| Revision as of 03:16, 3 July 2020 editVice regent (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,123 edits →Misleading sentence← 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 |
| (41 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talk header}} |
|
{{talk header}} |
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
⚫ |
{{Old AfD multi|result='''keep'''|date=] ]}} |
|
{{WikiProject Islam|class=C|importance=mid|Islam and Controversy=yes}} |
|
|
⚫ |
{{summary in|Criticism of the Qur'an|Women and Islam}} |
|
{{WikiProject Gender Studies|class=C|importance=}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women's History|class=C|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Psychology|class=|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Crime|class=|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Systems|class=|importance=|field=Systems psychology}} |
|
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Mid|Islam-and-Controversy=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Medicine|class=|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Family and relationships}} |
|
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies|class=}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
| Line 24: |
Line 23: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Source does not support what is written == |
| ⚫ |
{{summary in|Criticism of the Qur'an|Women and Islam}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{Old AfD multi|result='''keep'''|date=] ]}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Non objective parts in the article == |
|
|
|
|
|
Q: in what encyclopedia does it say (peace be upon him) after mentioning Muhammad? How does that adhere to objectivity? |
|
|
|
|
|
In addition, where do all the extra additions in brackets come from while quoting the quran or hadith? How exactly did you decide that -first- you condemn your wife, -second- don't share the same bed with her and only then -third- are alllowrd to beat her -lightly-. Such interpertations do not appear in the original text and should not appear in an objective encyclopedia. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== We Have a problem == |
|
|
:{{ping|Koreangauteng }} I explained all my reasons and the hadith which your giving do not support domestic abuse one did then the prophet later clarified they are not the best among you. Scholars of islam have gave there views on the matter that is enough you gave richard Spenser as well as a polish institutes views on the matter are not credible one as one of them is a christian apologetic and the hadith about a women having a bruise is not even relevant here firstly the prophet didn't side with the man and the women came to the prophet to complain her husband is impotent not about her being abused and her desire was to return to her ex who divorced her and the marriage was consummated as she claimed he was impotent while the guy said I did satisfy her. The second hadith is false please show the full hadith the prophet didn't hit aisha just because she left the house and there is another hadith from aisha herself that states the prophet never struck a women or a servant. |
|
|
The hadith in question |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rifa`a divorced his wife whereupon `AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. `Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) came, `Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" When `AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment, `Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa`a." Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa`a unless `Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." Then the Prophet (ﷺ) saw two boys with `Abdur- Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that `AbdurRahman said, "Yes." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow," |
|
|
|
|
|
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/77/42 |
|
|
|
|
|
Aisha said the Messenger of Allah (saws ) never struck a servant or a woman. https://sunnah.com/abudawud/43/14 |
|
|
|
|
|
....She said: When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'A'isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He gave me a nudge on the chest which I felt, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?....https://sunnah.com/urn/221270 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the chapter "Incidence among Muslims" it sais at the very top: ''"Domestic violence is considered to be a problem in Muslim-majority cultures, but because women conceal signs of abuse and don't report domestic abuse to authorities, the incidence in many Muslim-majority countries is uncertain, but believed to be great by Muslim feminists."''. The first sentence is supported by the source. The second sentence is not supported by the source (https://web.archive.org/web/20060112080841/http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/sau-summary-eng). |
|
The hadith you gave about treating your wife like a sex slave if she is pregnant at the time of marriage is weak (daif) its not credible https://muflihun.com/abudawood/12/2126 so please researcher properly |
|
|
|
# The source covers only Saudi-Arabia, so all statements about "many Muslim-majority countries" although they are probably true, are unsupported. |
|
] ] 00:48, 21 February 2020 |
|
|
|
# The source does not say anything about "Muslim feminists". |
|
|
# The source does not say anything about what those supposed feminists believe to be true. The source focuses on the case of Rania al-Baz und connected issues. The only part where supposed feminists might have been addressed is ''"Women activists, writers, journalists and lawyers called for legal and judicial changes to end such discrimination and combat the impunity enjoyed by perpetrators of violence against women."''. This is by any means not what this Misplaced Pages article instanciated. |
|
|
# The source sais nothing about "concealing signs of abuse" and not "report domestic abuse". |
|
|
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. --] (]) 10:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Thanks for pointing this out. I've expanded the part based on the Washington Post piece a bit to provide more context, while removing the dated Amnesty International report specific only to Saudi Arabia, as this is not useful to cite in a general summary. ] (]) 12:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
::Along with the recent {{ping|Arsi786}} unexplained deletions and additions of the article's content as well as the various-Editor-selected-(all Primary???-source)-Hadiths {quoted} - there are potentially many more hadiths which could be quoted in this section === '''In The Hadith''' === below is a selection: |
|
|
::''"Passages coming from the Hadith maintain the idea of wife beating in the following verses: Bukhari (72:715) - A woman came to Muhammad and begged her to stop her husband from beating her. Her skin was bruised so badly that she it is described as being “greener” than the green veil she was wearing. Muhammad did not admonish her husband, but instead ordered her to return to him and submit to his sexual desires. In a different place, Aisha said: “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women”. This is Muhammad's own wife complaining of the abuse that the women of her religions suffer relative to other women. In Hadith Muslim (4:2127) - Muhammad struck his favourite wife, Aisha, in the chest one evening when she left the house without his permission. According to Abu Dawud (2141) at first, Muhammad forbade men from beating their wives, but he rescinded this once it was reported that women were becoming emboldened toward their husbands. “Beatings are sometimes necessary to keep women in their place”325. Abu Dawud (2126) describes a situation when a Muslim man thinks he is getting a virgin, then finds out she is pregnant. Muhammad tells him to treat the woman as a sex slave and then flog her after she has delivered the child. Ishaq/Hisham 969 - requires that a married woman be “put in a separate room and beaten lightly” if she “acts in a sexual manner toward others”. According to the Hadith, this can be for an offense as petty as merely being alone with a man to whom she is not related. Kash-shaf (the revealer) of al-Zamkhshari (Vol. 1, p.525) - Muhammad said: “Hang up your scourge where your wife can see it (...). "'' |
|
|
:: https://kpfu.ru/staff_files/F1555215559/SOCIAL.PROBLEMS.IN.EUROPE..finalis_.3.pdf#page=222 |
|
|
:: Note the researchers are investigating ''Social problems in Europe: Dilemmas and possible solutions''. They have identified verses in the Hadiths which they consider may contribute. They may be right or they might be wrong, but it remains their findings. This is an Encyclopedia. You are welcome to add content to a possible new section >> '''Hadith interpretations that do not support domestic violence'''. |
|
|
:: I recommend that the findings of the above examination, and the source from which it comes, is RS Misplaced Pages content. |
|
|
:: I recognize Robert Spencer has been deemed as not a RS. |
|
|
:: I recommend all direct Hadith {quotations} should be removed. ] (]) 01:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== WikiProject Crime banner reinstated == |
|
{{ping|Koreangauteng}} Please look through the above evidence I have provided the proof you have given are not sincere and are vastly different from the hadith's in question ] ] 01:25, 21 February 2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
== Misleading sentence == |
|
|
|
: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 == |
|
Mcphurphy {{tq|All four Sunni schools of jurisprudence institutionalised wife beating as a form of discipline against rebellious wives}}. But the source says, The source actually says {{tq|our major Sunni legal schools that “institutionalized” the exegetes’ cosmology by rendering wife-beating a disciplinary means of returning rebellious women to their right place in that cosmology}}. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Islam and domestic violence|answered=yes}} |
|
Clearly the verb "institutionalize" is not referring to "wife-beating" but to the "exegetes' cosmology". Removing until we can find a neutral way to include this.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 04:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
1: |
|
:How about "The discussions in all four Sunni law schools institutionalised the viewpoint of the Quranic exegetes by turning wife-beating into a means of discipline against rebellious wives." |
|
|
|
in the part of the article that says "Ibn Kathir(1300-1373AD) and Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari(839-923AD)" |
|
:That should accurately represent what the source said: {{tq|"This argument is supported by references to both exegetical literature on Q. 3:34 (chapter 2), and to discussions in the four major Sunni legal schools that “institutionalized” the exegetes’ cosmology by rendering wife-beating a disciplinary means of returning rebellious women to their right place in that cosmology (chapter 3). "}} ] (]) 07:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
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)" |
|
::Not sure what that sentence is trying to say, and it should be omitted. The sentence is referring to exegetes, but doesn't explain much about it. The source says lots of stuff about Islam and domestic violence and it is not necessary to quote everything it says.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 03:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2: |
|
== POV statement == |
|
|
|
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) |
|
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) |
|
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)"
