Talk:Women in Muslim societies/Archive 1

Entrances
I live near to the East London Mosque and I have less of a problem with the differing sizes of entrances - if muslim women are happy to live in submission of men, that is their call. But I feel that the general attitude of Islam (whether cultural or religious) should not extend beyond the family or close community unit. Recently in Whitechapel, there has been some amateur censoring of billboard advertisements containing women's body parts (hardly explicit, I might add). Islamists can encourage Islamic women to cover up and live in denial of women's rights if that's what the women are prepared to do, but to force such views of "chastity" on the general public is inappropriate. BWK

P.S. To include "Shrill feminist dementia" and "arrogant self-righteous boors" is entirely tasteless for a discussion such as this and is an aggressive over-reaction to an otherwise civil debate. Try not to deliberately give yourself bad PR. And the same applies to Saduj al-Dahij, although the comment must be from a prankster, so outlandish is it. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. BWK

I am wondering if you think it's a good idea to add a section about Mosques and how women are treated differently in them (which is a problem with the community more than Islam itself of course). However, it is often true that men have far better facilities for prayer than women do.


 * The mosques in Indonesia have similar facilities for men and women. Femmy 06:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This can be seen, if only subtely (it's not a great picture) in my image from the East London Mosque where there is a fairly grand arch in the center of the building for the men and then on the right there is the ordinary entrance for women. I wouldn't know where to find sources on information like this to write the section but I know it's rather common complaint of many women who understand the modesty in separate but don't find it to be equal much of the time. (oh, it didn't show up... here it is it might be too subtle and someone from London could go and take a better picture.) gren 17:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not subtle. It is not a disparity except in your mind. Equity does not require equality. Muslim women don't care a whit for your shrill feminist dementia. --Islamist 02:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No, it is undeniably a disparity. The issue is whether it is just or not.  Also the fact remains that it is a complaint of some Muslim women.  My sister doesn't think I'm feminist enough and you think I'm a demented feminist.  I just can't win :(  gren 06:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Show me an article by a single Muslim woman complaining about this. You are imposing your own values on others. Muslim women do not impose their values on you so you should have the same respect for them. But that would be asking you not to be an arrogant self-righteous boor. --Islamist 13:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Moslem women tend not to impose their values on anyone, and that, indeed, is part of the problem. Please read No personal attacks. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:00, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * If that's what you think, you need to talk to more Muslim women! - Mustafaa 02:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, sometimes Muslim women try to express their own opinion and that is when they need to be swiftly punished. Insolence should not be tolerated. Saduj al-Dahij 14:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have met and know plenty of Moslem women, Mustafaa, and not just those living in Western countries either, which is why I wrote what I did. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:27, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Slimvirgin, Mustafaa wasn't talking to YOU -- that was a response to Islamist. I think he put up his response before you put up yours, and then things got confused. Anyway, don't think he's of the same ilk. He's of a woman-respecting ilk  Zora 04:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, "If that's what you think..." was directed at SlimVirgin. In my experience, Muslim women impose their values on others at least as often as Muslim men, and I find the apparent suggestion that they are merely passive observers bizarre if not frankly sexist.  (From context, I take the term "impose their values on others" to mean, in Islamist's comment above, "condemn others for behavior contrary to their own, but not those others', moral code", which, come to think of it, might be a source of confusion.)  But thanks for the compliment, Zora  - Mustafaa 23:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * http://asranomani.com/media/archives/2005/02/boston_globe_le.php Here is one example, search to find more? gren 02:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed. And calling people "arrogant self-righteous boors" is entirely inappropriate.  This is an encyclopedia, not some Usenet forum. - Mustafaa 05:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I have added an excellent article explaining verse 4:34 Muwahid 19:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I had added the link explaining verse 4:34 in great detail, yet Mr. Karl Meier removed the link labelling it "useless PoV claims" yet he never responds in the discussion. I challenge anyone to provide a more detailed commentary of the verse. if we are even posting links to Islam-bashing sites left, right and center, don't we have the right to post one link that presents the verse in its proper perspective and refutes anti-islamic claims? How can such a site be considered unbiased encyclopedic source yet censor any website explaining misunderstandings about Islam? I would like Mr. Meier to respond here and explain his actions. Muwahid 20:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Muwahid, I am not the only one who is opposing your current actions here, and elsewhere. gren made an excellent response on your talkpage, where he explained to you, why your edit on this page is not acceptable. That response can be repeated here: "Okay, I will give you my advice in terms of this example of your edit. You added "''This verse is often misunderstood to be misogynist, however, several Muslim writers have refuted this misconceptions on this verse. ". There are a few things wrong with that.  Muslim writers have contested'' the meaning, not refuted it.  Some Muslims believe they have the right to hit.  We as an encyclopedia must acknowledge that some Muslims believe that and you must take it into account.  Also, it is better to be clear.  I recommend something like "Dr. Ahmad Shafaat, a (Shia/Sunni/Salafi/Submitters or liberal) Muslim scholar graduate of (XXX school or whatever give him his authority and shows he's not just some guy writing online) has debated this claim in (XXX way, or whatever way he has debated it but very briefly).1. The footnote part is very important. you will add that and it will link to a footnote with the website linked which will show his view in full and a brief bibliographic entry... you could do some minor annotations to the bibligraphy if you wanted. You must make sure that this is not a complete minority view (I didn't read the whole thing to know) and if you can find someone more notable with the same view that is always preferred. This is my recommendation... if you have any questions ask just ask and I'll try to clarify." -- Karl Meier 07:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I am currently discussing this issue with Mr. Gren and I believe we can reach a comprimise. If you take the time to read the linked article by Dr. Ahmad Shafaat you will find that he includes much information from Qur'anic commentators such as the explanations of At-Tabari and Ar-Razi. Our wikipedia article lacks a discussion on nushuz, on the various steps discussed in the process, on the various interpretations of the verse, etc. I've noticed that we quote from Qaradawi so is it not also possible to quote from Dr. Shafaat? THere are other articles by Muslim scholars as well . I think the domestic violence section needs to incorporate all this inormation to make it much more informative. Muwahid 14:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, right now I'm going to try to incorporate more information into the article including a discussion on nushuz as well as more detail on scholar's views on hitting. I'm also re-arraning the points in the article to make the sequence more logical since right now it describes Shafi's view of hitting before even describing the word idribuhunna in the verse! If you don't like the changes I make, please help to improve them and discuss them, don't simply delete them. I'm not deleting other information, I'm only adding. Also, whoever put in the comment of some scholars believing that the hadith were abrogated, please substantiate this claim with references to which scholars since I have never come across such a view. Also be aware of the various types of abrogation including naskh, takhsees and badaa'. Muwahid 16:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Meher/Dowry
Zora, did you mean "no need to translate dowry to meher" rather than the other way round? I am confused... &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:41, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * No, clearly, I'm the one who's confused. "No reason not to translate meher to dowry." Except -- I'm wondering if it should be translated brideprice instead. Except that's too anthropological, and it assumes that the money is going to the bride's family. A more precise equivalent might be "settlements", as used to be negotiated for upper-class European brides. Settlements spelled out exactly how the bride's and groom's money were to be handled. Money would be "settled" on the bride. I gather that this is the kind of thing that Islamic marriage contracts do. A lot of people don't do them, but then most Westerners don't do "settlements" or pre-nups either.


 * Wilkie Collins's The Woman in White turns on a guardian who's too lazy to negotiate proper settlements for his ward. Zora 04:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As I understand it mehr doesn't have to imply money or valuables at all does it? It only has to be a gift that the bride accepts. I could be off base here since I don't seem to have any quote relating to it off of the top of my head.  If this is the case, however, then we must make sure not to imply money (also I would like to know if anyone has a source about it) gren 06:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Interesting thing is that it is precisely meher that is technically an "Islamic" practise--based on religious canon and law. And it is given/promised to the bride, not her family--in theory and in practice, as far as I know. The "brideprice"/what-have-you that you are talking about is a cultural overlay in a lot of Muslim communities. And classic "dowry" (jehez in South Asia) is also practiced. And I am not against mentioning them--just that we need to clarify. I know (being a South Asian and having married one) that jehez and meher are separate aspects of at least South Asian Muslim marriages. &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:47, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, this is interesting, this is fun, I'm learning things. One of the first things I found when googling was a lecture by an American Muslim female academic, on Islamic marriage contracts.  Just from reading that -- and I have more reading to do -- it seems clear that dowry is NOT the best translation. It is something more like a settlement -- that is, if the woman has been far-sighted enough to insist on a good contract. Otherwise it can be just a gift. Zora 10:27, 15 April 2005 (UTC)

context tag
This article really needs an intro, I think, so I stuck a context tag at the top. I don't know enough to write such an intro myself. It'd be great if someone went ahead and did so, and then removed the tag. --jacobolus (t) 06:07, 18 April 2005 (UTC)

cultural problem
It is absurd to call maltreatment of women in muslim countries a cultural problem rather than a religious one, when the Koran encourages and even orders that women be treated as slaves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.203.202.156 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 26 May 2005


 * Your premise is doubly false: the Qur'an orders no such thing, and this article doesn't call it "a cultural problem rather than a religious one". - Mustafaa 00:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The Qur'an has been used to justify oppression, and has also been used to justify liberation for women... I'm sure that we can discuss both aspects. gren グレン 16:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What about these quotes? I am not a specialist on these issues, but are these misquotes/wrong interpretations? If yes, could you provide a link or something to the 'correct' interpretation? --MvD 17:31, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)." Qur’an 4:34

"If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way." Qur’an 4:15

Islamic feminists usually cite two arguments:

1) Because marriage is contractual, the woman can insist on a marriage contract that gives her equal rights and protection from divorce. Islamic marriage could be transformed simply by convincing Muslims to use better, fairer contracts rather than dispensing with formal contracts, as is often the case now.

2) That the Qur'an is progressive in its treatment of women is evident only when you compare it to the customs of the 7th century, when it was proclaimed. The Muslims of the time were given laws that challenged them, but not so severely as to make the laws a dead letter. Feminists say that the INTENT of the Qur'an -- justice for women -- takes precedence over the LETTER of the Qur'an. Those laws made sense in the 7th century, and must naturally be updated for modern times. Zora 21:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * How can you update a story that is supposed to be 'holy'? --MvD 18:07, 2005 August 9 (UTC)


 * If you're a Salafi, you don't. But other Muslims say that as times change, Islam has to change too. It seems to me that you insist that Islam HAS to be what it is in the earliest texts, you're taking a very Protestant/Salafi view of religion -- there was one perfect, original, shining moment of revelation, and all we can do is try to recover that. Other religious viewpoints admit of change and development. Zora 20:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Please don't say Islaam has to change, cause if Islaam has to change then it was incorrect to start, and if it's incorrect then why follow it?!Interpretations certainly have to continuously be looked over. Indeed the Qur'aan says we should always seek knowledge and learn for ourselves. This view that the World has changed so much since Islaam's birth are a European construct. Humans haven't changed at all, we may have higher technology, but basic human relations are still the same: we have wars, we have sex, there were lesbians and gays and adultery in the prophets time, there's slavery still today, what exactly is that different?!

62.40.38.38 17:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Karl Meier / Muwahid debate
Okay, I have been talking with Muwahid about his addition... I told him I think refute is completely biased... because, it's not a matter of refutation, I did agree with him (as I would assume everyone will) that at least Muslims don't believe they are misogynistic. Modern Muslim interpretations, no matter what critics think the truth is, emphasize it is to restore order and to only be used in proper circumstance... they do not say it's like a bar room brawl type of beating... well, they're probably not really in bars either, but that's besides the point. So, I have used his link which goes over a few Muslim interpretations and is close to the stuff you see about this issue coming from Muslims these days. What do you think? gren グレン 07:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Klonimus' link
Klonimus added, I removed, he restored, a link to a Jerusalem Post article about Muslim women engaging in jihad. Look, an Israeli paper is not really the best place to find NPOV treatment of women in Islam. Especially if that paper was owned by Conrad Black and takes a generally conservative and anti-Muslim view of things. The article gives the impression that Islam = jihad and that the women had to get the permission of their menfolk before participating. It was propaganda, dang it. It may express Klonimus' POV but I don't regard it as particularily informative about Muslim women. Please, let's get rid of the inflammatory link. It has no place in an encyclopedia. Zora 10:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I read it and I'm in complete agreement. That link is nothing but non-notable propaganda.  What the Jerusalem Post says about women in Islam, well...  Hamas no less has little relevance to this article even if it was a decent essay.  There is no reason crap like that should be here.  Klominous... have you been scouring the Jerusalem Post for some reason?  You added a link to the Arab Bank from there as well... gren グレン 10:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Women joining the ranks of Hamas means that they are now being seen as equal to men in an important segment of the muslim community. This is a verifiyable phenominon published in a reputable newspaper (Jpost is Israel's largest curculation english newspaper), and so there is no problem as I see it with including this external link. Klonimus 15:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Equal to men? Even if they have to get permission from their husbands or fathers? Ha. Look, if you want a link on the status of women among Islamists, there's a woman with a US PhD, I believe, who's on the run now as a suspected terrorist. I'm blanking on her name and the circumstances ... I think she had a write-up in the NYTimes Sunday magazine. Anyway, it was a long and nuanced article, pointing out that she was one of the few women involved, and that before she become obsessed with "supporting our boys in Afghanistan and Chechyna", she was known as a fiery Muslim feminist. Let's link to that, if we can find it -- it would be more informative than the link you're demanding. Zora 07:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It was a long hard google, but I found it. Aafia Siddiqui . Interesting? Zora 07:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Overlaping article
Gender roles in Islam seems to overlap in title, if not material, with this article. A merger (although the result would probebly be too long) or some form of demarkation and renaming is required. I can't help, this is not my area, but I though I'd give a 'head-up' to those working here. --Doc (?) 22:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration in the Qur'an
A user added the Qur'an verse 4:35 to this article, and another user reverted. I put the verse back in because it helps to add context and is certainly applicable to domestic abuse. Comments are welcome. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 04:21, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I reverted. It does add context but I don't see how it is relevant.  It is not at all applicable to domestic abuse.  Divorce yes.  Martial disharmony yes.  But domestic abuse?  If a husband wants to hit his wife what relevance does the arbitration have?  Does it say he has to stop and wait for others to comment?  Does it say that he is not allowed to do so until their families agree?  Does it forbid him to beat the living crap out of her for making him look bad in the community by asking for arbitration?  It is just not relevant. Lao Wai 10:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * the verse calls for arbittration, the verse is placed after the verse allowing the one and only verse allowing domestic violence, so it's in the same "flow" according to the Qur'an. The wife can ask for it at any time, say a husband approaches his wife to hit her, and she says NO let's call my brother or someone else and have him solve it with an arbitrator/representative from your side. Then she's free from domestic violence. Say he already hit her and she invokes arbitration and they reach an agreement; a vow to stop domestic violence or ask for a divorce; still it reduces or eliminates domestic violence. And, on a side note, chances are the arbitrators would solve the marital problem like a psuedo-marriage councling or call for a divorce if necessary.  --The Brain 10:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The verse does call for arbitration. And it is next to the verse that allows wife-beating (although to call it domestic violence is another matter).  But do they belong together?  You never know if it is an editorial quirk.  Anyway.  Where does it say what you say it says?  As I said before, if a husband is beating his wife and she calls for arbitration, where does it forbid the husband to beat her even harder for her insolence?  Arbitration does not necessarily mean an end to wife beating if she continues to disobey.  As the Hadith says, no one will ever ask a man why he beat his wife.  Nor does it follow that an arbitrator will.  Two separate, but sort of related issues. Lao Wai 10:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If domestic violence or the threat of thereof or any other cause might cause a breach the wife, or the husband for that matter can invoke arbitrationa legal proceeding.

In Arabic: وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ شِقَاقَ بَيْنِهِمَا فَابْعَثُواْ حَكَمًا مِّنْ أَهْلِهِ وَحَكَمًا مِّنْ أَهْلِهَا إِن يُرِيدَا إِصْلاَحًا يُوَفِّقِ اللّهُ بَيْنَهُمَا إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ عَلِيمًا خَبِيرًا(35) in the original text وَإِنْ means "AND if" which I will correct so the verses belong together, I will correct the mistake. And if you fear a breach between them twain (the man and his wife), appoint (two) arbitrators, one from his family and the other from hers; if they both wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation. Indeed Allah is Ever All-Knower, Well-Acquainted with all things." So I guess if there is no reconciliation, they can ask for a divorce(Qur'an 4:35) Sura An-Nisa:35 (the fact that she has someone chosen to judge and decide a disputed issue, an arbitrator from her family, means she's not weak and has someone from her family helping her, negotiating on her behalf, and the wife abuse has been reported to an arbitrator, usually a male of her family, he can stand up for her and help her out even if HE (the arbitrator) or she suggest divorce.


 * This still has nothing to do with domestic violence, nor does it say what you say it says. It does say if you if you fear a breach.  It does not say a husband must not beat his wife in the meantime.  I agree if there is no reconciliation they can ask for a divorce, but it does not mention it.  A wife can ask for a divorce at any time.  But the husband can also refuse a divorce and go on beating his wife.  Well she is weak, and the fact she has family to help is nice, but it does not mean much.  They can suggest divorce until they are blue in the face.  If the husband does not wish it and wants to go on beating his wife there is nothing here to make him stop or to force him to grant a divorce.  For that matter if he divorces her and says it is because she is shameless it may lead to an honor killing. Lao Wai 15:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually Lao, there was once a very pious women who didnt love her husband so she wanted a divorce. He didnt want to agree so she went to the prophet and he granted her divorce from her husband because you cant be forced to marry someone you dont like. It doesnt matter if ur husband doesntwatn divorce. You have to go to a mullah,( or any religious dude)and ask him to grant u divorce.::: Pakistanigrl

Qur'an is more authorative than Hadith in Isnad a criterion is: Questions scholars ask about the isnad (the legitimacy of the hadith) include:

Reasons for forging Hadith: Many farmers and merchants claimed they sold "Holy cures" (money). Local tradition: Female circumcision, Quote "Circumcision is Fard( فرض ) for males yet Sunnah( سنة ) for females. I read a long study stating the Muhammad never called his own teachings Sunnah and that it is a word used by clergy therfore the Hadith is forged. --The Brain 12:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Does the reported (hadith) tradition agree with the Qur'an? (See Isnad for a fuller account)


 * I agree the Quran is more authorative than any Hadith. But so what?  The Quran does not forbid husbands to beat wives.  It provides no redress for women who are beaten except to appoint arbitrators.  Who have no power whatsoever to either forbid the beating or force the husband to divorce.  The hadith does agree with the Quran in this case.  There is a large Western literature that claims, basically, nearly all Hadiths are forged.  But that does not matter as what counts is what Muslims think, not what is true in Islam. Lao Wai 15:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is what you,Lao Wai, wrote:
 * I think I reverted. It does add context but I don't see how it is relevant.  It is not at all applicable to domestic abuse.  Divorce yes (on grounds of physical or domestic abuse perhaps???).  Martial disharmony (as in getting beaten ???) yes.  But domestic abuse?  If a husband wants to hit his wife what relevance does the arbitration have (see above)?  A member of her family can take the appropriate action.

Does it say he has to stop and wait for others to comment? (no it says the wife can ask a family member to act her behalf) Does it say that he is not allowed to do so until their families agree? Does it forbid him to beat the living crap out of her for making him look bad in the community by asking for arbitration (what community? It says one arbitrator from his family and another from her family),(and isn't it the right thing to ask for help ? --The Brain 17:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that is what I wrote except for the bits you added. There are no grounds for divorce in Islam when it comes to domestic violence (although an Iranian court has granted one recently on those very grounds).  A wife can ask a family member.  But so what?  Nothing prohibits the husband continuing to beat his wife.  But community I mean, his family, her family, the town they live in, their neghbourhood.  That community.  It is the right thing to do.  It is just useless which is why the arbitration process plays no role in any Sunni community.  It does play a role in Shia law where the triple Talaq is restricted.  But none in Sunni communities.  Islamic law says a husband may beat his wife.  It provides no redress for women at all.  The arbitration process only works if the husband agrees to it - as it says "if they both wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation."  If one of them does not so wish, they will not be reconciled. Lao Wai 18:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

We don't have to agree here on whether the Qur'an allows arbitration as a means for a wife to avoid being beaten. It's clear that we have different opinions on the matter. But it's important to include the verse so that people can make up their own minds. That's all I'm saying. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:04, August 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * You the same guy as above or a different one? I like the verse.  The more context the better in my opinion.  But it should not state that this is a way of preventing domestic abuse when clearly it does nothing of the sort.  A compromise might be possible if we agree that some claim that following a call for arbitration a husband ought not beat his wife, but does anyone have any evidence to that end? Lao Wai 14:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I was just wondering: why hasn't anyone mentioned the Koranic verses stating that women should be treated well and not with harshness in Surat Al Nisaa? That would certainly stop a guy from beating the crap out of his wife whenever he feels like it. The 'nushuz' the Koran is referring to, as explained by the Hadith, is letting strange men repeatedly into her bed. In Islam, adultery is punishable by something much worse than a 'beating' with a toothpick!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.168.203 (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"Okay...just to clear one thing up. The accutual Arabic word uses in this verse, "Adribuhunna", althoght commanly translated and understood to mean "to beat", acctally has multiple meanings. It could also mean "to send away", "to go along with" or even "to have consentual sex". So With in the action of excepting beating as the proper meaning of this verse, you are still making a heafty assumption. Althoght many scholors have come to execpt this as a licence to beat (and have conceqently put restrictions on it's saverity), the rendered meaning of the verse dose conecide with the above mentioned Qur'anic oblagation to treat your wife well,as well as with many of Muhammad's (SAW) instrutions to his followers not to beat there wives and his personal saultion for a domestic problem not throught the use of physical violence (which he vary well could have) but withrdrawl and the threat of mass divorce. It's also worth noting that some thranslations of the Qur'an (such as Ahmad Ali's) have the line "..and beat them" ommited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.97.224 (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you please sign your posts with four tyildas (~)? It makes it hard to track this thread.  What Quranic verses?  Quote them here and we can discuss whether to include them.  Why would it stop a guy from beating his wife?  There is a clear Quranic commandment to beat (or allow beating if you like), and even if there was another, a scholar would have to decide which was abrogated.  "Nushuz" might include that but it is not limited to that and no one before the modern period thought so.  If it was adultery he would not have to beat her would he?  Sure it could mean all sorts of things, but Muslims have traditionally interpreted it in which way apart from beat?  There is no assumption.  There is just traditional interpretation.  Ahmad Ali can distort texts as much as he likes.  What does it matter? Lao Wai 15:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Women as Rulers
>Sigh< Here we go again. Again denying the obvious. Fine. From The Status Of Women In Islam by Sh. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi,


 * On the other hand, her ineligibility under the Islamic teaching (shar'a) to hold the caliphate or head the state is owing to the great burdens of such a huge responsibility which in most cases outweigh the capacity of the woman (and the man) and conflicts with the natural disposition of the woman as mother. This does not exhaust all possibilities since we are aware that some women could be even more capable than some men. One such example is the Queen of Sheba whose story is told by Allah in the Qur'an. She led her nation to happiness and well-being in this and the other life and submitted herself with Prophet Solomon to Allah, Controller of the Worlds. Nevertheless, rules are not formed on the basis of rare occurrence but on the frequency of it. Thus the scholars establish that generally "the rare does not constitute a rule." But for the woman to be a manager, dean, director, member of parliament, minister, etc., is all very well so long as it weighs the interests. All these questions are dealt with in detail in my book Contemporary Legal Opinions (Fatawa Mu'aserah).

If you like I am happy to quote Western scholars of Islam to the same effect to prove the historical, as opposed to theological, objection to women as rulers.

And even from Gender Equity in Islam - Dr. Jamal Badawi (who does not deny women leadership roles), "While this hadith has been commonly interpreted to exclude women from the headship of state, other scholars do not agree with that interpretation." So there you go, commonly it has been interpreted to deny women leadership roles. Lao Wai 14:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * What point are you trying to make? --Irishpunktom\talk 14:53, August 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * That traditionally Muslims have used the hadith about the Persian princess as a reason to prohibit women as rulers. A position taken by Hizb ut-Tahrir I notice.  But also by more traditional works such as Abu'l-Hasan al-Mawardi's Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah.  You remember, that bit you slapped yet another pointless citation need sign on? Lao Wai 14:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you quote from Imam Marwadis book so as to cite your source? --Irishpunktom\talk 15:10, August 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure. Admittedly when discussing the Imamate specifically he does not see the need to mention it directly - although he consistently uses male term such as "son" and "brother".  But he does do so with judges, and I quote,


 * No one may take up office as judge unless he has fulfilled all the conditions necessary for his appointment...These conditions are seven in number:


 * First, he must be a man...A woman may not take up office as she is not suited to administrative office..[some argue limited judgeship]..However a view which rejects both the consensus and Allah's words cannot be considered: Men are guardians over women by virtue of His having given more to the latter (Qur'an 4:38) that is, more intellect and powers of discernment. Thus it is not permitted for them to rule men.


 * Now the first condition of the Imamate, according to Mawardi, is justice and all the conditions relating thereto, and the second condition is ijtihad. Therefore if women cannot be judges they cannot be rulers.  According to Mawardi. Lao Wai 15:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Right, so you have done, yet again, taken a piece of work, seen something written and decided that it means something else without sourcing this extension. Do you have an actual source which makes this extension, if so, state it! --Irishpunktom\talk 11:07, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have done nothing of the sort. Justice is the main task of an Islamic ruler. To be a judge, to be able to administer justice properly, you need to be a man due to the alleged mental deficiencies of women.  Mawardi says so. Qaradawi says so.  Who are you to disagree?  Exactly what do you think that passage means if not that? Are you happy now that I have done what you asked and sourced that claim? Lao Wai 11:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not disagreeing with the factual acuracy of the statements you make, however, the sources you have provided to make that claim do not back it up. Firstly, Just cite a source which explicitly states Some thing like "In Mainstream Muslim Societies women are or were forbidden from ruling over Men.  This was justified by Hadith X,Y,Z".  Once you soure something along this line, we can continue with the rest.--Irishpunktom\talk 11:45, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * I could have sworn you were doing just that. When people say things like I have "seen something written and decided that it means something else" you can see why I get confused.  The sources I cite manifestly back me up.  Look at Qaradawi again.  You are insisting that every single word I write must be lifted, directly, from someone else?  Wow.  Actually I am happy to do so, but reassure me you aren't just wasting my time.  What is your problem with that claim?  Are you denying it is true?  Do you honestly think traditional Islamic society allowed women rulers (notice the dearth of said rulers)?  Or are you, as I think is obvious now, just jerking me around? Lao Wai 11:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, no doubt you would see that. The sources you have provided most certainly do not back you up. Just cite a source that says "traditional Islamic society did not allow women rulers, this was based on hadith X,Y,Z".  Qaradawi speaks of his opinion, and that of his maddhab, but not of all history.  Go find a source that deals with the history of islam rather than the teachings and you might just get somewhere. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:13, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * In what sense do they not back me up? I have proven fairly convincingly that they say exactly what I said they say.  I have already.  Qaradawi does not speak of his opinion but God's law.  He bases his views on the study of Islamic law and history - a subject I'd guess he is more qualified to discuss than you.  Mawardi also says women cannot be Imams.  Just as I said he did.  If you insist that these two men are only expressing their "opinions" what is the point of finding a source?  You could say the same about anyone.  How about Maududi?  He says there are four conditions for an Islamic ruler.  Number 2 is that he is a man.  No doubt that too is just an opinion.  Clearly you are just wasting my time.  If I am wrong, what is the evidence?
 * Someone else can study the same books and hadiths and come with a different conclusion, Islam is not a monolith, Qaradawi, though popular enough, can not speak for everyone. A source is a source who has written not about gods law, but of the history of the islamic world, and cited the reasons for lack of Female leaders. A source which gives a statement on their Maddhabs interpritation of the Qur'an/Hadith can be cited as an exanmple of belief held by that Maddhab (or sect, or group, or whatever).  --Irishpunktom\talk 18:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Just a useful comment: Muhammad al Ghazalli (who had no objection to women being rulers) wrote of the hadith that it was meant specifically about the Queen of Persia and that taken as a general rule, it cannot contradict the Koran, which not only gave the example of the Queen of Sheba, but also states in Sura 9 (al tawba) that 'the believing men and the believing women are the friends/legal guardians/protectors of each other'. It seems that some Koranic verses are more suited to patriarchal Arabia whilst others are more suited to modern views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.168.203 (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Islamist
Why is Iran considered Islamist, and Saudi Arabia is not? I would never have considered Iran as "Islamist". is the criteria for islamist just an Islamic enemy of the U.S ?--Irishpunktom\talk 14:53, August 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe it is because the claim of Iran is to be more Islamically based than Saudi Arabia. It is a clerical rules and not a dynastic one... I think there's a big difference, and to simplify it to relations with the US is not correct. gren グレン 17:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Should it not be "Islamic", or even Shia islamic. Islamist, as i always understood the term, was the more violent accepting offshoot from Qutb's Muslim Brotherhood. --Irishpunktom\talk 18:36, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure. I usually take it as political Islam.  Maybe it's wrong of me to do so... Islamist is usually used in a pejorative manner it seems.  Not really sure. gren グレン 17:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Marriage and divorce
Divorce is once at a time, even if I say in anger: "I divorce you" 15 times not 3, it still counts as one, there is a misunderstanding about the Triple talaq and is consdered a Bid'ah ,it is explained better in sura Al-Baqara 227 to 230.

This Qur'anic passage explains that the act of divorce has to happen on three seperate occasions and most scholars say that a divorce in the heat of anger and the husband says : "I divorce you" it is not binding.

Qur'an chapter 2 to 227 to 230 explain:

227. And if they decide upon divorce, then Allâh is All-Hearer, All-Knower.

228. And divorced women shall wait (as regards their marriage) for three menstrual periods, and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allâh has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allâh and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And they (women) have rights (over their husbands as regards living expenses) similar (to those of their husbands) over them (as regards obedience and respect) to what is reasonable, but men have a degree (of responsibility) over them. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

229. The divorce is twice, after that, either you retain her on reasonable terms or release her with kindness. And it is not lawful for you (men) to take back (from your wives) any of your Mahr (bridal-money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) which you have given them, except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allâh (e.g. to deal with each other on a fair basis). Then if you fear that they would not be able to keep the limits ordained by Allâh, then there is no sin on either of them if she gives back (the Mahr or a part of it) for her Al-Khul‘ (divorce)[2]. These are the limits ordained by Allâh, so do not transgress them. And whoever transgresses the limits ordained by Allâh, then such are the Zâlimûn (wrong-doers).

230. And if he has divorced her (the third time), then she is not lawful unto him thereafter until she has married another husband. Then, if the other husband divorces her, it is no sin on both of them that they reunite, provided they feel that they can keep the limits ordained by Allâh. These are the limits of Allâh, which He makes plain for the people who have knowledge. --The Brain 07:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

In ancient Islamic culture, and to a lesser extent in the present, virginity is considered the most important quality in a bride. Therefore the brides parents, more specifically her father, will control the girl's sexual behavior so that by the time of her marriage she is still pure. If a girl is not a virgin then it is unlikely she will be married and have children. Furthermore the girls family will not be able to obtain part of the mahr given to her by her new husband. If a women is to break her virginity prior to marriage then her father is allowed and will likely punish the girl harshly, possibly by beating her. Jahs389 21:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC) This is mainly obtained from my World History AP textbook, and information I learned on my recent trip to India.


 * The virginity material is dubious. You give no authoritative cites. Zora 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Women & Masajid (Mosques)
Peace:

I am a young Muslim woman with opinion and experience. Please listen to what I have to say, may you benefit or increase your knowledge, though mine isn't complete either. I may seem to ramble, but it will tie up together eventually.

1. ON MASAJID, plural of MASJID aka Mosque, a term which may have derogatory roots


 * Before we discuss the size of the segregated entrances in masjids, please consider the following facts:
 * Humans are called to prayer five times a day, the times almost evenly distributed from sunrise till sunset and after.
 * It is obligatory for men to pray in the masjids, whether those are regular constructed masajid, or rooms or other places in parks, restaurants, offices, and other public areas designated for prayer.

Question: Where does it state men MUST pray in a mosque or other formal place designated for prayer. What about simply praying at home?


 * Men are to pray in the masjid five times a day. It's a strict command. Though it is true, that in most countries Muslim or non-Muslim the men do not pray even five times a day, let alone pray five times a day in the masjid. Well, likewise many of us are well-read on time management theories, for instance, but do not act upon them. This cannot be reverse-engineered to mean that there is a flaw in the theory, especially that it cannot will people to act on it. The human choice to act or not to act is the essential human freedom - on which the concept of going to heaven or hell are based. A digression.
 * The shortest of all prayers is the first prayer of the day, Fajr, offered shortly before sunrise. It takes about 10 minutes if offered alone at a comfortable pace. The longest prayer, Isha, is the last one on a solar day and offered about 1.5 hours after the sunset. It may take anywhere from 20-45 minutes, depending on the speed of the offerer and which "elective" parts of the prayer they choose to drop.
 * My question: Is it easy for the amazingly multi-tasked woman to break away from her schedule five times a day and go to a masjid? For which she will either have to walk, or drive out (a much recent luxury in history). Even in Muslim countries like Pakistan, a masjid isn't next door. It is at least 2-3 streets away from an average home. Whatever. But add to the time of prayer itself the time of ablution (obligatory washing before the prayer), the time to get to the masjid and be back, and the time for any dressing women would like. Certainly, women dress more elaborately then men.
 * That is why women are not barred from masjids. It's just not obligatory on them. It is not a derogation, it is a relaxation. In fact, assuming for a minute that you are a Muslim and don't want to be left behind in getting close to Allah, were it not that women were told that it is preferred that they offer prayers at home, they would over-strive to get to the masjid. Just where would that enthusiasm lead is easy for common sense to conclude.


 * Summary- At any given time, there are fewer women to attend a masjid congregation than there are men. That is why, kind people, the smaller door is smaller. It's just that, seeing anything else in it is not just unfair taxation on human wisdom, but also doesn't necessarily prove a point against Islam.


 * 1) The door and women's prayer area is separate (not in every mosque!) because the amount of jostling in a prayer especially when it's a busy hour is rather much. I won't be remiss if I say it's NOT sexism but kindness to women to keep them separated from men. I have been to Masjid-e-Haram, the Kaaba, and it was congested . Sometimes there was NO SPACE and other women stepped all over my feet for want of space. (Masjid traffic is unpredictable. At the time of prayer, you just drop your business wherever you are, and go to the closest masjid.) I am as much a woman as any other on this planet, and I would be harassed if it were men jostling against and bumping into me that way.


 * 1) As for why are women behind the men in masjids (there are various types of segregations, more architectural than anything else), I wonder what would the world be doing if it were the other way? Men would be saying the same thing, and right now we'd be drying their tears here, wasting humanity's precious time! So where is our human sense of justice? If I may, I suggest that men ogling women's backs would at any day outweigh women ogling men's backs.
 * 2) P.S. If giving women flexibility in offering prayers is still seen a derogatory view of women, I would like to invite your comments on this Harvard Business School Working Knowledge article: Flexibility Key to Retaining Women.

Regards. I shall return with more later. I am a novice here, please excuse my long post. I would be happy if you want to Talk. TheProphetess 12:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I was not intending to say "Islam treats women differently", I was merely trying to integrate a picture I had taken into what is an issue in the Muslim world (at least in the western Muslim world).  I do not mean to imply who is right, no, I mean to use sources to address the issue as other works have.  I know for instance that this issue is contentious among "progressive Muslims" and Asra Nomani has brought up the issue.  From what I can see, whether you believe it is correct or not, a greater percentage of women (once again, at least in the west) are going to mosque than before and this is where the issue of fairness arises.  It is a shift in the balance which obviously would require a shift in capital, etc.  I know this is an issue that has been brought up by Muslim women's groups... I understand the reasoning for why things are as they are now, and I understand the reasoning of those who want change.  In my mind neither is right per se, but, it is an issue and that is what I think deserves discussion in this article.  Not to show which side is "right" but to discuss an issue that is dicussed among Muslims from time to time. gren グレン 13:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand you are posing a question rather than making a statement. Your striving for balance and moderation and fairness is apparant, and is appreciable.
 * Indeed a greater percentage of women are going to masjids - and I noted the issue in Masjid-e-haraam (Ka'aba) too: lots of women, very little space. The Ka'aba has a separate culture anyway, because it is not just an ordinary masjid. I agree that the Masjid culture needs opening up. And with the growing number of women, larger areas need to be dedicated. This is a theoretical recommendation, however. It involves getting sizable property and considering other ground realities. Men have to pray in congregation. Women are suggested to stay at home (for their own ease, it is easy to see how it may become a burden if women are ordered to pray in mosques 5X a day). If there is a space issue at the Masjid b/c of traffic flux, etc., the preferrence of accomodation is for men. Some masjids accomodate by having movable separations between the men and the women. However, theoretically, if people are spilling over, it will be men who will make relaxation for women as a matter of etiquette. Eventually, this could make men uncomfy. You see where this is leading... I cannot speak for everyone, but in relaxations there is wisdom. TheProphetess 21:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * P.S. As for Asra Nomani and the likes - they do not represent the aspirations of modern Muslim women. She advocates gay marriage and claims to be a Muslim in the same breath. The page referred contains an illogical argument, please see the para beginning with "let us not be confused here...". The author, a cohort of Asra, is projecting his own confusion. The Qur'an in unequivocal in its condemnation of homosexuality which, according to the Qur'an itself, brought upon Allah's wrath on the nation of the Prophet Lot/Lut. Asra had an illegitimate child which was as much her doing as of any man, or society or God. This is not Islam, which prescribes, in keeping with the traditions of Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) a physical punishment for fornication. God doesn't change with the calendar. Some of Asra's demands are right, but she is hiding herself behind uncontested things. What a mangle. Her ilk do not merit serious attention - she would if she were openly against Islam. She is "fighting for Islam" and advocating something Islam has clearly forbidden.
 * I am not a judge of Asra, I only want to point out that the woman isn't taking a stand. It's like saying, "I believe in the American constitution but let's allow for monarchy in the USA which doesn't mean monarchy is allowed but of course someone can practice it but we have a right to contest it too which is democracy not monarchy so support monarchy in a democratic spirit".... all blabber for media attention. I hope I've made the point with this example. Allah knows best. TheProphetess 21:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I am sure that many agree with you but she claims to be a Muslim and there are gay Muslim groups and while you might not believe they are properly interprettying Islam they are still Muslim in they eyes of encyclopedic works. That's my point in all of this.  I should probably find a range of sources but I have read about this issue before.  There are the "progressives" who talk about it.  In southern India women built their own mosuqe because they were dissatisfied.  I am not trying to make normative suggestions here, but I do think they are notable issues.  I wouldn't say what you did about Nomani but I don't really find her to be very scholarly.  But, you must be careful on this encyclopedia you can't really say "Islam prescribes XXX" because, there are different viewpoints.  We can't completely ignore Muslims who think that homosexuality is fine and dandy -- we can present them as they minority that they are but we cannot discount them.  Same goes for most issues.  Islam is not monolithic and we must portray the diversity.  If there are groups (there may be?) that are against complex mosques or against crescents on mosques or against certain aspects then we should mention that here -- and be sure to put it in context.  gren グレン 01:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Sexist?
Why isn't there a "Men in Islam" article?--220.238.73.6 10:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[] Perhaps because no-one has yet created one? Wikipedia isn't censored (at-least, not that we know of), so create your own article if one does not exist.


 * I am working on a Gender Roles in Islam article, which will deal with both men and women. You can help there if you want! --Irishpunktom\talk 11:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds fair, but have limited knowledge on the subject.--220.238.73.6 14:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Read History of Islam or most any history article. It is completely male centric. The whole notion of women's studies came about to promote a discourse for women, something that men already had. Which, considering there is no Male Studies, White Studies or Christian Studies at my university while there is Womens Studies, Black Studies, and Jewish Studies I feel pretty left out. gren グレン 17:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ofcourse the article can be equal between both males and females when it is merged into Irishpunktom's Gender Roles in Islam article which is coming along nicely. It could use some productive contributers also, I think. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 22:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Islam says... Islam does...

 * Islam does not prohibit women from working...
 * Islam does not require or forbid dowry or brideprice.
 * Islam does require that a husband make a gift, or settle money upon the bride.
 * In theory, Islamic law allows men to state divorce by saying "I divorce you" (talaq) once, twice, and at the most three times, with or without a few people as witnesses.

These are just some examples of generalizations that I have a slight problem with, and that we need to explain more. There is variance among groups. Triple talaq is contentious and their is diversity in the views of those who follow it. For instance -- must it be said three times at once or three times over any time span? Some sects of Islam do prohibit women from working, or at least severe restrictions. I think this kind of thing must be worked on. gren グレン 22:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * A man may divorce his wife by saying "I divorce you" a single time. He may then elect to take her back i.e. they become married again. There seems to be no clear mechanism for this, but presumably he says "I take you back" or something similar. If in future he divorces her by the same means again, he can still take her back. However if he does it a third time he can't take her back (and she would probably be stupid to go back). There is much misunderstanding of this and even many third-world Muslims think they need to say it three times. Theological opinion, at least in Saudi Arabia, has it that this counts as a single divorce (the last two utterances are meaningless as the couple are alread divorced) so the couple can still reconcile. However I doubt that the practice of divorce by this means is actually carried out these days, except perhaps in some very remote villages or as a form of spiteful rhetoric during domestic arguments. In any case if a husband does it, there is still paperwork to be done in most Muslim counties before the couple are viewed as legally separated by the state. --Anjouli 05:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Jobs
Hi AE, regarding permitted/allowed, I was trying to get across, not only that male relatives are able to (can or may) restrict the woman's professional life, but that they are also allowed to do so by law, which is the important point; hence the awkward wording. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey SV. So what wording do you propose? -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 23:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think what you've written is fine. I was being too fussy, and the wording ended up suffering. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m   t 00:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've changed the statement which said in many Islamic countries. Unless you can provide a list and show that it indeed is the case in many Islamic countries the use of the word many is misleading and unfair. It may be the case in many Arab countries but there are many other Islamic countries (I suppose the OIC is the best list of Islamic countries available). For example, it's not the case in Malaysia and I'm pretty sure it's not the case in Indonesia, Brunei, Bangladesh and Pakistan (at least not legally). Nil Einne 18:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Brunei
I have removed the reference to Brunei as a place where women can't vote because as far as I know (and according to the Brunei and Brunei politics articles no one in Brunei has been able to vote for quite a while. Unless there is a specific restriction under Brunei law on woman voting then there is no reason to include it. Even if there is a specific restriction, you need to clarify that no one in Brunei has vote vor a long time since this implies the law could easily be changed before the next time people vote. Nil Einne 18:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Islam and Culture
One of the major stumbling blocks in dealing with this subject is that many of the restrictions upon women in Muslim societies are not of Islamic origin and it is wrong to represent them as such. That is not to say that Islamic societies do not opress women. Many of them do, to a greater or lesser extent.

For example there is nothing in Islam that says women must cover the face. On the contrary, covering the face in public is FORBIDDEN by Islam in some circumstances - during pilgrimage for instance.

There is of course nothing in the Qu'ran or Hadiths to prevent a woman from driving a car. And it is widely accepted that the Prophet's wife drove a cart; something Islamic feminists are quick to point out.

Likewise, the need for a woman to have a male guardian with her was only for travel, so that she would have someone to defend her without the risk of any hanky-panky. Even then, a group of women travelling together could have guardians (for instance, hired soldiers) who did not meet the criteria for a woman travelling alone. Within the villages and towns, women did not need to be accompanied. This rule, which made some kind of sense in the early bandit and rapist ridden Arabian peninsular, has been misinterpreted by modern Taliban-style extremists to justify locking their women up in the house - something that was certainly unknown to the early Muslims where women were an important part of the labour force and economy. Many modern women in Islamic societies are using Islamic doctrine (selectively, it must be admitted) to defend their rights and take back what they have lost.

In determining what is Islam and what is culture, we need to be very careful. For instance how do non-muslim groups in the same countries treat women? In most cases you will find little difference. --Anjouli 06:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Islam and Muslims
I think a difference should be made between what Islam declares and what muslims believe/do because not everyone who is known as a Muslims follows the formal Islam to the final details.In the article we read "Muslims base their views of women on the Qur'an" and similiar phrases, there are many muslims who think for themselves regarding women and do not refer to Qur'an.Many muslims think that social laws introduced in the Qur'an should not be applied today ,it doesnt necassarily mean that they are reformists.I think it is better to say "Islamic view of women is based on Qur'an" , Islam , as it is known , is introduced by Islamic scholars/authorities , I guess less that half of Muslims strictly follow Fatwas.Its true for all religions that ideas and practices of a cleric is different from an average adherant but the distinction becomes particulary important here because Islam has a detailed law , including controversial matters.For example an Islamic scholar has to deal with Ma malakat aymanukum thing in some way or other , while an ordinary muslims simply ignores it.Pasha 16:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that some sort of distinction has to be made between practice and ideal... however, what you are sayings seems to be off. If a Muslim does something believing it is Islamic then it is their view of Islam and we should not say "they are not meeting an ideal of Islam".  However, if Ataturk somehow spun his idea of using only Turkish Adhan as being Islamic (I don't believe he did, but just an example) then I think we could find sufficient resources to say that he was only using Islam for political motives, and it wasn't an attempt at theological understanding.  So, we can't be prescriptivist, because there is no ideal that all Muslims follow so much.  Shia are different than Sunni and it breaks down even more.  So, we should assess things as religious pronouncements verse social norms... which, can differ... however, if the social norms are the result of any religious pronouncement then we must mention them in such context.  Also, there are so many fatwas and in our rather globalized Earth a Muslim in America could follow a fatwa of al-Zawhiri while one in Afghanistan could follow someone more liberal they read about online.  So, it's hard to say who is or isn't following fatwas since there are so many views out there, spanning from MuslimWakeup! to GIA. gren グレン 17:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems that I wrote the words in a hury ,I never meant that the distinction should be made because Muslims are not practicing "ideal" Islam or that all should follow fatwas, I meant that oficial Islam (i.e presented by authorities) is sometimes different from practical Islam(what Muslims actually hold to be true) , the latter is sometimes more humane.Traditionaly sex with a female prisoner of war is approved by many clerics but I suspect that few if any of the members of Islamic societies would actualy do that with a clear conscience.Pasha 17:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Another example, muslim women who strictly follow spiritual commands of Islam but simply ignore Islamic dress code without resorting to any knid of religious arguments(if you ask my opinion , I say that they do very well), so it should be taken into consideration that Muslims in fact do not follow all of what theologians say ( and it is sometimes good though not pleasant to the clerics who claim that what they believe is ideal), I actually belive that muslims who think for themselves regarding women instead basing their views on explicit Qur'anic verses are right , because as many muslims (and myself) belive a social law which is 1400 years old  should not be applied now , even if mentioned explicitly in Qur'an , I dont think such a view is even a reform , it is  perhaps what common sense dictates in the cases like slavery.Pasha 17:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You seem to be representing a complex view of it which is good. Let's make sure though that just because no major theological authorities make the claim that one needn't wear a scarf that such does not make it unIslamic.  Meaning, it should not be used in a pejorative way to say that something is done by Muslims by not preached, it should be said matter-of-factly. So, what you're saying seems to be good to me. gren グレン 18:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course, no contempt was meant , I just say that Islam should be seen as a reality not as an abstract set of beliefs , the latter has its own place and should be dealt with separately.As a matter of fact many muslims do not engage in details of Islamic laws as clerics do , instead lead their lives according their perception of Islamic ethics , costumes , etc.So if we say "Muslims view women acording to Qur'an" , and then mention the fact that Qur'an approves certain behaviors that are unethical today , we come to the logical conclusion that every muslim ignores ethics and for examples approves wife-beating , which is not the reality.Many muslims without trying to engage in a sophisticated argument say that wife-beating is wrong , nevertheless , there those who do that.So all I say is that "Women in Islamic societies" is something different from "Women in the Qur'an".making the appropriate distinction needs attention to details in every section of the article.Pasha 19:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah... but, I mean, we can't say the Qur'an says something because people come to it with different systems of hermeneutics... or, none at all. So, it's not Islamic law vs. Muslim's practice.  It's clerical law vs. common-folk-understanding-law.  Sufis, aren't (usually) legalistic but their ethical framework is a law.  But, I think we're getting bogged down in semantics, what you seem to be saying for the most part is good. gren グレン 04:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The practical approach seems better, I think the opening lines : ''Muslims base their views of women on the Qur'an, the holy scripture of Islam. Although the Qur'an views men and women as equal before God, in practice, restrictions are placed on girls and women in many countries, regarding their civil rights, education, dress code, professional lives, marriage, divorce, and legal status due to cultural influences and lack of proper Islamic knowledge''

can be more precisely expressed as :

"Although Muslims according to the Qur’an believe that men and women are equal before God, restrictions are placed on girls and women, in many Islamic countries, regarding their civil rights, education, dress code, professional lives, marriage, divorce, and legal status. Sometimes due to cultural influences and lack of proper Islamic knowledge restrictions are more sever than the version of Islamic law accepted by a particular society , and sometimes restrictions are more relaxed according to the culture and common understanding of Islam by a society which may not be necessarily based on the view of Islamic authorities."Pasha 06:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

And to the second parapragh :

''Theologically, there are many differences in legislation regarding women. The earlier Madhhabs tend to be more conservative, while modern schools have varied from modern Liberal movements within Islam to Wahhabism and Salafism, which are much more traditional.''

we can add : The actual version of Islam practiced in any Islamic society to a great extent adepends on culture of that particular society

and to ''Women as prisoners of war or as slaves The term "what your right hands possess", Ma malakat aymanukum, occurs 14 times in the Qur'an. It is most often used with reference to women, but may be applied to both sexes. The term usually refers to prisoners of war, or may more broadly refer to slaves in general, according to the usual tafsirs (eg Ibn Kathir.)'' we can add :

Most muslims believe that what these verses state should not be applied today.The arguments range from simply ethical and social to strictly jurisprudential (i.e in the context of Fiqh). Pasha 07:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The legal status
I think restrictions on women's legal status should be mentioned, the most important things that come to mind are having a 1/2 right in inheritence comparing to men , 1/2 right for diyah(recompense of an injury or death) , equality of two female righteous Muslim witnesses to one male righteous Muslim , crimes that cant be proven only by female witnesses and prohibition of assuming the post of a judge and the legal age of 10 comparing to 16 for boys.These are mentioned in the Qur'an and hadith , some of them are usually applied and some of them rarely.Pasha 12:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I wrote this section and did my best to be fair and neutral, so mentioned only what has been mentioned explicitly in the Quran , avoiding controversal aspects , take a look please.Pasha 02:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Zora's copyedits
This was a very jumbled article and I'm still not finished sorting it out. There were lots of strange errors, like no spaces between sentences, or spaces before commas, and some very confusing language. There was also a lot of POV language and I'm not sure that I got all of it.

I added one thing that may be controversial, but I feel that it should be said. That's a section on domestic violence. It's not enough to chronicle scholars' debates re translation of one word, we need to point out that this one word has been used to justify violence on the part of some men. I tried to make it clear that even the scholars who approve of beating do not approve of beatings that leave bruises and broken bones, and that only a minority of Muslim men beat their wives. But we need statistics, so that we don't end up arguing endlessly about how large that "minority" is. We might also want to refer to various initiatives on the part of clerics and Muslim feminists to re-educate the Muslim community and show that domestic violence is NOT Islamic. In other words, don't assume that I added that section to make Muslims look bad -- that wasn't my intention. I'm just convinced that the problem is not going to go away if people don't talk about it. Zora 07:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for copyedits.I agree with you.Pasha 08:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have tried to go over it again. Let me know what you think.  Lao Wai 10:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Another copyedit
I reread the first part of the article and it struck as biased -- it seemed to be arguing that those who take an expansive view of women's rights and status in Islam were right, and those who took a restricted view were wrong, did not understand Islam properly, etc. Much as I agree with the liberals, I think we have to be fair. That means not slanting the article towards a liberal view. I tried to rewrite the first part to be succinct and unbiased. Zora 11:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

External Sources
I noticed that Muslim Wake Up has been deleted. Can anyone say why? Instead of just quietly deleting sources, perhaps the external websites could be divided up into liberal and more traditional sections? Lao Wai 11:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Deleted again. Sigh. I didn't notice that. Yes, try dividing the up the external links. Usually the vandals will then delete the whole section, which makes it easier to notice and restore. Zora 12:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved
I moved the page to "Women in Muslim society", because Islam is a religion and and the article describes Women in Muslim society. If you were to write about Women in Christianity it would be about Mariam, moter of Isa, and Mariam, the alledged bride of Isa. It could deal with Yahyas mother, Zechariah's wife ("Elizabeth", i believe she is called). Women in Islam would deal with the Prophets Wives, mother, Daughters, etc.--Irishpunktom\talk 12:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have moved it back. Please discuss such things first. If content of the page belongs on another page then we can talk about moving it.  I am inclined to think there could be a religious ruling / cultural differentiation.  Pasha Abd was talking about something along these lines interesting.  Neither is more legitimate necessarily... but, let's discuss this. Please don't just move it without any discussion, especially not on an article this prominent. gren グレン 13:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Re-write
Owing to the fact that this article relates almost nothing of the women in the Religion of islam, it clearly needs a complete re-write. As indicated. I did not add the POV tag, but the disputed one is added because of the reasons I previously mentioned. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It is evident that it has a lot to do with women in the regilion of Islam. It is, after all, Islam that provides the context and framework for the treatment of women.  I agree that a lot more could be put in to distinguish custom from Islamic law.  Would you mind taking it a paragraph at a time and telling us all what you think is wrong?  Just out of interest are you the only one that is disputing any of this?  Lao Wai 15:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * you are using the idea of Islam as a monolith. This article deals with, amongst other things, honour Killings .. Something explicitly contrary to the religion of Islam but prevailant in certain Muslim socities. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No I am not. Nor is the article.  Honor killings are a perfect example of that.  Where does it explicitly say in any Islamic legal work that honor killings are contrary to the religion of Islam?  What is the punishment for honor killings in Islamic law?  I would say they are a perfect example of the inevitable consequences of Islamic teachings.  In any event as they are so highly correlated with Islam they obviously should be mentioned. Lao Wai 15:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for highlighting your perverse POV and agenda. Please stear clear of Islam related articles in future. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 1. I flatly reject the idea I have a perverse agenda.  In any event regardless of whatever agenda I am alleged to have what counts is the article and as long as that remains NPOV what I think is irrelevant.  Are you admitting that the section of honor killings does prove your complaint about a monolithic block is not true?  Do you know what the Islamic punishment for honor killings is?  We could have a productive discussion about how religions feed into culture and vice versa.  Is that going to happen?  What is your problem with this article as it now stands?  Specifically.  Lao Wai 15:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Honour Killings have nothing to do with Islam. They are an abhorrant part of a specific Muslim Culture.  They are non-existant in Indonesia the nation with the largest Muslim Population, or in the Muslim Community in ireland, though they do exist to a degree in parts of the Immigrant Irish Community from Sub Saharan Africa amongst people who practice an indigionous belief system. Further, in nations which claim to have been ruled by Sharia, they are illegal, if they were part of Islam they would have to be legal, clearly you and your perverted agenda of hate are wrong. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Honor killings clearly have something to do with Islam because it is mainly Muslim societies that do it (as well as a few societies that have had a strong Islamic influence like North India and the Spanish-speaking world). They are more or less non-existant in Indonesia but by the same token the Indonesians practice a syncretic form of Islam.  Give them time to correct their religious practices.  Are they illegal in nations that claim to be ruled by Sharia law?  I do not claim they are a part of Islam, I claim they are a consequence of Islam given Islamic law does not punish them.  What is the Sharia punishment for honor killing?  Name calling is not going to work and it is not going to get us anywhere.  I would ask that you stop. Lao Wai 16:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Gibberish, An act which is prevailaint in any society is not explicitly linked to an other aspect of that Society. Somewhich predates an other aspect of that society can not be considered to have been created by that later aspect, it makes no Sense!! Forced Abortions are prevailant in Communist or Former Communist nations, does that mean that Communism promotes forced Abortions? Of course not!  Its a false accusation, there is a law concerning this, but I've forgotten what its called. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That is not true at all. An act may be a minority practice AND still linked explicitly to that culture.  Take Trooping of the Colours in the UK.  I agree about the pre-dating in general, but it is also clear that Islam feeds into aspects of Muslim culture and vice versa.    Well yes, it does in the case of China.  The Communist government mandates them.  Communism as an ideology has something to say about abortion and the lack of civil rights.  What law are you thinking of?  Now in this case, the article talks about what Islam has to say about women, it talks about how culture influences that and how religion influences the culture, it makes it clear that Islam is very different in different countries.  More can be done to make the distinction between religion and culture clear.  What is your problem with the article? Lao Wai 17:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that honour kilings have absolutely no basis in Islam whatsoever. If you really want to talk about them, I'd like it if they were done on another page. Islam is not a culture, nor does claim to be one. Islam is based upon the Quran, Sunnah (in case of Sunnis) and the Shariah (in case of both Sunnis and Shias). Nowhere in any of these is it stated that honour killings are part of Islam.

What is the punishment for honour killings in the Islam?? The punishment is same as that of murder. Whether murder is committed for wealth, or out of jealousy or any other reason (other than self-defence), ANY extra-judicial killing is considered murder. I will be more than happy if you created a seperate page for honour killings. "Islam" (the title of the article) can not be judged by the practice of some Muslim cultures. Please respond, and we will soon begin to move this aricle somewhere else. Bless sins 23:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Its been several weeks since I psted my prev. comments. Is nobody interested in taking the honor killings page somehwere else (or justify leaving it in the article). Perhaps I should just delete it?? Bless sins 03:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think some mention of honor killings should stay here, since it is something that critics of Islam always bring up. We shouldn't cover it up. However, it is OK to have a cursory treatment here and have a more extensive treatment in a breakout article. Isn't there already a breakout article? Zora 05:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry I missed replying to that. The punishment is the same as for any murder?  So the Qadi goes to the next of kin of the deceased (i.e. the people who killed her) and ask if they want capital punishment or blood money.  And after some thought they will decide they want to pay the diya which they promptly take out of one pocket and put in another.  So explain to me how any honor killings can be punished in Islam if the murderers do not want to die? Lao Wai 17:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Since this conversation is over, I'm removing the tag.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephilei (talk • contribs) 02:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Domestic violence
I rewrote the para to make it clear that we don't really know all that much about the prevalence of beliefs in a man's right to batter his wife (as opposed to a symbolic beating) or how far the Muslim clergy are preaching or abetting it. I despise the violence, but I admit that we have to be fair to Muslims. It's too easy to take anecdotal evidence and say, "Islam is guilty", when a more detailed investigation might show a more complex situation, with SOME countries and SOME clerical establishments being guiltier than others. Just trying to be fair. Zora 18:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

If you don't know that much, why not delete it?

I couldn't agree more Zora! Lao Wai is just fond of Islam bashing! Why can't he equally provide the statistics on for example, domestic violence, rape etc. in non-Muslim countries to compare or find out if these problem(s) are only unique to Islam societies?


 * Please sign your posts with four tildas (~) so that everyone can see who you are and when you made, in this case, your crassly rude and offensive comments. Islam bashing?  I'll let that go as too childish for words.  I am happy to provide statitics on domestic violence in non-Muslim countries as well.  I can trivially provide pointers to WHO reports on domestic violence.  The fact is that the problem is not unique to Muslim societies (and I have never said it is), nor it is a problem with Islam per se (and I have never said it is) it is just grossly disproportionally a Muslim problem.  No non-Muslim country has domestic violence rates like those of Muslim countries.  A half of all Palestinian women in the OT were beaten last year.  1.3 percent of American women were.  The only non-Muslim countries that get close are those with long experiences of Muslim culture (Spanish speaking ones and Northern India for instance).  Rape is hard to determine because reporting in Muslim countries is so bad but a brief glimpse at the Egyptian press shows that gang rape is a problem.  A third of all rural Bangladeshi women reported their first sexual experience was "forced".  Now if you know nothing and have nothing to contribute to this debate but personal abuse, why not ask me to provide some basic introductory reading so that you will look less stupid when criticising people? Lao Wai 07:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

A Small Observation
I have noticed that the article about Women in Islam is longer and more varied than the ones for Christianity and Judaism. Also, the Islam article involves issues regardng wife beating and legal rights. The others don't. Why do people want to blemish the image of Islam by saying that women have virtually no freedom?--217.72.58.220 12:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The issues are greater than among Christian and Jewish communities. Wife beating is an issue in Islamic law.  Of course it ought to be discussed.  It is not an issue in Western law.  We are trying to produce an accurate article.  No one would say women have no freedom.  But they do, as it happens, tend to have little in Muslim societies - and the more pious the less freedom they tend to have.  Whether you find that a blemish or not is up to you.  Why don't you tell us what is wrong with the article and find some sources and we will all fix it? Lao Wai 13:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"the more pious the less freedom they tend to have", what are tring to suggest?

Domestic violence is not the result of Islamic law, which clearly suggest that women, if beated at all, should not be hit on the face or in a manner that marks show on their body. Obviously when women are beated, the act is much more severe. (Also, in the case of Rania al-Baz, the Saudi religious authorities were quick to take action against the beating.)

Now Islam does allow limited beating, but that is not responsible for acts of severe beating, just as Christianity (that allows moderate amounts of alochol), is not responsible for drinking and driving or alcoholism.

Bless sins 02:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Does somebody want to respond to my arguments?? Bless sins 02:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, been busy. I'm not sure I'm convinced by your arguments. I dunno how much Islamic misogyny is inherent in the Qur'an and Sunna, and how much is simply cultural. You seem to be a bit of an Islamic feminist, Bless sins, and convinced that the Qur'an mandates fair treatment of women. Am I right? Well, I'd be happy if you could convince other Muslims that you're right, because that would make life easier for women. But that's not the same thing as agreeing with you. I'm not a Muslim, so I have no particular reason to believe that Islam contains ALL that is good. I do believe that it has SOME that is good. That is as far as I can go. Zora 12:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not a feminist in the modern sense. Islam has existed centuries before the modern concept of feminism. I also beleive what I observe. And I observe nothing in the Quran or the cosmos that says women must be degraded or humiliated or are inferior. Bless sins 16:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you tried the Hadith collections such as Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion." ?


 * And I have been a little busy too. What do I mean?  The more a Muslim country adheres to Islamic (and hence Arab) norms, the less freedom women have.  What is hard to understand about that?  Compare, say, Indonesia with Saudi Arabia.  The newly converted countries tend to give women much greater social roles.  The older ones do not.  Domestic violence clearly has some thing to do with Islamic law in that it is so prevalent in Muslim countries - in fact the rate of domestic abuse can be roughly equated with the number of Muslims, or at least the extent of Islamic influence (so all the Muslim countries have high rates as well as Hispanic countries and Northern India).  The Quran does not mention the face.  The Quran does not say that no marks ought to be left.  There are hadith and opinion to that effect and I say that is a good thing for modern Muslimas.  But it has little to do with what Muslims have always believed.  Surely Rania al-Baz caused a fuss because she got into the Western media.  Not because she was beaten. The Saudis are not known for leaping to protect women from violence. Lao Wai 12:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Firt of all, your comparisons are horrible. Who says Saudi arabia is an Islamic country? Infact, most Sunnis and Shias (I disagree with both), say that Saudi Arabia is currently under non-Muslim (wahhabist) occupation. Anyways, domestice violence is prevalent throughout the world. Women are raped (example of violence) in secular and non-Muslim countries as well.Bless sins 16:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you do not like my comparisons but I never said Saudi Arabia was an Islamic country. I said the more a country adheres to Islamic, and hence Arab, norms the worse off women are.  Domestic violence is prevalent through-out the world but it is especially common in Muslim countries - according to the WHO half of all women were beaten by their husbands last year in Gaza.  No non-Muslim country has a rate like that.  In fact no Western country has a rate that comes close to any Muslim country.  Women are raped all over.  If Muslim countries produce worthwhile statistics we could talk about it too. Lao Wai 17:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Pls. respond to the following: Islam does allow limited beating, but that is not responsible for acts of severe beating, just as Christianity (that allows moderate amounts of alochol), is not responsible for drinking and driving or alcoholism.


 * Fair is fair. If Christians are not blamed for alcoholism and drinking and driving, then Islam can't be blamed for doemstic violence.Bless sins 16:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I can find you Muslims who do blame Christianity for drunks. And of course there is a link, but it is not a good one.  Alcoholism is a complex phenomenon that is not related to the amount of alcohol consumed.  But there is a strong correlation between Islam and wife beating.  Where does the Quran forbid severe beating? Lao Wai 17:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is a verse that commands Muslims to treat their wives with kindness:
 * "O you who believe! it is not lawful for you take women against their will... and treat them kindly..." [4:19]
 * Once again, severe beating has NO place is Islam.
 * Secondly, about the alcoholism argument: in order to be an alcoholic, one must consume atleast some alocohol (allowed by Christianity, and prohibited by Islam). If you argue that beating is related to Islam, then drinking and driving must be related to Christianity. Bless sins 12:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that is a partial quote.


 * 004.019 YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may Take away part of the dower ye have given them,-except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good.


 * And clearly it is more complicated than just treating your wife well. Besides people might have different opinions about what that "well" meant.  So the Quran clearly does not condemn severe beatings.  Alcoholism is more complicated but if you like I'll grant you it is all the fault of the Christian Church.  The WHO has figures on wife beating and the like.  Muslims do it.  So do people influenced by Islam (Hispanics and Indians). Lao Wai 12:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is complicated for those who hate Islam. The verse clearly says one thing, yet you somehow interpret something different. Not only that, you fail to explain how the verse doesn't command kindness. I only made the Christian argument for argument's sake (personally I have nothing against Christians). However, since you say that "it is all the fault of the Christian Church", pls go to the article called Christianity and put a section there claiming that drinking etc. is the fault of the Christian faith. Then, truly you will have the right to defend domestic violence as part of Islam. Otherwise, pls. keep your opinions to yourself. Bless sins 14:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether I hate Islam or not is irrelevant and a personal smear. The verse is clearly referring to the marriage of orphans and not wives in general.  It certainly is not a clear condemnation of wife-beating.  Whether Christians are to blame for alcoholism is equally irrelevant.  The facts remain that the Quran commands, or at least permits, beating; while some aHadith place limits on it, some do not and none condemn it; Muhammed himself personally saw his wife beaten by her father and did not condemn it; Muhammed knew some of his Companions treated their wives "harshly" and did not condemn it; Muslims are far more likely to beat their wives than non-Muslims and this is generally uncondemned except in the West.  The article ought to reflect this. Lao Wai 14:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to have a lot of knowlege of Islam. No where does the verse indicate anything of orphans. Orphans is Pickthall's independent opinion NOT BASED UPON THE QURAN. This is why Shakir and Yusuf Ali make no mention of orphans. It is not a condmenation of wife-beating -- it is a clear command to treat wives with kindness. The fact is: severe beating/domestic violence is not allowed anywhere in Islam.
 * Secondly, just as "Muslims are far more likely to beat their wives than non-Muslims", Christians are far more likely to drink and drive than Muslims. Who says Muslims don't condemn domestic violence??? Go to Rania al-Baz, you'll see that her husband was punished by the law for beating her. Islam can't be blamed for the acts of a few violent men, just like Christianity can't be blamed for acts of a few drunkards.Bless sins 09:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Again your opinion of my knowledge of Islam is neither here nor there. I am glad we agree it is not a condemnation of wife-beating, but perhaps Muslim men tend to think beating wives is treating them with kindness?  The fact is the Quran does not condemn it, Muhammed did not condemn domestic violence when he saw it.  You may be right and I wish you were, but there is no evidence of it and plenty to the contrary.  The article needs to reflect what is true, not what we would like to be true.  Christians may be more likely to drink and drive.  So what?  You find me some scholars who condemn it and I'll support putting it in.  Al-Baz was a special case because, like Ms Mai, she got into the Western press.  I am not trying to blame Islam for the violent acts of a significant minority if not majority of Muslim men.  But there is a clear relationship between Muslim culture and Islam on the one hand, and Muslim culture and wife beating on the other.  The article needs to point that out. Lao Wai 11:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Lao, I think I may have understood you; but are you saying that "beating wives is treating them with kindness" ? If I have not misunderstood you, and you indeed hold that position then pls. look up the word in a dcitionary. Kindness is kindness, and in any culture, it is opposed to beating. Muslims know what words mean. Are you trying to say that Muslim men don't know the meaning of the word "kindness"??? That is simply rubbish. Once again, I apologise if i misunderstood you. Why can't you just admit that the Quran commands kindness to wives (like I have shown you)?
 * So you finally agree about the Chrisitan thing. Fair is fair. I will support the section on domestic violence - just as soon as a section on drinking and driving appears in the article of Christianity. Bless sins 17:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I have said that some Muslim men might think that, especially those inclined to beat their wives. What the Quran does not contain is a condemnation of wife beating.  I do not agree with your interpretation of that passage, but I am happy to admit in general Islam commands men to treat their wives, and their slaves, with kindness.  Now the two are not the same but you are allowed to beat both.  The sins of the Christians remain irrelevant but if you want to go and add that to the Christianity page please be my guest. Lao Wai 09:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because you don't agree with my interpretation (that treating someone with "kindness" is not beat them up), doesn't mean its worng. In fact, I think most people would agree with me that the commandment of treating some one with "kindness" would make violence agianst that person out of bounds.
 * Seondly, I have ntohing agianst Chrisitianity. The only reason I brought the alcohol up, was to shed some light on you hypocrisy: you are willing to criticise Islam for what some Muslim men may do, but not Chrisitianity for what some CHristians may do. Why is that? Bless sins 20:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that your opinion may be right even if I do not agree with it. But it is only an interpretation.  To be worthy of inclusion you would have to show that the majority of Muslims historically have agreed with that interpretation and given the rates of domestic violence in the Muslim world I think you may have trouble showing that.  The Quran says what it say.  It does not say wife beating is wrong.  I think the only hypocrisy here is your repeated attempts to cast aspersions on my motivations while claiming the moral high ground.  It is irrelevant what I think or why.  Just as it is obvious you have an agenda, which also happens to be irrelevant.  The facts are important.  Bring them on. Lao Wai 10:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * On the cotnrary can you prove that the verse " ...treat them kindly..." has been interpreted as "beat women up". There are a LOT of shcolars who use this verse to show how the Quran intends only mercy and compassion between a man and a woman. You know what? I'll try and find scholars who interpret the above verse to mean compassion, and you find scholars that interpret the above verse "...treat them kindly..." as a commandment to severly beat women. Like you said: "Bring them [facts] on" Bless sins 03:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why would I need to? Does anyone claim that the "treat them with kindness" abrogates the "beat them" part?  There are a lot of modern scholars, especially those appealing to Muslims or would-be-converts in the West who make that claim.  Why take them seriously?  You find a traditional scholar of Islam who says that beating them is forbidden.  I'll dig up Ghazali. Lao Wai 09:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)