clearly say, "If the husband used violence to force his wife to sleep with him, he is legally a sinner and she has the right to go to court and file a complaint against him to get punished." They are clearly talking about "forced sex" and hence rape.
 * Your quote "followers of Abu Hanifah said ...the man has the right to force the woman" may technically be from the source ... is a very misleading statement. The source says Abu Hanifah himself, in certain circumstances, condemned marital rape ("he sins [if he forces her]"). Since "followers of Abu Hanifah", by definition, does not include Abu Hanifah himself, you made the the opinion of the most important man in the Hanafi school of thought irrelevant. Finally, "followers of Abu Hanifah" may refer to some of his followers, not necessarily all of them.
 * Regarding dowry: page 83 says that there was disagreement over "legitimate grounds" for sexual refusal and that unpaid dower was just one such legitimate ground. Keep in mind this is only Kecia Ali's view and it is inconsistent with every other source which penalizes sexual violence in general. And even Kecia Ali says that medieval scholars distinguished forced from consensual sex.
 * Your text distorts the source: The non-Hanafis neither expressly sanction marital rape, unlike al-Khassaf, nor do they penalise husbands for it.
 * You need to literally read the next sentence on page 120 to see the distortion. Kecia Ali is defining rape as ightisab, a property crime, and is probably right in her assessment that non-Hanafis did not penalize ightisab in the context of marriage. But that doesn't mean sexual violence couldn't be punished under another classification - which it was, as shown by other sources.VR talk  23:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No the source is not Kecia Ali. Its Ayesha Chaudhry. Here's what she has to say "Thus, marital rape is literally "uncriminizable" under dominant interpretations of the sharia." Note the word "dominant." This is the normative view.
 * Conversely, your sentence is "Most interpretations of Islamic law prohibit marital rape" is not present anywhere in the Arab Quarterly Journal you cited. So that sentence is source misrepresentation.
 * My reply: You are confusing the quote from "Islamic Jurisprudence According to the Four Sunni Schools" (by Nancy Roberts) with the Kecia Ali source. The wording "Followers of Abu Hanifa" is used in the first source. Now, as for the Kecia Ali source, it says that Imam Abu Hanifa said that the husband is sinful if he forces her in case of an unpaid dower. At the end of the discussion it says "Still, while forcible intercourse might or might not be be sinful if the wife had the moral high ground because of unpaid dower, if an unpaid dower was not at issue then the husband's right to "have sex with her against her will" went unquestioned. Note by "unquestioned" it means there was no other opinion on the husband's right to force her in case he had paid the dowry. Moreover, we just report whatever the source says, as it says it. Also note that 37 pages later in that same book it sats quite categorically "the Hanafis" without any caveat which indicates they differ among themselves: The silence of the Hanafis can be explained easily: a wife's sexual refusal is irrelevant if not accompanied by her departure from the conjugal home, because her husband is permitted to have sex with her without her consent. So this is the Hanafi position.
 * My reply: Nope, this not Kecia Ali's view. She is reporting what the classical scholars say. It would be her view is she was expressing her own opinion. But she's not. She is reporting what the jurists have said. Furthermore, no other source penalizes marital rape. The proposed version has what Hina Azam says (that "coercion was fundamentally legal") and also what the Ayesha Chaudhry source says ("marital rape is literally "uncriminizable" under dominant interpretations of the sharia.")
 * Another point to be noted is that Kecia Ali does not differ from the other sources such as Dar al Ifta or Jonathan Brown at all. She explains in Concubinage and Consent (pg. 149):"jurists rarely discuss this issue but forced sex with a wife might be an "ethical infraction" and if it involves physical violence it could "conceivably" even be a legal infraction." In other words if forced sex involves physical violence it could probably be a legal infraction. This is the same thing that Dar al Ifta and Brown say. Dar al Ifta says: "If the husband used violence to force his wife to sleep with him". They mean forced sex accompanied with physical violence falls under domestic violence. Physical violence means beating and the like, not coerced penetration. Keep in mind what Hina Azam and Ayesha Chaudhry said ("coercion within marriage is fundamentally legal"). So you are wrong to think that Ali's view is inconsistent with every other source. Although even this does not have consensus, hence I have included the views of Al-Nasafi who says that if a wife dies during forced intercourse the husband is not liable and this is also the view of Imam Abu Hanifa. Either way, dominant interpretations of Sharia do not criminalise marital rape. Mcphurphy (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Mcphurphy, read what you just wrote:
 * Coerced penetration is physical violence.
 * My reply: You are confusing the quote from "Islamic Jurisprudence According to the Four Sunni Schools" (by Nancy Roberts) with the Kecia Ali source. The wording "Followers of Abu Hanifa" is used in the first source. Now, as for the Kecia Ali source, it says that Imam Abu Hanifa said that the husband is sinful if he forces her in case of an unpaid dower. At the end of the discussion it says "Still, while forcible intercourse might or might not be be sinful if the wife had the moral high ground because of unpaid dower, if an unpaid dower was not at issue then the husband's right to "have sex with her against her will" went unquestioned. Note by "unquestioned" it means there was no other opinion on the husband's right to force her in case he had paid the dowry. Moreover, we just report whatever the source says, as it says it. Also note that 37 pages later in that same book it sats quite categorically "the Hanafis" without any caveat which indicates they differ among themselves: The silence of the Hanafis can be explained easily: a wife's sexual refusal is irrelevant if not accompanied by her departure from the conjugal home, because her husband is permitted to have sex with her without her consent. So this is the Hanafi position.
 * My reply: Nope, this not Kecia Ali's view. She is reporting what the classical scholars say. It would be her view is she was expressing her own opinion. But she's not. She is reporting what the jurists have said. Furthermore, no other source penalizes marital rape. The proposed version has what Hina Azam says (that "coercion was fundamentally legal") and also what the Ayesha Chaudhry source says ("marital rape is literally "uncriminizable" under dominant interpretations of the sharia.")
 * Another point to be noted is that Kecia Ali does not differ from the other sources such as Dar al Ifta or Jonathan Brown at all. She explains in Concubinage and Consent (pg. 149):"jurists rarely discuss this issue but forced sex with a wife might be an "ethical infraction" and if it involves physical violence it could "conceivably" even be a legal infraction." In other words if forced sex involves physical violence it could probably be a legal infraction. This is the same thing that Dar al Ifta and Brown say. Dar al Ifta says: "If the husband used violence to force his wife to sleep with him". They mean forced sex accompanied with physical violence falls under domestic violence. Physical violence means beating and the like, not coerced penetration. Keep in mind what Hina Azam and Ayesha Chaudhry said ("coercion within marriage is fundamentally legal"). So you are wrong to think that Ali's view is inconsistent with every other source. Although even this does not have consensus, hence I have included the views of Al-Nasafi who says that if a wife dies during forced intercourse the husband is not liable and this is also the view of Imam Abu Hanifa. Either way, dominant interpretations of Sharia do not criminalise marital rape. Mcphurphy (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Mcphurphy, read what you just wrote:
 * Coerced penetration is physical violence.
 * Coerced penetration is physical violence.
 * Coerced penetration is physical violence.


 * And if you go back and read the Kecia Ali source (pg 149), it is clear that when she says "rape" she narrowly means it as either zina or ightisāb. Just because marital rape is not punished under either of those classifications (according to her), doesn't mean it can't be punished under other classifications. So when Ayesha Chaudhry says "marital rape is uncriminizable", she is referring to ightisab in marriage (read the whole paragraph on pg 104). Which also explains why she says on page 150 that some "traditionalist scholars categorically prohibit marital rape". This is the third time I'm pointing the issue of classifications out, and I feel we keep going in circles.VR talk  07:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Coerced penetration is certainly part of the definition of physical violence for us, but not for the jurists. Secondly, I am glad you have said this So when Ayesha Chaudhry says "marital rape is uncriminizable", she is referring to ightisab in marriage". So ightisab (rape) in marriage is not a criminal offence. And if its not a criminal offence it can't be punished(unless accompanied by violence in the form of beating - according to some scholars). Thats the majority view. Mcphurphy (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the view according to Ali and Chaudhry anyway (I haven't researched their claims). But even if ightisab can't be punished, forced sex by the husband (which is called marital rape in plain English) can still be punished under other categories. For example, southeast Asian scholars say,
 * Torture is definitely punishable by law.VR talk  09:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No thats not the view of Ali or Chaudhry. They are not expressing their own opinion. If they were we would attribute it to them. Rather, they are reporting the views of others. The dominant view that is. The article you quoted contains the opinions of those who fall under the non-dominant (i.e. minority) position. Mcphurphy (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No thats not the view of Ali or Chaudhry. They are not expressing their own opinion. If they were we would attribute it to them. Rather, they are reporting the views of others. The dominant view that is. The article you quoted contains the opinions of those who fall under the non-dominant (i.e. minority) position. Mcphurphy (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Baiscally what your argument boil down to is this."Yes, marital rape isn't rape in Islam, but its still domestic violence so its punishable."

So if its a domestic violence issue then why even include it on this article? On this article just say that marital rape does not fall under rape (istighab) in Islam.

However, this is where it gets tricky. Your claim that "marital rape" is not allowed in Islam hinges on the ideas that domestic violence is forbidden.

Okay lets take a closer look at this idea.

Sexual refusal by the wife falls under "disobedience" in Islam. And we know that Islam allows husbands to physically discipline (i.e. beat) their wives for disobedience. The Hanafis allow domestic violence and they are cincerned with protecting the husband from prosecution. The Shafi'is also allow it but discourage it morally. [Hence why Imam Shafi'i says after mentioning the permissibility of beating a rebellious wife in order to discipline her: "If he (the husband) refrains from beating, then this is more beloved to me, as the Prophet sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam said: ‘The best amongst yourselves do not beat their wives.'"] But they allow it neonetheless.

Meanwhile, only the Mailikis are concerned that husbands might "abuse" this right. (And note that even their definition of "abuse" is not the same as our modern one) They hold the husband legally liiabe for his wife's death, but no mention is made of them holding him legally liable for any injuries he causes her, even if they morally forbid it. The Hanbalis are a mix of all three positions just mentioned. Mcphurphy (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The above is original research because the source is not saying any of that in context of marital rape. It seems to be in the context of An-Nisa,_34, which is a different matter altogether. Finally, your OR assumptions are sharply contradicted by the numerous sources that say that the act of marital rape (in the normative sense) is prohibited by Islamic scholars though it is classified differently from other forms of rape.VR talk  08:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind the source you cited above both praises, but also criticizes Chaudhry's book:
 * VR talk  09:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have provided quotes to back up each sentence in my proposed version. On the other hand, I don't see which source you have provided which claims that Islamic scholars prohibit marital rape. You have actually misrepresented the sources. For example your opening line "Most interpretations of Islamic law prohibit marital rape, but treat it differently than other forms of rape." is nowwhere in the source cited from Noor. Then you have misrepresented Dar al Itfta without mentioning what they define marital rape as. They only prohibit the kind of forced intercourse where the husband uses violence. Then you quote Hina Azam on causing injury to he wife. The same Hina Azam says that coercion in marriage is held to be fundamentally legal. In sum, the Islamic scholars don't see violence/injury as the same as forced intercourse. Studies show that not all forced intercourse result in major injuries to the woman. Overall, you have made the section on marital rape more about domestic violence and not about the fact that Islamic scholars do not prohibit coercion of wives. Mcphurphy (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have provided quotes to back up each sentence in my proposed version. On the other hand, I don't see which source you have provided which claims that Islamic scholars prohibit marital rape. You have actually misrepresented the sources. For example your opening line "Most interpretations of Islamic law prohibit marital rape, but treat it differently than other forms of rape." is nowwhere in the source cited from Noor. Then you have misrepresented Dar al Itfta without mentioning what they define marital rape as. They only prohibit the kind of forced intercourse where the husband uses violence. Then you quote Hina Azam on causing injury to he wife. The same Hina Azam says that coercion in marriage is held to be fundamentally legal. In sum, the Islamic scholars don't see violence/injury as the same as forced intercourse. Studies show that not all forced intercourse result in major injuries to the woman. Overall, you have made the section on marital rape more about domestic violence and not about the fact that Islamic scholars do not prohibit coercion of wives. Mcphurphy (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources that say Islam prohibits marital rape
So here are the sources that say marital rape, as defined in its normative sense in the English language, is penalized in Islamic law: Some sources seem to prohibit marital rape accompanied by genital injury to the wife: Also, this list isn't exhaustive and there's a few other sources that also say marital rape is forbidden, but I'm trying to get access to them, that's why I didn't list them yet.VR talk  17:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Marital rape in Islam law is similar to other acts of aggression against a wife where she has the right to ask for divorce and prosecutions. As such, the punishment for marital rape is not similar with the severe punishments for ordinary rape." (Rape: A Problem of Crime Classification in Islamic Law, page 429)
 * "If the husband used violence to force his wife to sleep with him, he is legally a sinner and she has the right to go to court and file a complaint against him to get punished." (Does marital rape exist in Islam?, Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah)
 * "The world's largest gathering of female Muslim clerics in Indonesia issued a fatwa Thursday that declared marital rape haram—or forbidden—under Islamic law and urged the government to make it illegal."(article from Newsweek))
 * "Here the Shariah historically worked differently from modern laws on marital rape, which originated in the 1970s. But the effect is similar: protection. Within marriage, wrongs regarding sex were not conceived of as violations of consent. They were conceived of as harm inflicted on the wife. And in Islamic history wives could and did go to courts to complain and get judges to order husbands to desist and pay damages. So yes, non-consensual sex is wrong and forbidden in Islam. But the operating element to punish marital rape fell under the concept of harm, not non-consent." (Jonathan Brown in this article)
 * "Pergas is inclined towards the view of majority Muslim scholars, including contemporary Muslim scholars such as Quraish Shihab, renowned scholar from Indonesia, who does not equate forced sexual intercourse without consent as marital rape. Instead, Quraish Shihab categorizes it as torture rather than rape itself...Instead of repealing marital immunity for rape, Pergas is in support of creating a new offence that criminalizes the act [of marital rape] without penalizing it as rape, such as the practice in Malaysia." (Singapore Islamic Scholars & Religious Teachers Association)
 * "Jurists did address injury in the course of sex...The most common injury mentioned is that of perineal tearing, which was criminalized and for which wives could demand monetary compensations for injury." (Sexual Violation in Islamic Law: Substance, Evidence, and Procedure, page 19)
 * "“Aggravated rape” applies to a man who forces a woman and tears her vagina, including the possibility that the perpetrator be the victim’s husband in which case, the legal consequences differ from the doctrine examined so far...According to Ibn al-Qasim, had the wife consented to the relationship that ended in the tearing of her vagina, no blood price would be due to her." (RAPE IN MALIKI LEGAL DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE (8TH–15TH CENTURIES C.E.), page 172-173)

your first source Rape: A Problem of Crime Classification in Islamic Law, page 429 is the personal opinion of the author. How did you take that to mean "Most interpretations of Islamic law prohibit marital rape." This is false representation of the source. Your second source has a caveat. It says if the husband uses violence to force his wife. It doesn't criminalise forcing wife itself. Moreover, you are conveniently skipping over their definition of marital rape which they have in the opening statement. Your third source Jonathan Brown already has his opinion included in my version too, so not much to discuss there. Your fourth source admits that most scholars don't equate forced sexual intercourse with one's wife as marital rape. After that, it goes on to give Quraish Shihab's personal opinion where he categorises it as toture. The best way forward is my version because it included the views of the classical scholars as well as the views of the modern scholars you are citing (Jonathan Brown & Noor) If you want to add the views of the modern female clerics from Indonesia, you can merge that into my version too. Mcphurphy (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Vice regent's version does not represent the sources properly, it seems. You can't extrapolate "they differentiate between forced and consensual sex" to a prohibition of marital rape. That's WP:OR & WP:SYNTHESIS. Even if you twist their words to mean that "medieval jurists do not penalize husbands for ightisab in marriage, not that they don't penalize husband for sexual assault on his wife." The same source literally says that non-Hanafis don't penalise husbands for forcing sex on their wives. The definition of rape was not relevant there. Opening the links to the sources, I find that Mcphurphy's proposed text is more faithful to the sources they have cited. Vice regent seems to be picking caveats in each source and synthesizing them to make a point that Islam is against marital rape. You have also distorted Noor's opinion to be "most interpretations." One of the sources there actually says dominant interpretations of sharia don't criminalize marital rape.So the article should start with that premise. I also see that Vice regent is making the article more about potential sexual injury arising from marital rape than marital rape itself.Vishnu Sahib (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nowhere have I done that, either in my editing or my comments. Can you point out where I did this extrapolation?VR talk  04:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nowhere have I done that, either in my editing or my comments. Can you point out where I did this extrapolation?VR talk  04:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Comparison of Mcphurphy's proposed text with the cited sources
Unlike VR's version, my proposed text is completely faithful to the sources. Readers can compare. I am posting a text-by-text comparison with what the original source says and you can check if my version (in the quote boxes) matches what the source is saying.


 * The followers of Imam Abu Hanifah said the right of the sexual pleasure belongs to the man, not the woman, by that it is meant that the man has the right to force the woman to gratify himself sexually. (Nancy Roberts, Islamic Jursprudence According to the Four Sunni Schools)


 * Hanafi texts extend the ruling on loss of support for physical absence to also uphold its converse:physical presence in the marital home suffices for support...A wife who remained in her husband's home but refused him sexually retained her claim to maintenance. Sexual refusal did not constitute nushuz, because it did not, in this view, make her sexually unavailable as long as she remained physically resent, he could have sexual access to her even aginst her will. Where the wife had legitimate grounds for sexual refusal, the situation was more complex. Abu Hanifa and his disciples disagreed as to what constituted legitimate grounds and, moreover, what the line was between enforceable rules and ethical guidelines. When a wife refused sex in order to claim an unpaid dower, Abu Hanifa supported her actions even after consummation. In this case, he held that "it is not lawful, and he sins [if he forces her]." According to Abu Yusuf and Muhammad al-Shaybani, who did not grant her the right to withhold herself for nonpayment of dower after consumation, the husband's forcing her "is lawful and he does not sin." A variant manuscript reads, "It is lawful and he sns," making a distinction between the legality and morality of the husband's actions...Still, while forcible intercourse might or might not be sinful if the wife had the moral high ground because of unpaid dower, if an unpaid dower was not at issue then the husband's right "to have sex with her against her will" went unquestioned. In this case, they agreed: "It is lawful, because she is a wrongdoer (zalima)." The wife's reproachable behavior justifies the husband's actions. Al-Khassaf, who reports these views, did not even raise the possibility that forced intercourse in these circumstances might be a sin. (Kecia Ali, Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam)


 * The prescription for abadonment resulted in the same paradox for Hanafi jurists as it did for several exegetes: sexual abandonment caused husbands to suffer unjustly, since they did not deserve to lose their sexual rights because of the wives' nushuz. Al-Kasani offered three solutions to the problem:a husband could abandon his wife verbally rather than sexually...or he could abandon the marital bed but nevertheless have sex with his wofe when he desired her, rather than when she desired him. This ensured that the husand would continue to enjoy his sexual rights while denying a woman her rights; ater all, disciplinary action was meant to discipline a wife and not deny a husband his sdxual rights. The last solution offerdd by Al-Kasani is especially disturbing, since it forces a wife to engage in non-consensual sex. If a wife's nushuz consisted of her sexual refusal, then her husband could have sex with her against her will. According to al-Kasani, marital rae was legally permissible. Marital rape was also regarded as acceptable husbandly conduct by others in the Hanafi legal school. For example Ibn Nujaym argued that as long as wife remains in her husbans's house, she is owed maintenance, even if she is disobedient and withholds sex. This is because as ling as she remains in his house, a husband can dominate her, forcing her to have sex with him. Like al-Kasani, Ibn Nujaym was comfortable with marital rape, seeing it as a natural consequence of a wife's sexual disobedience. Al-Nasafi added an undeniable shade of violence to his discussion on marital rape. While he argued that a necessary condition of hitting one's wife is to leave her intact or sound, soundness is not a cindition for sex. so if a wife dies while her husband is having sex with her, he is not liable. Al-Nasadi understood this to be Abu Hanifa's position, who argued that sexual intercourse-unlike disciplinary beating-was not restricted by the condition of soundness. (Ayesha Chaudhry, Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition)


 * The silence of the Hanafis can be explained easily: a wife's sexual refusal is irrelevant if not accompanied by her deartre from the conjugal hime, because the hsband is permitted to have sex with her without her consent. Non-Hanafis do not penalize a husband for forcing sex on his wife, but neither do they explicitly authorize it in the way that al-Khassaf does. For all, marital rape is an oxymoron; rape (ightisab) is a property crime that by definition cannot be committed by a husband. (Kecia Ali, Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam)


 * From these judicial opinions, rape can be defined in Islamic law as: "Forcible illegal sexual intercourse by a man with a woman wis not legally married to him, without her free will and consent". (Rape: A Problem of Crime Classification in Islamic Law, p. 429)


 * Thus, marital rape is literally uncriminalizable under doinant interpretations of the sharia. (Ayesha Chaudhry, Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition)


 * Though seldom discussed, forced sex with one’s wife might (or, depending on the circumstances, might not) be an ethical infraction, and conceivably even a legal one like assault if physical violence is involved...This scenario is never, however, illicit in the jurists’ conceptual world. Nonconsensual sex—what contemporary Westerners would term rape—might be either a coercive subset of zina, with blame lifted from the coerced participant, or a at type of usurpation (ightisab ), a property crime that by definition cannot be committed by a husband or owner, who possesses an entitlement to, or ownership over, his wife’s or slave’s sexual capacity. (Kecia Ali, Concubinage and Consent)


 * Put another way: Coercion within marriage or concubinage might be repugnant, but it remained fundamentally legal. (Hina Azam, Sexual Violation in Islamic Law: Substance, Evidence, and Procedure)


 * Marital rape in Islam law is similar to other acts of aggression against a wife where she has the right to ask for divorce and prosecutions. As such, the punishment for marital rape is not similar with the severe punishments for ordinary rape. (Rape: A Problem of Crime Classification in Islamic Law, p. 429)


 * Here the Shariah historically worked differently from modern laws on marital rape, which originated in the 1970s. But the effect is similar: protection. Within marriage, wrongs regarding sex were not conceived of as violations of consent. They were conceived of as harm inflicted on the wife. And in Islamic history wives could and did go to courts to complain and get judges to order husbands to desist and pay damages. So yes, non-consensual sex is wrong and forbidden in Islam. But the operating element to punish marital rape fell under the concept of harm, not non-consent (Jonathan Brown)


 * Islamic scholars describe that marital rape occurs when the man asks his wife to have sexual intercourse during her menstrual period or in an abnormal sexual position or during fasting hours in Ramadan...If the husband used violence to force his wife to sleep with him, he is legally a sinner and she has the right to go to court and file a complaint against him to get punished. The woman also has the right to refuse to engage in sexual relationship with her husband if he has a contagious disease or use violence which hurts her body during the sexual intercourse. (Dar al-Ifta)


 * While some traditionalist scholars categorically prohibit marital rape, others leave some room for its possibility, even while voicing strong discouragement. Ibn Adam has written that a husband cannot force himself on his wife if she has a legitimate reason for not having sex, which leaves open the possibility of raping a woman if she refuses her husband without a reasonable cause. He makes interesting use of a prophetic report to discourage husbands from raping their wives. (Ayesha Chaudhry, Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition)


 * Traditional Muslim jurists discuss a woman’s right to sexual activity within marriage, but her rights to sexual access to her husband (and even to non-sexual companionship) are virtually unenforceable. Indeed, these jurists think of sex as “the husband’s right and not his duty,” so it makes little sense to compel him to do it. Thus, a Muslim wife’s right to sexual pleasure, though morally acknowledged in the scripture and literature, is legally meaningless. (Asifa Quraishi-Landes "A Meditation on Mahr, Modernity, and Muslim Marriage Contract Law".) Mcphurphy (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In most of the above sources, you selectively quote the sources and deliberately exclude sentences in the same paragraph that contradict what you say. I've refuted most of this above already, some of it at least two times. I'm tired of repeating myself. Here's yet another example:
 * You quote Hina Azam,
 * But literally a few sentences before Hina Azam says:
 * So the will of the wife is legally significant, though not as significant as the will of God. Yet, your wording distorts that by quoting this out of context. Another thing is that on page 19 of Sexual Violation in Islamic Law: Substance, Evidence, and Procedure Hina Azam clearly says that marital rape accompanied by injury is punishable by Islamic law. Again, your version omits that. This is what's really problematic by your version. I have already explained why you have misquoted the views of Kecia Ali, Ayesha Chaudhry, A M Noor and Dar al-Ifta above.VR talk  04:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You have not refuted anything. The full passage from Hina Azam reads:
 * In other words she is saying the law first looks at whether the sex was licit or not (i.e. was it zina or not). Only if its zina did the women's consent become relevant (because a woman who is forced into zina is not considered guilty). Conversely, coerced sex within marriage is legal. I agree with . Your strategy is to select caveats from each source and build content by combining all the caveats. Mcphurphy (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggestion to all, I'm not expert on the subject, I noticed that Ibn Adam has been quoted in the discussion above via Ayesha Chaudhary. Ibn Adam is none but Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari. It'll be relevant to consult his book Islamic Guide to Sexual Relations as well. It may help. Reading parts of the discussion, I agree with . Best. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggestion to all, I'm not expert on the subject, I noticed that Ibn Adam has been quoted in the discussion above via Ayesha Chaudhary. Ibn Adam is none but Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari. It'll be relevant to consult his book Islamic Guide to Sexual Relations as well. It may help. Reading parts of the discussion, I agree with . Best. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

List of rapes committed by Muslims
This article is not a dumping ground for list of rape committed by Muslims throughout history. Edits like these are not appropriate.VR talk  05:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Please respect the DR process
This article has been relatively stable since May 25. The dispute has been filed at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard and is awaiting further help from a volunteer. At the same time Mcphurphy has not made any edits to the Talk page here since May 26. So it is unhelpful for Mcphurphy to just revert out of the blue a WP:STATUSQUO version that has been there for nearly 1.5 months now. And that too, without any sort of discussion. Lets not go back to reverting and lets wait for the dispute resolution process to complete.VR talk  09:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? I told you on 20 May that this page had been stable for more than a month and you still reverted the article. So why the opposite action with the same argument now? It was your own idea that this was the last stable version. So I restored that in my last revert. Mcphurphy (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We are going to be keeping the pre-dispute version till we get anywhere. Mcphurphy (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No we're going to keep the long-standing version till there is consensus to change it. Also reverts in the middle of discussion are very unhelpful.VR talk  15:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello. I'd be willing to help with DR if you're willing to examine the dispute point by point at a slower pace. Unfortunately, I don't have the bandwidth to take active part in fast-moving discussions these days. What kind of help are you looking for, specifically? WP:3O? Eperoton (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is my proposed version for the marital rape section. I have also presented quotes from each source I have cited for each sentence in my proposed version, here. You can go through them and check if I have faithfully represented the sources.
 * The version which VR currently has on the article suffers from source misrepresentations, WP:OR and synthesis. I have six causes of difference with VR.


 * 1. There are structural biases in Vice regent's version which don't allow for NPOV coverage of the topic. It gives emphasis to the minority viewpoints that marital rape is a crime in Islam. Yet the sources say that "marital rape is literally uncriminalizable under dominant interpretations of the sharia." Surely the section should emphasise and start with the dominant viewpoints per WP:DUE.


 * 2. There is also the problem with source misrepresentations. For example, in Vice regent's version the opening line (cited to Azam Noor's article in the Arab Quarterly) says that "Most interpretations of Islamic law prohibit marital rape, but treat it differently than other forms of rape."


 * But that is not what the source said at all. It says (after describing what the definition of rape is in each classical Islamic school of jurisprudence) "From these judicial opinions, rape can be defined in Islamic law as: "Forcible illegal sexual intercourse by a man with a woman who is not legally married to him, without her free will and consent"."


 * After that in a footnote, the author expresses his personal opinion (and not that of the classical jurists) that marital rape is classified as "domestic violence." Yet Vice regent has extrapolated and synthesised that to mean "most interpretations of Islamic law prohibit marital rape, but treat it differently than other forms of rape."


 * 3. Another problem with Vice regent's version is that it says that "certain" Hanafi jurists allow marital rape, when no such qualification is used in the sources. The multiple sources which have been provided are quite categorical that the Hanafi scholars allow forced sex with wife, without indicating any sort of internal difference of opinion among the Hanafi jurists. Vice regent's version makes this look like the opinion of only some Hanafi jurists.


 * 4. Another issue is over the text on what the non-Hanafi jurists say. My proposed version reads "The non-Hanafis neither expressly sanction marital rape, unlike al-Khassaf, nor do they penalise husbands for it." This is backed by the source here


 * However, Vice regent keeps on insisting that these jurists still penalise husbands for forced sex even though the source explicitly says otherwise. VR's argument is that the source is saying that the jurists define rape as a "property crime" which by definition cannot be committed by a husband. This is true. But then Vice regent synthesises and insists that the jurists still criminalise it under different classifications (i.e. domestic violence). Yet the source quite clearly states that the non-Hanafis do not penalise a husband for forced sex with his wife. This obviously means that the classification of a man's forced sex with wife as either "marital rape" or "domestic violence" is irrelevant for the jurists. If they held it to be domestic violence they would have still penalised it. The source says they did not.


 * Vice Regent here insists on following a different methodology by synthesising this with the Azam Noor source to say that forced sex with wife is still penalised under the classification of domestic violence. But we should describe what each individual sources says and not synthesise them to reach a personally favoured conclusion.


 * 5. There is also an issue of cherry picking from sources. For example, Vice Regent quotes Hina Azam as saying that perineal tearing is criminalised in Islamic law yet ignores the same Hina Azam source when it says that coercion within marriage is still "fundamentally legal." Another aspect that Vice regent is ignoring is that the academics differentiate between forced sex involving physical violence, which may be considered a legal infraction by the classical jurists, from other forced sex.


 * "Though seldom discussed, forced sex with one’s wife might (or, depending on the circumstances, might not) be an ethical infraction, and conceivably even a legal one like assault if physical violence is involved...This scenario is never, however, illicit in the jurists’ conceptual world. Nonconsensual sex—what contemporary Westerners would term rape—might be either a coercive subset of zina, with blame lifted from the coerced participant, or a at type of usurpation (ightisab ), a property crime that by definition cannot be committed by a husband or owner, who possesses an entitlement to, or ownership over, his wife’s or slave’s sexual capacity. (Kecia Ali, Concubinage and Consent, pp. 149-150)"


 * 6. Vice regent also is not allowing the inclusion of the views of Hanafi jurists such as al-Nasafi (mentioned by the academic Ayesha Chaudhry) which do not hold a man liable for the death of his wife resulting from forced intercourse.


 * , thank you for looking into this! Going slow is a good idea. Mcphurphy's 6 points above seem to be what they wrote earlier. I responded to that here. The general issue seems to be that Mcphurphy is misrepresenting sources, most sources that Mcphurphy cites give a qualification or clarification in the same paragraph or page or footnote that Mcphurphy ignores. Mcphurphy is also not understanding certain nuances in Islam and Islamic law. As a high-level summary, rape in Islamic courts is typically prosecuted as ightisab. I have never come across a source that considers "marital rape" to be a form of ightisab - and this indeed what the sources that Mcphurphy cites say. Yet, scholars have found ways to penalize rape under different categories: some Islamic scholars say it can be prosecuted as an "act of aggression against a wife", Quraish Shihab and other scholars say marital rape can be prosecuted as a form of "torture", Jonathan Brown says it can be conceived as "harm inflicted on the wife" . Other sources say that while many jurists remained silent on marital rape, they advocated prosecuting any injury caused by marital rape (this and this ). Then there are sources that say marital rape is prohibited and should have legal consequences, but don't specify what (this and this ).VR talk  17:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have already answered this in point 4. The source clearly says that jurists do not penalise husbands for forcing sex on their wives. Thus, the classification of forced sex as istighab (property crime) or domestic violence is irrelevant. VR is synthesisising when they say "Yet, scholars have found ways to penalize rape under different categories." VR is taking opinions of various modern writers and scholars and mixing those up with the positions of the classical jurists. My version takes great care to separate the modern writers from classical ones. Mcphurphy (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Prof. Jonathan Brown is clearly not talking about just modern scholars, both here and in the Domestic violence article. Also, I should point out that it is T-minus a few days before this talkpage will likely become an unreadable mess. Starting with McMurphy, summons have been sent out to supporting editors and VR has done so as well. 119.152.137.241 (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The "do not penalise" statement is made in the context of ightisab. Read the very next sentence and you will see. I agree that jurists do not penalie marital rape under ightisab.VR talk  14:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello again. It looks like this discussion now has more than 2 editors, so, by definition, there are already too many participants for me to provide a WP:3O. Let me make a couple of procedural recommendations: Hopefully, this helps to move things in the right direction. Eperoton (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's difficult for me to contribute to the above also because we have a mix of point-by-point arguments and general arguments. Mcphurphy seems to be pursuing a point-by-point discussion, which I think is a good idea. To make things easier I would recommend making separate sections for different points, and making incremental edits, representing those separate points, regardless of which version is taken as the starting point (this can be an intractable point of dispute that stands in the way of content improvements, and whoever finds a constructive way to avoid it gets WP Brownie points :)).
 * For a complicated and controversial subject like this, I would recommend worrying less about making broad generalizations, at least at this juncture, and more about representing the richness and complexity of the debate in detail. Modern scholar A wrote this, modern scholar B wrote that, etc. We don't have to attribute the views if there is no disagreement among the sources. Also, "[quantifier] of [madhhab] jurists held that", etc, being careful about the quantifiers (most, some, etc). I've once tried to do a fairly thorough form of the latter exercise for another topic (Crucifixion) and discovered that different "authoritative" sources differed widely on these details; per NPOV, we should reflect that variety. If there are disputes about representing the sources accurately, we can use quotes in the article body, and I would recommend including relevant quotes in the ref with "quote=" in any case. That makes it much easier for an uninvolved editor to judge whether the passage is well sourced.
 * We should be very careful about mixing up traditional Islamic legal notions (ightisab, zina, darar, etc) and modern notions (marital rape, domestic violence). When sources make those connections, we should reflect them accurately, but try hard not to make those connections ourselves.
 * Jonathan Brown expanded his view on this topic in his book. As I recall, he does not present it as a modern opinion. He discusses traditional legal views and pre-modern court practice. He also is fairly clear that it is not a perspective that is shared widely among his peers, though he is a prominent scholar and his view merits to be reflected in more detail, based on the book.
 * Thanks for that, it helps! I have engaged in point by point discussion. I didn't go it immediately above, but I can go back to that. I'm not completely sure about inclusion of quotes in the body. For example, many of the discussions on marital rape span multiple pages in some books. I'm not sure if we can post multiple pages of a book per NFCCP) and if we did this with every source, we'd end up with a WP:quotefarm. But I do agree with including the quotes in references and footnotes. Agree with your points on Jonathan Brown too.VR talk  19:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We certainly don't want to quote whole pages of text, but I'd be surprised if we would need to. I would expect that article content wouldn't be much longer than the source content it's based on, and there's no need to quote when there's no dispute about the source being reflected accurately. On the other hand, if we're using one sentence to summarize multiple pages of text, and the source doesn't contain a similarly concise summary, I would double-check for WP:SYNTH. Sometimes we can come up with highly condensed summaries of sources, but I would be extra cautious for a complex and controversial subject like this. Eperoton (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Eperoton's idea. I think my proposed version already does that but I am happy to start from scratch with VR. We could also consider splitting the section into "interpretations which support marital rape" and "interpretations which oppose marital rape." There is already precedent for this on the Islam and domestic violence article. Mcphurphy (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that "interpretations which support marital rape" is WP:OR especially since many of the sources that Mcphurphy quotes say mixed things. For example, Mcphurphy quotes Ayesha Chaudhry who says: "Kecia Ali notes that “marital rape is an oxymoron; rape (ightisab) is a property crime that by definition can't be committed by the husband. Still, they do make a distinction between forced and consensual sex within marriage...Thus marital rape is literally uncriminalizable under dominant interpretations of the sharia. Yet the same author then says While some traditionalist scholars categorically prohibit marital rape, others leave some room for its possibility, even while voicing strong discouragement. (page 150) Such a position can hardly be neatly categorized under "interpretations which support marital rape" and "interpretations which oppose marital rape." At issue here is whether marital rape is prohibited or strongly discouraged (Chaudhry seems to say "yes" to that) and whether it can be punished in courts under the crime of ightisab (Chaudhry says "no" to that).VR talk  15:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources I provided quite categorically say there is no penalty for husbands who force sex on their wives. The classification under ightisab or anything else is irrelevant. Mcphurphy (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you read the quotes I provided above? They are directly from the book and you can go back and verify.VR talk  16:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is more of a broad general concern but I don't really believe that Mcmurphy's edits capture the "the richness and complexity of the debate in detail" or as Ayesha Chaudhry puts it "the spirited and diverse, and at times contradictory, readings". I don't think he even would agree with the statement than any such complexity exists and simply roots for the presentation of the views of Islamic scholarship as static, medieval and unchanging (a few belated, halfhearted and unsuccessful modern attempts to reform it notwithstanding).


 * Though it should not be extensive the section should also provide some background to the issue before jumping straight to a discussion about scholarly views without any context. Eperoton's edits in Crucifixion in Islam are a good example. Something along the lines of: "Historically, in much of the world, rape was seen as a crime or tort of theft of a man's property (usually either a husband or father). In this case, property damage meant that the crime was not legally recognized as damaging to the victim, but instead to her father or husband's property. Therefore, by definition a husband could not rape his wife."


 * Islam and domestic violence is not really a good precedent as the sections there about the "interpretations" are actually pretty conflicted and also because Marital rape is actually not the main topic of the article here. Should there be separate sections for interpretations for the allowance of abortion or even the allowance for rape in general? 119.155.54.53 (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with "the spirited and diverse, and at times contradictory, readings". Both Kecia Ali and Ayesha Chaudhry quote the sources as saying seemingly opposite things on different pages. That's why I think that if we put in quotes, we would have to put in the entire discussion. Its probably preferenble to paraphrase, though we can't seem to agree on wording.VR talk  16:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Mcphurphy on this matter. A quick look at User:Vice regent edits indicates that he has a bias in regards to Islam related topics. Regards Balolay (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

seems to have restored the edits of who has been indefinitely blocked. Before restoring those edits, please explain they are justified and obtain consensus per WP:BRD. I'm reverting them for now.VR talk  17:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I will not go into details, because discussing with is exhausting and I do not have the time now. However I have tried to limit Vice regent's damage in the last days, specifically the more destructive edits (his removal of sources or entire paragraphs) or the more apologetic ones. There is an ongoing dispute about our recent disagreements. Personally I believe that Vice regent is driven by an ideological wish to silence both mainstream or influential Islamic interpretations and the more anti-Islamic sources in order to push his own minority views. Whether I am right about his bias or not can be judged by having a look at our recent edits (mine and Vice regent's). For now I will stop here. I believe however that since there is a ongoing discussion participated by more than two editors in this talk page no action should be taken until an agreement is found, so I will revert the page to the point where it was when this discussion began. --Grufo (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

NPOV, again, especially in marital rape section
This article documents (or should document) information regarding an important women's rights and human rights issue. I'm deeply offended that some editors are trying to whitewash this article and remove negative information, a POV-pushing tactic that has plagued nearly every topic on Wikipedia. The majority of Islamic jurists do not recognise marital rape as rape. This is an accurate statement, and I'm not sure why this was changed. This is why very, very few Muslim-majority countries have criminalised marital rape. Of course, not all Islamic jurists hold the same view. So as is Wikipedia's purpose, let's please present all relevant viewpoints, and let's not whitewash the facts. I may try to edit this article again, but to be honest, dealing with this kind of POV-pushing has been very discouraging, to say the least. If the editors here come to an agreement about what to put in the article, I desperately hope that it includes all the facts. Thank you. GrammarDamner  how are things?  21:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * GrammerDamner, if this is your idea of NPOV,, I'm not sure what to say. You have continuously defended the indisputable, POV, badfaith edits of a banned user and resisted their removal on multiple occasions . It is rather clear to me where the POV pushing is coming from. Dealing with it has been no less discouraging for me either, especially when dealing with dishonest tactics. I too hope that all editors here will come to an agreement about what to put in the article including all the facts without any propaganda. 119.152.137.241 (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I disagree that those were badfaith edits. Assuming you are that dynamic IP user from before, you, however, defended the personal attacks and the blatant misrepresentation of sources by an editor who has been the subject of countless disputes with countless editors for his disruptive editing and personal attacks. Again, I'm not trying to remove any relevant information. I believe each article should document all viewpoints. GrammarDamner   how are things?  22:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which IP you're talking about. I have not interacted with you much before although the Al-Nisa edit is mine. I am not the IP on "Muhammad in the Quran" talkpage. Also how are Koreangauteng's edits not in bad faith? He's a sockpuppeting editor with many accounts who's been ban evading and POV pushing for a very long time now. He was well aware of WP but still edited disruptively or used unreliable sources. Earlier it was assumed this was due to him being a new user but this was not the case as he had been editing for many years now. Please look up his history up on the archives . Am I supposed to believe his edits were in good faith?


 * The issue with SharabSalaam is different. I've noted that he certainly had attitude issues though I've not interacted with him much either. If he was being as dishonest or violating WP rules as clearly as Koreangauteng was by sockpuppeting, he should have been banned or blocked. You even filed a report against him here (Note, I was not involved in the discussion, my IP has cycling changes but never started with 86.134.) but it did not go anywhere and the accusation of COI by the sock master was way out of league and pointed out by an admin. This background is relevant to the discussion on these articles but let's focus on the topic. I agree that each article should document all viewpoints but that is also the issue here. Many viewpoints not belonging to a certain POV are presented persuasively or are simply omitted. I'd provide evidence but that would lead to a discussion about other articles. I've yet to closely examine the sources on this particular article. 119.152.137.241 (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * To the IP editor, I'm sorry if I misattributed someone else's edits to you. It was an assumption based on the diffs you posted, and it can be difficult when IP editors engage in these discussions. I mean you no disrespect, but it's just hard to know who one is dealing with sometimes. As for that diff you posted, I do not feel that it is a badfaith edit to put a link to a relevant article in the "See also" section. As I've said, these are very important women's rights and human rights issues, and I'm deeply offended by all of the whitewashing in all areas of Wikipedia, not just here. I'm very glad that you agree that the article should document all viewpoints and that we should focus on the topic. Thank you very much. GrammarDamner   how are things?  13:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you GrammarDamner. I should also make a very important clarification that I do not mean to imply any guilt by association and do not believe that you were acting in bad faith by supporting Koreangauteng. As for the diff, do you support adding violence in the Quran links to around a dozen Surah articles as Koreangauteng did? If so we could also add "see also" Jesus in the Quran, Adam in the Quran, etc etc to dozens of Surah articles. I made this point here (this is me) but got no response.
 * I'm also offended by some of the brazen comments of certain editors. For instance see the first few talkpage editor comments here who demand that there be a "Rape of unbelievers" section or something along those lines. Should that be added, and would that be NPOV? Though I don't doubt your concerns, I do have a hard time believing that some of these statements are made out of a moral high ground concern for human rights.
 * I generally agree with Eperoton's recommendations both here as well as on other articles on slavery like here . The pendulum swings both ways on the NPOV issue and I've noted that many experienced editors simply avoid editing on controversial issues which only makes things worse. If this dispute isn't resolved amicably I think the entire article could benefit from the template currently added only to the abortion section. 119.152.137.241 (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * GrammarDamner's edit brought up by IP (calling for the restoration of this) are definitely against WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. For example answeringmuslims.com is not a reliable source. But people evolve and I think we should WP:Assume Good Faith.VR talk  14:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is clear whitewashing campaign going on in the article by User:Vice regent. There is hardly any mention of Islam's recognition of sexual slavery and marital rape section is presented in a very biased manner. Balolay (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)$banned user$
 * I am very concerned at why the content which has no consensus is still here. Only Vice regent seems to be in favour of it. I am going to restore this article to the pre-dispute version. Mcphurphy (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm here too, and I re-added my tweaks of Brown's comments which were not disputed. He's a reliable source too and I see no reason why his views should be specifically attributed when other scholarly views are not. 39.37.185.244 (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

More original research
Grufo added This reads like original research where Grufo is trying to interpret the Qur'an for himself. If you want to quote the verse then quote, but don't try to insert your own interpretations.VR talk 13:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As I already said before, a quotation (whether direct or indirect, full or partial) is not an interpretation. May I ask you, if you really think I added my own personal interpretation, what would it consist of? --Grufo (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The above is definitely an interpretation by virtue of the fact that those words don't appear in any translation of the Quran. According to WP:RSPSCRIPTURE even summarizing the scripture needs to be cited to "scholarly sources".VR talk 18:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Which words? --Grufo (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "defines the man's wives as his own personal", "allows him to approach them".VR talk 19:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:RSPSCRIPTURE states “Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field of religious studies) and attributed when appropriate”. I believe that a reference is not appropriate in this case, as it is not an interpretation and not even a summarization (it is exactly as long), but only a grammatical rendering of a direct speech to a third person discourse. --Grufo (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that the Qur'an "defines the man's wives as his own personal 'tilth'" is WP:Original research. Unless you can find a reliable source, it has no place on wikipedia.VR talk 20:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree about it being an interpretation or OR. --Grufo (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What's your source for it? The Qur'an itself? VR talk 20:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As already discussed elsewhere, the Quran can perfectly be the source of a quotation, and indeed the text above is a mixture of indirect and direct quotation (i.e., not an interpretation and not a summarization). But even if I had gone further and I had done a summarization, as per WP:RSPSCRIPTURE a reference would be needed only “when appropriate”. --Grufo (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Analysis of scriptural content by Wikipedia editors is prohibited by the Wikipedia policy regarding original research." 39.37.128.59 (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your comments (including statements like "although X, though Y") are quite undisputedly an analysis. 39.37.128.59 (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is an indirect quotation (which per se requires some textual analysis – not a scriptural analysis). It might be disputable whether it is a summarization instead (which per se needs requires some textual analysis – not a scriptural analysis). In both cases it is definitely not a scriptural analysis. Please stop your revert war or I will be forced to protect the page. I invite you to create a Wikipedia account. --Grufo (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not true, but in any case I'd advise you hold off on editwarring until you can find someone who agrees with you. Infact, adding an OR tag is a compromise measure when the OR really should be removed. You've been warned about this before and we can call Eperoton again if need be. 39.37.128.59 (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The “compromise measure” is to keep the page as it was before the dispute began, as per Wikipedia policy. I invite you again to create a Wikipedia account. --Grufo (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is indeed rich that you consider your own very recent version to be the "pre-dispute" one when the dispute began long before your edits. That would be either Eperoton or VR or even Mcphurphy's(!). Plus, editwarring is not vandlalism, the three RR involves more than 3 reverts and the one who has broken it is... I'd create an account but I don't want you following me like VR. May do so in the future. 39.37.128.59 (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , you really ought to let the OR tag stay until this discussion is over. Honestly, your OR shouldn't be in the article in the first place. Putting a tag was a reasonable compromise. You're edit warring to remove a tag? VR talk 00:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not not agree exactly about you insisting to tag a quotation as “Original research” (which is a far cry from what “Original research” stands for). Therefore a dispute began where everyone is welcome to intervene. Why do you insist in POV-pushing at all costs? --Grufo (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is you who is pushing your original research, and violating WP:RSPSCRIPTURE.VR talk 01:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * False statements will not become true by just repeating them. --Grufo (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)