| Revision as of 20:22, 16 February 2022 editAkh of an akh (talk | contribs)29 edits This page has nothing related to "crime". This is a critical implication of that Islam promotes a "crime"Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:17, 16 March 2024 edit undoHarryboyles (talk | contribs)Administrators158,160 editsm →top: fixing Islam-and-Controversy parameter in {{WikiProject Islam}}Tag: AWB |
| (14 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) |
| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
|
{{Old AfD multi|result='''keep'''|date=] ]}} |
|
{{Old AfD multi|result='''keep'''|date=] ]}} |
|
{{summary in|Criticism of the Qur'an|Women and Islam}} |
|
{{summary in|Criticism of the Qur'an|Women and Islam}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=B|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Gender Studies|class=B|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Islam|class=B|importance=Mid|Islam and Controversy=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies|class=B}} |
|
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Mid|Islam-and-Controversy=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Medicine|class=B|importance=Low|society=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Psychology|class=B|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=B|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Systems|class=B|importance=Low|field=Systems psychology}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women's History|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
{{Annual readership}} |
| Line 24: |
Line 22: |
|
|archive = Talk:Islam and domestic violence/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Islam and domestic violence/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
== POV statement == |
|
|
|
|
|
The following is a POV statement: {{tq|The Hanafi jurists say that it is the husband's duty to physically discipline his wife's disobedience (''nushuz''). They permitted the husband a lot of leeway in the severity of the beating. The Hanafi scholars assert that the husband is allowed to hit his wife even if that causes wounds or broken bones. Their only condition is that the beating must not kill her.}} It is at odds with numerous sources. It is also being taken out of context, where there are two steps of admonishment and abandonment before the hitting. Also removing until this can be included in NPOV way.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 04:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:Just a quick google search turned two sources that contradict this. points out that the Ottoman-era Hanafis recognized abuse as grounds for ending the marriage, arguing "a true Muslim would not beat his wife, therefore a man who did so was not a true Muslim". |
|
|
:There is also , according to which it is not allowed for a husband to injure his wife in Hanafi fiqh.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 04:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::What you call a POV statement is actually a faithful representation of this source describing the position of the Hanafi school. It reads: |
|
|
::{{quote|According to Hanafi jurists, husbands were required to discipline wifely nushuz; they could discipline their woves physically, and there was a great deal of leeway in the extent and severity of hitting permissible to them. Though they offered moral exhortations to husbands to live with their wives in kindness and equity, Hanafi jurists maintained the principle set out by Ahmad b. Ali al-Jassas that there is no retaliation (qisas) in marriage, except in the case of death. A husband was permitted to hit his wife without any liability, even if the beating resulted in wounds or broken bones, as long as he did not kill her.}} |
|
|
::And perhaps you did not notice, but admonishment and abandonment have already been mentioned in my text straight after, just as it is in the source. |
|
|
::Your second source is a modern source, whereas Ayesha Chaudhry has studied the pre-modern Hanafi literature and described the classical Hanafi position. Modern fatwa sites, catering to modern sensibilities, are not an accurate representation of the classical positions. |
|
|
::Your first source says that the Ottoman Hanafi judges allowed divorce in case of beating ""by recognising doctrine from other legal schools." In other words Ottoman judges were taking from and applying the rulings of other law schools, and not from the rulings of their own Hanafi school. Allowing divorce in case of domestic violence is a Maliki allowance, and in the past century or so some Hanafi scholars have borrowed the Maliki ruling in this matter. Since a number of women started "apostatising" because Hanafi law did not grant them the right to seek divorce in case of husband's cruelty. But since the Maliki law did, one Hanafi scholar Ashraf Ali Thanawi borrowed the Maliki ruling and allowed women to seek divorce because of cruelty. See pg. 78 of this source. The Ottoman Hanafis you speak of were doing the same kind of "borrowing." So you should not use Hanafi scholars who borrowed Maliki positions and push that to mean that that was the view of the Hanafi school itself. ] (]) 07:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No its not a faithful representation, it cherryquotes as usual. The source is saying that a husband faces no liability under the law of qisas for injuring his wife. That doesn't mean the husband can't face consequences under other laws. Your quotation not only misses that point, it also misses the point about kindness and equity. It also quotes the source backwards. The author clearly writes about admonishment and abandonment before hitting, yet your text writes about it after hitting. You also seem to not have included the two sources that I cited that both offer a viewpoint different than that of Choudhary. ] requires all significant viewpoints to be presented. |
|
|
::::Finally, borrowing from another school of thought is common Sunni practice. Which is why, having a section on "Hanafi" doesn't make a lot of sense to begin with. Scholarly opinions often derive from each other and this happens across schools of thoughts.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 03:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Your first four sentences are ]. |
|
|
:::::Your claim that I am quoting the source backwards is false. Here is how the source worded it: |
|
|
:::::{{quote|According to Hanafi jurists, husbands were required to discipline wifely nushuz; they could discipline their wives physically, and there was a great deal of leeway in the extent and severity of hitting permissible to them. Though they offered moral exhortations to husbands to live with their wives in kindness and equity, Hanafi jurists maintained the principle set out by Ahmad b. Ali al-Jassas that there is no retaliation (qisas) in marriage, except in the case of death. A husband was permitted to hit his wife without any liability, even if the beating resulted in wounds or broken bones, as long as he did not kill her. Within these parameters, Hanafi jurists emphasized the importance of following the three prescriptions of admonishment , abandonment and hitting sequentially, interpreting the "and" (wa) between each prescription as sequential rather than conjuctive}} |
|
|
:::::Now compare that to my phrasing. It follows the exact same order. |
|
|
:::::{{quote|The Hanafi jurists say that it is the husband's duty to physically discipline his wife's disobedience (nushuz). They permitted the husband a lot of leeway in the severity of the beating. The Hanafi scholars assert that the husband is allowed to hit his wife even if that causes wounds or broken bones. Their only condition is that the beating must not kill her. Within this framework the Hanafis emphasised the need of following the sequence of admonishment, abandonment and hitting.}} |
|
|
:::::I have already explained the context behind your other two sources. They are Hanafi scholars borrowing and applying rulings from other law schools. I am happy to include that there are Hanafi scholars who did such "borrowing" as long as the ''borrowing'' aspect is emphasised. And if you are going to write about it, then you will also have to write the history of why they borrowed rulings, given on pg.78 of this source. ] (]) 04:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Actually "As a result, Hanafi legal discussion of a husband’s disciplinary duties followed the three prescriptions in Q 4:34 — admonishment, abandonment, and hitting" comes right before the text you quoted. There is no need to "emphasize" the borrowing aspect when the reliable source itself says that Hanafi scholars recognized abuse as grounds for divorce only "in part by recognizing doctrine from other legal schools".''']''' <sub>]</sub> 04:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Okay I have catered to your first concern by shifting text. As for the second part, I think its very important to include the history of why some Hanafi scholars started borrowing. Did you read the source I provided you? Here, I will give you the link again. ] (]) 04:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::The edit still takes that quote of context, not explaining this is Ayesha Chaudhry's view of what the Hanfis believed under the law of qisas (and not necessarily under all laws). It omits her statement {{tq|Though they offered moral exhortations to husbands to live with their |
|
|
wives in kindness and equity...}} that precedes the statement. Your wording also makes the steps sound conjunctive rather than sequential, which is the exact opposite of what the author says in that very paragraph. |
|
|
::::::::And we must include contesting viewpoints that I've presented above. Also you do realize that Ottoman jurists predate ], right?''']''' <sub>]</sub> 09:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::: Done. ] (]) 11:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::: So its the mainstream Hanafi viewpoint for around 500 years now. Borrowings and changes in position are not actually uncommon within Islamic schools of thought. For example, Abu Hanifa denied capital/hudud punishment for homosexuality (by rejecting the comparison to adultery and classifying it under tazir) but it later became relatively Orthodox for his school. Likewise Imam Ashari rejected certain Mutazilite points that later became Orthodox for his school as well. While the circumstances should be mentioned, I don't see the need for the heavy emphasis that it is a non-Hanafi borrowing.] (]) 18:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::No. Thats ]. No source says its the mainstream Hanafi position. In India the Deobandi Hanafis did not change their position until the 1930s. And the Barelwi Hanafis still give fatwa on the basis of the classical Hanafi position. Read their books. Besides, Hanafis still do not have capital punishment for homosexuality. But that is another topic. ] (]) 01:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::: Regardless, the fact is that Islamic scholars and ""Islam"" have viewed Domestic violence and marital rape negatively for quite some time now and the question is whether is borders on criminality or not. Just do a google search on the issue. Now, it's true that many traditional Islamic scholars still equivocate with the three step rebellious wives process or the "light beating with the miswak:", but that's not really comparable to the severe medieval positions of certain early Hanafis. If you're going to make totalizing redflag statements on Islam as a whole things aren't going to progress far. I'll leave it to VR or Rperotron for now. ] (]) 02:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::] is right, in that Mcphurphy is not just misrepresenting sources but also representing radical viewpoints in Islam as the mainstream ones.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 17:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Source does not support what is written == |
|
== Source does not support what is written == |
| Line 68: |
Line 37: |
|
|
|
|
|
I am not sure why {{User|Akh of an akh}} removed the banner for ], but I have reinstated it because this topic is definitely of interest to WikiProject Crime. In doing so, I realized that the WikiProject Crime was displaying a C-class rating because the B-class assessment questions had not been completed. When this is the case the rating defaults to C-class. Given the assessment of other projects I am going to answer the B-class assessment in the positive. If anybody wants to remove the WikiProject Crime banner in the future please provide a sound explanation for doing so in the edit summary or discuss its removal, first. - 09:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
I am not sure why {{User|Akh of an akh}} removed the banner for ], but I have reinstated it because this topic is definitely of interest to WikiProject Crime. In doing so, I realized that the WikiProject Crime was displaying a C-class rating because the B-class assessment questions had not been completed. When this is the case the rating defaults to C-class. Given the assessment of other projects I am going to answer the B-class assessment in the positive. If anybody wants to remove the WikiProject Crime banner in the future please provide a sound explanation for doing so in the edit summary or discuss its removal, first. - 09:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:I notice that {{User|Akh of an akh}} again removed the banner for ] though this time stating in the edit summary that ''This page has nothing related to "crime". This is a critical implication of that Islam promotes a "crime"'' By adding the WikiProject Crime banner, I am not implying that "''Islam promotes "crime"''" and I am sorry if the user has taken that implication from addition of the WikiProject Crime banner. Addition of the banner means the article is "''of interest''" to WikiProject Crime, because it falls within the project's scope. The overarching article about ] is currently included in the scope of WikiProject Crime, so it is inconsistent to say that "''This page has nothing related to "crime".''" when the article title includes the words ''domestic violence''. How Islam views and deals with domestic violence and whether or not it considers the concept of domestic violence to be criminal, considering the laws of many nations where Islam is practiced do consider domestic violence to be a crime, is a topic that is of interest to readers of Misplaced Pages. The summary of the article notes that the way Islamic jurisprudence interprets the subject varies and there are often difficulties having abuse recognized by police or the judicial system. In my view, the article is discussing a criminal related topic merely by mentioning the police and judicial system. If one reads deeper, one find that the article discusses a husband's liability for the death of his wife, as well a initiatives in different countries to move domestic violence cases away from religious courts to penal code driven courts. The later part of the article also talks about various laws in Muslim-majority countries where rape or murder of one's wife are now subject to criminal penalties. Given this sort of content, I would content that this article is a crime related topic, so it remains of interest to WikiProject Crime. So I think the banner should be reinstated. However, before I do that, I would welcome others opinions. - ] (]) 10:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2023 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Islam and domestic violence|answered=yes}} |
|
|
1: |
|
|
in the part of the article that says "Ibn Kathir(1300-1373AD) and Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari(839-923AD)" |
|
|
needs spaces between names and dates, spaces before AD, and dashes should be en dashes. change to "Ibn Kathir (1300–1373 AD) and Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (839–923 AD)" |
|
|
|
|
|
2: |
|
|
remove the 2 excess blank lines before the section header <nowiki> |
|
|
===Undesirability of beating===</nowiki> ] (]) 05:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Changes applied ] (]) 17:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC) |
Since the article is in a protected state, whoever has the right to edit it, please fix the part of the article as soon as possible. Add a supporting source and/or re-write it in a way that matches the source. Using the term "feminists", which is often used and/or understood in a pejorative way and even if not, implies a bias, is uncalled for, unscientific and misleading. Name who or what actually expressed their belief that the number of incidents is great. The issue is way too important to be this misleading. Readers who check sources or dislike "feminists" are driven to just go to the source, discover that it does not support the statement written in the Misplaced Pages article and dismiss it as unfactual, stop reading further and walk around high and mighty telling people that domestic abuse is a rare occurence in the realm of Islam. Well done, whoever wrote that introduction. Whoever is willing to help us all out by correcting the part, be assured of my deepest gratitude. --77.8.234.217 (talk) 10:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
1:
in the part of the article that says "Ibn Kathir(1300-1373AD) and Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari(839-923AD)"
needs spaces between names and dates, spaces before AD, and dashes should be en dashes. change to "Ibn Kathir (1300–1373 AD) and Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (839–923 AD)"
