Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rhododendrites (talk | contribs) at 21:28, 20 June 2016 (→Possible WP:NPOV Violation: and). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islam and domestic violence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gender studies This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Islam and domestic violence. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Islam and domestic violence at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Proposed Merge

I support Callio's proposal to merge most of the material from Criticism of the Qur'an#Domestic behavior into this page from as that will allow this topic to be expanded further. --Matt57 00:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. The content is similar, but the two topics are different. This article has a wider scope, and there still should be material on Domestic behavior in the Criticism of the Qur'an article. Some matearial will naturally be lost, as not all criticism is scholarly. Such material has no place here, yet it does in the criticism of the qur'an article. The relevant meterial should just be copied here and edited.--Sefringle 03:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'll withdraw my Support too. You're right, I dont see any point for any mergers. We're good. I took out the merge proposal, it had been put in by someone else. --Matt57 14:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I took off the "result" part of the header because it doesn't seem to me that discussion should be closed before this article is cleaned up and we clearly distinguish what belongs in this article and what belongs in the Criticism of the Qur'an article. I copied a lot of stuff from that one and integrated it here, because there was a ton of overlap. It seems to me that most of the content remaining there should be removed, because it's basically a less complete version of this article. Also, I'm not sure why non-scholarly criticism of domestic violence in Islam does not belong in this article. To me, that seems to be a pretty important part of this page, especially given the neutrality concerns raised below. If we only make this article about Qur'anic exegesis, we risk giving readers the (incorrect, at least in practice) impression that there is no connection between Islam and domestic violence. Calliopejen1 07:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've merged everything into here that I wanted to merge; hopefully everyone else is okay with how this article is beginning to evolve. Calliopejen1 06:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Text versus reality (Neutrality tag)

Is there a possibility of adding to this article to talk about the modern day interpretatation of these verses and what the reality is rather than making the whole first part simply a proIslamic flier? I've traveled to many muslim countries and I can guarantee that the reality is much different than the quoting of a few select verses from the Qur'an would suggest; perhaps someone with time write a bit about media in muslim countries as there are even shows broadcast during "family times" that instruct men on the proper way to beat their wives. Gtadoc 16:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Calliopejen1 for making the divorce section more npov. My wife's mother was assualted and nearly murdered by her husband for trying to get a divorce (in the US even) and he was sent to jail here, but she is afraid to even go back to her home in Pakistan for fear of being attacked there by her own and his families. In many muslim countries it is nearly impossible for a woman to even ask for a divorce, much less to bring her case before a court. To have statements implying that a woman can simply go to a court and ask for a divorce is ridiculous and insulting to people who have lived (or not) through trying to get relief from violent husbands. Gtadoc 06:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Good that she survived. Yes you're right, there's a lot of women oppression on those countries. So... is the tag still needed? --Matt57 13:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so; the section needs expansion pretty badly but as is thats not reason for the tag. If there isn't any other objection I'll take it out. Gtadoc 15:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

'beating'

i would recommend replacing instances and variants of the word "beat" with something less loaded, such as "hit". beating generally refers to extensive physical damage (i.e. battery). while some literally translate it to "beat", i don't believe they intend the meaning and imagery commonly associated with the word in the English language (bruises, broken bones, and so on). at the same time, i think the article title is slightly problematic, "Islam and domestic violence" implies a (positive) connection between the two - and again, "domestic violence" is far too strongly worded to accurately represent what is permitted in the Islamic texts. ITAQALLAH 10:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

is it okay if i press forward with the aforementioned changes? ITAQALLAH 17:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the title be as it is - considering the circumstance that domestic violence is assuredly a part of Islam & we know that because of circumscribed permissions for it laid down in the Quran itself?66.29.115.69 (talk)

Although i agree with the fact that the title implies this connection, historically, in several translations of the Koran, beat has been used "If you experience opposition from the women, you shall first talk to them, then deserting them in bed, then you may beat them" (Koran ed. Peter N. Stearns) the use of hit implies a single blow, and is much more explicit in its definition. Using the word beat, as translated by experts allows readers to see the possible interpretations of the phrasing as intended by the original writers of the Koran —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.99.55 (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

i don't see what variant interpretations can be derived from the phrase "you may beat them" - beat in a domestic context commonly refers to forceful and possibly continued strikes (i.e. battery, grevious bodily harm). that is not what is is intended by the concession of corporal punishment, as stated by the exegetes (and i don't think that's the intended meaning of translations from decades passed); and is also why a number of academic sources prefer a less loaded word such as 'hit.' ITAQALLAH 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This is quite irresponsible and bizarre. The translators use the word "beat" over "hit" for linguistic reasons. Don't you know some Arabic? Also don't remove someone's statement just because you don't like it, and don't insert editorializing like "Muhammad forbade" which strengthens the material beyond what is cited. Arrow740 (talk) 08:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Your token excuse regarding the Hirsi Ali quote is disappointing. It's not the question but her answer which is relevant to this article. Arrow740 (talk) 08:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Some translators use beat, others as far as I know use words like strike and so on. But the word as used today is generally quite loaded, and does not connote what the jurisprudence permits. Hence, a more neutral word with basis in the sources can and should be deferred to.

As for Hirsi Ali, some her main 'criticism' has been provided already, and this answer is in the context of whether her film would be offensive- try to present views that are appropriate in their context. It's also not appropriate to just mass revert to your version from a few months back, which is what you've been doing on several articles now. ITAQALLAH 14:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Provide sources, not empty rhetoric. The Qur'an says beat according to all the sources currently available. Arrow740 (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, which is why it's fine to retain its usage in the quote of the verse. Beat, in common English usage however, refers to something quite different to what is stipulated (i.e. battery, bruising, and so on). Even Y. Ali recognises that in the footnote. Hit is used by Roald (cited in the article) - in her entire discourse she favours the word 'hit' over others and the list of primary sources she provides are all also translated as hit (pp. 148-149). As indicated by the all sources, the chastisement must be non-violent and must not cause physical damage - this is totally different to what 'beat' in common discourse implies. ITAQALLAH 02:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You might want to modify your statement. Hitting is a violent act, and there is no doubt a different word in Arabic for "hit" or else Y. Ali would have jumped at the opportunity to translate idribunna as "hit." Y. Ali is as we know, the apologetic translator who feels the need to add statements to the Qur'an in the form of parenthetical statements in his translation. Hirsi Ali is a very notable figure involved in a high profile movie about Islam and domestic violence, and you shouldn't try to censor her statement. Regarding "beat," use hit whenever your source does. Since the Qur'an says beat, beat should be the default. Arrow740 (talk) 08:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The claim that all prominent translations use beat is false. Da-ra-ba simply means to strike, most translators render that as beat. They're not wrong, but it's clear that the meaning intended doesn't correspond with what beat implies in common usage - so there is certainly an issue with using it in standard prose. In fact, you don't even seem to be denying that; so this artificial qualm ("it's used in prominent translations") seems little more than a pretext to trump WP:NPOV and disregard more neutral words which convey the proper meaning. As for Hirsi Ali, you can find wikiquote thataway. I think there is enough coverage of her views without the irrelevant material. ITAQALLAH 14:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Arabic term Da-ra-ba simply means to strike. --Be happy!! (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It must be tough to be saddled with this. Arrow740 (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As you seemingly have no meaningful response to offer, I have reinstated the more neutral version. ITAQALLAH 23:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

2 of the USC translations use Beat, the 3rd uses Scourge. There are even more which use the word "beat" . I dont see why you're switching over to the softer "hit" when these translations do not use this softer word. We should switch back to beat. The translators know more, trust me. Scholars too are using the word beat most often (e.g. see some here). You can take a poll of all the sources talking about it and you'll see that beat is the most popular word. --Matt57 02:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You have, unknowingly I think, disproved Arrow's false claim that 'all' prominent translations use 'beat'.

Matt, it's got nothing to do with what words translators use. It's got to do with what word we should favour in the prose. As per WP:NPOV, we should stick to neutral writing whenever necessary. Arrow hasn't contested my claim that beat is a loaded word, do you? And, presuming you don't, are these loaded connotations representative of what is allowed in the sources, or what translators like Y. Ali explain what is meant by the verse? Hit is not a softer word, it is merely not a loaded word. ITAQALLAH 15:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

He probably meant that almost all translations use Beat (which is as good as all for the purpose of this discussion). Loaded word, NPOV or not, we should use the word that is most used by all the sources. If all the sources use "Airplane", it wont make sense to make headings of "Trains". Get my point? For example if we're talking about a serial killer, we'll use the word "Kill" or "murder" etc., if thats what the sources are saying. You're violating policies here, by trying to use a softer word that sources dont even use often only because it doesnt look good to you. By using Hit, you're violating WP:OR because thats not what sources are using. We can debate this all year long, ItaqAllah. Use what the sources are saying. So do you want to do a poll of what the sources are using? This is the only way to decide this issue. --Matt57 16:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

<reset>"He probably meant that almost all translations use Beat (which is as good as all for the purpose of this discussion)." - Oh come on, that's just playing with the facts.

"You're violating policies here, by trying to use a softer word that sources dont even use often only because it doesnt look good to you. By using Hit, you're violating WP:OR because thats not what sources are using. We can debate this all year long, ItaqAllah." - Have you even been reading this discussion? I have already said that hit has precedence in the reliable sources, namely Roald (2001) - who throughout her entire discourse uses the word 'hit', and also translates ~ a dozen primary sources using the word hit.

"Loaded word, NPOV or not, we should use the word that is most used by all the sources." – Hold on... NPOV does matter here. It is one of the core content policies and is non-negotiable. You also seem to be admitting that beat is a loaded word. So why favour a more loaded word, if another neutral word has precedence in reliable sources?

"If all the sources use "Airplane", it wont make sense to make headings of "Trains". Get my point?" - I don't understand how this analogy is relevant to the discussion.

These arguments about which is present in translations most is all irrelevant, and any poll is merely a red herring. We have established that beat is a loaded word. There is no evidence that the word used by translators corresponds to the imagery associated with the word in colloquial usage. You even admit that beat has less POV implications, by stating it is "softer" (it's not softer, by the way, it carries exactly the same meaning but without the POV baggage). ITAQALLAH 18:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Who cares about what Roald says? I dont even know this person. You picked them because they used the word Hit. You're trying to censor stuff, brushing things under the carpet and making this article look better, thats what this is about. Tell me why exactly again are you using Hit? Doing a Poll is not casting a red herring. Dont use all these wiki terms and interlinks Itaq, when they can much more easily apply to what you do here yourself all the time. BEAT is the word used in most of the sources, and THATS how we decide what word we use. Real simple. Open an RFC or mediation on this if you want. The word beat will say, since thats what sources have used. --Matt57 18:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Roald is a reliable source and currently used in this article. Tell me Matt57, what am I trying to "censor"? POV meanings not intended in the translations? Also Matt, I don't think I equivocate meanings of words, so I don't see how you can say I'm equivocating. You are totally avoiding the question of whether beat is loaded, because you don't deny it. You also don't deny that hit is accurate and used in sources. You seem to have dropped your OR accusation, now you are claiming we must use what is present in most translations. Of course, the latter is completely irrelevant, because the associated POV is clearly not intended; and I also think this is being used as a shallow pretext to favour POV language over neutral language. (As a patent example, I doubt you would ever support usage of 'prophet Muhammad' - despite its overwhelming presence in reliable sources.) ITAQALLAH 18:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Tell me why exactly again are you using Hit?" I suggest you start at the very beginning of this section and work down from there. ITAQALLAH 18:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, beat is the word all the sources (primary and secondary) use. Thats the word we go. If you disagree, you'll have to open an RfC. --Matt57 19:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"As I said, beat is the word all the sources (primary and secondary) use" - Really? Now you're contradicting yourself. And wrong. ITAQALLAH 19:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse, by all I meant, most. So what do you want? Want to open an RfC on this too? --Matt57 19:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

All doesn't mean most - that's just highly deceiving. I wouldn't want to accuse you of deception, but I don't know how you could claim all primary/secondary sources use beat when we have just been discussing them. Let's try going through this step by step. Do you admit that beat used in current and specifically domestic context refers to repeated forceful strikes, and evokes images of bruising/broken bones/battery? ITAQALLAH 19:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No. And you trying to guess what kind of images it evokes is OR. --Matt57 19:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not OR, I have provided a reliable source. If you don't accept the common images associated with the word beat despite it being obvious (and you do, else you would never have said that beat is 'softer' than hit), then I think you are being needlessly obstructive. ITAQALLAH 19:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have provided the source where the most often used word is beat in the translations. Roald is just one source and secondary. You're the being obstructive here. Ofcourse hit is softer than beat, but thats the not the point. The point is, we use the word which the sources are using. Your evaluation that Beat has POV problems is your original research. --Matt57 20:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I proved your last sentence wrong already with a dictionary reference. See also Beat. As I said, let's go through things step by step. Instead of denying the obvious just to act the antagonist, you should concede that beat in a domestic context implies bruising, repeated hitting, and so on. We can move forward from there. ITAQALLAH 22:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree to using "hit" instead of "beat". As stated, "hit" describes the act, while "beat" adds a certain aspect of violence and repetitiveness. The meanings can be verified from hit and beat.Bless sins (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The Qur'an says beat. That's what the translators say; beat or scourge. Some Muslim scholars think the beating shouldn't be too severe. That's fine. We know there are hadith that support more severe beatings. Arrow740 (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We are here to write an encyclopedia that conforms with Wp:NPOV. Regarding translations, there are many, many translations.Bless sins (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your characterisation of the issue is quite misleading Arrow. Even this new (and suspicious) IP reverter understands the loaded meanings behind using the word in standard prose - that is, in fact, why he is unfortunately pushing its usage. "We know there are hadith that support more severe beatings." - that's your own original research, and contradicted by the reliable sources used in this article. Hit has precedence in the sources used in this article, and is undisputably more neutral. ITAQALLAH 04:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hitting it usually something incidental or even accidental as in 'I ended up hitting another car after I had sped through the intersection'. It's something you do to a fly or a cockroach or a baseball. Most cases: it's a once thing you do, which is effective, then you're done with it. 'Beating' is purposeful, deliberate and contempletive of something that can be sustained and repetitious till it attains that purpose: exactly the Quran's kind of permission you have to maintain your attacks until (though no longer than) effects subduing or beating the nushuz out of the subject. "idribuhunna for nushuz" --> beat until they no longer rebel, then proceed no longer. Why else is it so commonly discussed in such terms: ? Other than that it is a term deriving from most respected translations of the source (see above) and is seen to prevail in the great majority of them; whereas 'hitting' is just a termed pulled in, contrarily, through the personal preference of a couple of persons proposing terminology for the writing of this article - no more - and there seems no better reason than that for its being preferred. The prevailing language of respected translations of the sources is what's meant for us to be going with.

And, oh dear, though the sources report 'beating', that's just 'loaded' and somehow therefore wrong and unable to be usefully employed for exposing the subject. Then maybe best for us to redefine 'War on terror' as 'Worldwide antiterrorist police action': sounds much less 'loaded', bro. Only one problem: that's not how it came out of the mouth of the person acknowledged for first and most famously defining it. The same analysis equally then also applies for most famously scandalous pronouncements of other idiots.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

Please try reading the above discussion. Also, Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox - please keep your messages civil and to the point. People are unlikely to read tangental quips, with all due respect.

If you have read the above discussion, you will know that beat is still favoured for use in the translations. We are talking about what word to use in the prosaic discussion. Your clear admission of POV behind this term demonstrates why it violates WP:NPOV. Alternatively, we have secondary reliable sources using hit, which is a neutral word, and certainly not `"accidental" or "incidental" as you claim (please consult a dictionary). I can see two words - both with precedence in reliable sources. One is more neutral than the other. ITAQALLAH 14:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, when quoting a source that says "hit," use hit. Otherwise use the word the Qur'an uses. Arrow740 (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Employing the term "bro", uncivil you feel? Harden up. And it's soapboxing to employ examples from other contexts to express as much as the idea "don't scurry to the option of expressing euphemisms for original terms you don't like because you have found a group of commentators that have done so"??

I didn't say your calling me bro was uncivil. Please refer to WP:CIVIL again and re-read your comments in that light. ITAQALLAH 15:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Words are words and the POV you find is the POV you're choosing to give them. The 'POV' for the choice is the 'POV': lets use the term most closely imitative of that which raises the mention of the subject in the primary source itself. And if there's two alternate terms, it's one that evokes the primary source language and the other which is euphemistic of it and employed by those seen to have an emotional interest in being euphemistic about it. The tenor of the argument about this was expressed most aptly by the other person above who observed "it must be hard to be saddled with this". Yeah, it is. And the honest term is the one that employs no alterations of or substitutions upon the terminology of the source.66.29.115.69 (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Using words in translations (the "terminology of the source", as you put it) is one thing, using it in modern, standard prose where the meaning has accrued multiple negative connotations (entirely unsupported by anything in the sources) is something else. As you admit, beat is something repeated. And as I hope you will be honest enough to further admit: in a domestic context it connotes bruises and broken bones. Neither of these implications are afforded by the primary sources, despite the translation 'beat' popping up (As a sidenote, there is no indication that hitting must be continued until nushuz stops - hitting is merely an attempt to stop it. If it doesn't work, then alternative avenues such as divorce are taken.)

66, you are proving my point for me. There is absolutely nothing "euphemistic" about hit, except that it doesn't contain the tendentious imagery of "beat" which itself is not permitted in the sources. WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. ITAQALLAH 15:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Then experience 'tendentiousness' is only in you and others like you who just don't like the terminology employed by he expert translators who consulted the source. From the plain terms of the verse I don't see any words of limitation on the manner/intensity of these beatings other than "but when they no longer find a way to proceed against you, (then) no longer proceed". And I've never heard such doubletalk as this about "multiple negative connotations accruing" after a particular phrasing was employed. From the time Yusuf Ali authored his translation in 1936 to the present there's been no evolution in the meaning/sense of what it is to "beat" - other than, I suppose, it being employed in American English by those expressing the idea "to defeat in a contest": a sense that will cause no confusion here.66.29.115.69 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to be a new editor. I wonder why you are using an IP...

This appeal to IDONTLIKEIT is a non-sequitur, and quite amusing people when throw it around in non-XfD debates. You were clearly admitting the POV behind the term in your edit summaries and early comments. Now, when it's revealed that it violates content policies, you totally deny any such meaning whatsoever.

Anyway, perhaps you can re-read my above comments and not shy away from tackling its central arguments. That is, 1) beat is a loaded word when used in a domestic context, 2) those meanings do not conform to what the primary and secondary sources specify, as evidenced by the article, 3) 'hit' is used in reliable sources. This nonsense about the word used in translations is irrelevant, the "terminology of the source", as you put it, is far different from the meaning you are knowingly pushing. 4) hit connotes a physical strike, and is more neutral than beat. ITAQALLAH 01:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It really doesn't concern us that in your personal POV a particular word is too 'loaded' for your taste, what we're concerned about is conservativeness in reflecting the original terms of the source. There's not a policy or a guideline anywhere about which lets an editor take the stance: "I don't like THAT term coming from a predominance of views on the original source, I like THIS one that comes later as a the pet term employed by some secondary commentators and explainers". Is there anyone who doesn't think that the said school of commentators escape awareness for being thoroughly invested in the apologetic view of their subject matter?66.29.115.69 (talk)

1)Every word conveys meanings. 2)The preponderance of sources say "beat." 3)Hit is used in one source and in none of the prominent translations. End of story, really. 4)No word is "neutral" in and of itself. Again, when quoting a source that says "hit," use hit. Otherwise use the word the Qur'an uses. Arrow740 (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

1) Not every word conveys biased and unintended meanings. 2) That doesn't respond to the point made, which is about whether the word accurately reflects what primary/secondary sources say is allowed. 3) That source is a reliable, secondary source with a detailed discussion on the topic. Hit thus has precedence in the sources, as does beat. 4) I didn't say hit was neutral, I said it was more neutral than beat. As both are used in the sources, we can opt for what is more neutral. ITAQALLAH 02:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hit is used far less than beat. If the Quran used the word "Fire", should you replace the analysis of a related article with the word "warm" because Fire is too hot in your opinion? --Matt57 02:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to work on your analogies :-). Nobody claims the word fire is loaded. ITAQALLAH 02:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Quran in many places vilifys certain groups as being 'in the Fire' or 'abiding in the Fire' to evoke the concept of damnation. If I wanted to run a certain agenda I could scream and wail that 'consigned to the Fire' was POV/loaded/too harsh/unintended meaning/not a fair translation of what was expressed, and campaign for 'held in disfavour' as my personal preference. But in doing so I'd be exposing a lack of neutral honesty to the terms of the source and a willingness to euphemise and spin my own interpretive tales. Misplaced Pages doesn't stand for that.66.29.115.69 (talk)

Good point. Arrow740 (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if we were discussing it in normal prose, we would be reserved in our descriptions. If we wanted to refer to a group as 'in the Fire', we would use it in quotes. ITAQALLAH 23:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh but, even in quotes, that would also be totally unacceptable because - with reference to your startoff comment of 10:47, 20 October '07 - you wouldn't personally "believe they intend the meaning and imagery commonly associated with the word in the English language", remember? Did I miss something?66.29.115.69 (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your analogy is falling apart. In the fire means just that: In the fire/In hell. There's no alternate, loaded meaning of that in standard English discussion. ITAQALLAH 20:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm giving an example. We use what the sources say. We shouldnt water a certain word down because it sounds too loaded. Are the sources using this word? Thats all we need to know. If the Quran said "pour boiling water down his throat", we wont say "thats too loaded, lets use 'let him drink some warm gatorade'", otherwise this will be misleading and misrepresenting the sources. Sorry, the word Beat is the word used on almost all the sources. --Matt57 02:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. That example doesn't work either. By the way, it looks like you are conceding that the word beat is loaded when used in this context. ITAQALLAH 03:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course it does. "Hit" and "beat" have slightly different meanings. You have made the judgment that "hitting" a wife is acceptable while "beating" is not, so hitting is a more "neutral" term. It is not more "neutral." It is just different. Your vague arguments about "loaded" are not a reason to mistranslate the Qur'an. Arrow740 (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is mistranslating the Qur'an? The section is talking about hitting in Islamic jurisprudence, which is an amalgamation of what is specified by primary texts and certain commentators. The translation of the verse has not been changed.

You have made the judgment that "hitting" a wife is acceptable while "beating" is not - Not at all. I am saying that hit more accurately represents what the jurisprudence specifies. Compare the modern domestic meaning of beat (battery) with what the sources specify; that is, no bruising, no marks, no excesssive force, preferably use a siwak. While I am happy to continue our discussion another time, this section is fast becoming a troll magnet with several inappropriate comments. It might be better to stop feeding, and compromise on using hit when the source does. ITAQALLAH 23:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's what some of the sources are using. Beat is used everywhere, in the large majority of translations and sources. Chastise is used twice as is scourge. --Matt57 02:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Beat

• Washington post: "Many Muslims also believe that men have the right to beat their wives." (other places too)
• Quran translations:
  • Yusuf Ali: Beat
  • Hilali-Khan
  • Shakir
  • Khalifa
  • Arberry
  • Palmer
• Yusuf al-Qaradawi
• Dr. Ahmad Shafaat says: "This word has almost universally been translated here as "beating". As this is a pro-Islamic person who is saying this, this is really all that needs to be said here.
• Others (I stopped here, there are more)

Scourge

• Quran translation:
  • Pickthall
  • Rodwell

Chastise

• Quran translation
  • Sher Ali
  • George Sale

Hit

• Roald

The majority of sources use beat, hence we use what the sources, including translations and scholars of Islam are using. Are you saying we ignore what Yusuf al-Qaradawi says and listen to what this much lesser known person Roald says? We use what the sources use. You trying to use NPOV is not applicable here. If the Quran said Fire, we wont say we have to follow NPOV and use "warm". The goal is to accurately represent what the sources are saying, otherwise this will be misleading the reader. Using "Hit" is OR because you are not caring about what the sources are using. --Matt57 02:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you believe Al-Qardawi is a reliable source?

Your survey shows that most translations use beat. I don't dispute that. Your survey also shows a source saying that many Muslim men think they are allowed to beat their wives (see:battery, a common connotation of the word beat in standard discourse). I don't dispute that either. None of that is of any relevance when discussing what is prescribed in jurisprudence. Your fire analogy doesn't make sense at all. Using hit is not OR- I've made that quite clear- it's used extensively in a reliable source, which itself provides numerous hadith translated with hit. ITAQALLAH 02:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Roald is a converted Muslim of Norwegian origin. Do you see now why she's using the word hit, instead of Beat? Obviously, this woman wrote a book to water down what her religion actually says about the topic and she's trying to justify it. Now I can see what you're so intent at using this source. Why are you only looking at what Roald is saying? What about all the other 200 references for this article? Do you have access to the book? An occurence of "beating" is coming up on page 170 in Google books of her book but its not letting me see what it is. --Matt57 04:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Your attack on a specialist of Islam because of her personal beliefs is disgusting. It's like discrediting other well known scholars of Islam just because they're Jewish. ITAQALLAH 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing "disgusting" about it, please keep such comments to yourself. I knew something was up. She turned out to be a convert after all. Now it makes sense. The more important point: can you tell me now why you're only considering her opinion only and what about the other references on the article? --Matt57 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"She turned out to be a convert after all." Please note wikipedia will not discriminate against people on the basis of their religion. Her opinion is bieng considered because she is a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"please keep such comments to yourself"- Please keep your ad hominem attacks against a living, respected scholar to yourself then. How many of the "200 references"(!) used in this article are discussing the topic of hitting in Islamic jurisprudence? ITAQALLAH 23:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

same as if it were a well-credentialled Tory journalist (who in such a case would also be a member of the Tory Party) being, lets say 'a little kind' in reporting on the details of the latest Tory Party sex scandal. I'd still be suspending some disbelief and looking to other sources not so predictably 'on-side' for some input. Whether Misplaced Pages urges it or not, that's what my inbuilt personal BS-detector would be urging me to in the circumstances of a live controversy with partisan tinges.66.29.115.69 (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Choosing to convert is not a sign of objectivity. I'm not saying she's not reliable, but your response was a little strong. Arrow740 (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Itaqallah, sorry but this is unacceptable. When the scholars are all talking about the word "beat", labelling those sections as "hitting" is misrepresenting the source. You said you found my discovery of this Roald being a convert to Islam 'disgusting'. Whats actually disgusting is the encouragement to beat a woman if she disobeys her husband. Beat is what the sources use, so thats what the headings will say. Titling this article as Domestic Violence is actually already doing more than what should be done. I wouldnt mind if the title of this article was Islam and wife beating. If you think thats ridiculous, just look at what the whole issue is about and what everyone in this article is talking about and what words they're using. Domestic violence was used because it sounds better. We're already doing these abusive teachings a service by giving them a soften stage due to a softer title. The headings will stay. The sources talk about the word Beat. Roald is only one source. I wish these verses were revealed today. Women's rights organizations would sue the 'revelation' and take the offending verses to court. --Matt57 14:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly Matt57, stop soapboxing. It reveals nothing other than a tendentious agenda. ITAQALLAH 20:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see my post at the end. I've given you a number of references which talked about the jurisprudence. You wanting to use Hit is infact reflecting a tendentious agenda. Use what the sources say. --Matt57 21:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh so she's coming from being a member of the cult rather that being aloof of it. If I seem unsurprised by that revelation, it's only because I am. Very much this whole laboured discussion is coming down to a couple of voices presuming to know better than the expert translators who had access to the source in its original language in deciding terminology to be employed re beating rebelliousness out of a defiant spouse. Even if they made a really good linguistic argument, we'd still be unpersuaded because the expert translators are what's published and what has standing among the scholars. I'll also put this to you: when you 'hit', keep your eyes open because you can be 'hit' back. But when you're dominated and bossed by someone because of their God-given reserve power to take to physically chastising you until you correct your behaviour, that's the experience of being beat.66.29.115.69 (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please cease these trollish comments. And no, your speculation about physical domination is just that. ITAQALLAH 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, beating until submission is a sign of respect. Of course. Arrow740 (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(Nod and smile stifled)66.29.115.69 (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Itaqallah, as to what other sources use the word 'beat' in relation to Islamic jurisprudence, 1) This article is not only about "jurisprudence". Its about that and everything else. 2) Look at the references: #4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 19 (it was a nice farewell speech in which men were reminded again that they could beat their wives), 21 and others. All of these are using Beat in relation to Islamic jurisprudence. Did you see the refs? The motivation to use Hit instead of Beat is to smooth over what you would like the reader to see as less as possible. Even though thats true, we use Beat because thats what the majority of sources use. For you say to say that Beat has negative connotations and Hit is better to use, is OR because the majority of sources talk about Beat and not hit. If 90% of the sources are using the word "Red" in relation to a certain incident, its wrong for the article to use "Pink". Red is the right word to use because it represents what the sources are talking about. Get my point? This is beginning to sound like your debate on FFI's notability. --Matt57 15:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt, your analogies aren't very good. I've already agreed with Arrow to use hit simply when the passage is sourced to Roald. Your response doesn't really address the issues I raised anyway. I don't know what the debate over FFI has to do with this. ITAQALLAH 21:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, so after 75-odd days of trying it on since 20 October last year, you finally acknowledge the futility and admit to the viewpoint which I'm sure we all easily comprehend and would have agreed upon before then: from within quotes it's not appropriate to change 'hit' to another word, otherwise don't transpose other words revealed from the original source (ie. Quran) with it.66.29.115.69 (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not what's been agreed to. Any prose that's referenced to a source using hit may also use hit. ITAQALLAH 23:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine. Using hit where the source has used Hit is ok with me. --Matt57 22:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source: Robert Spencer

See the edit summary here that "Robert Spencer is not a reliable source". Is not the content of the sources he's referring to borne out by the analysis/commentary he makes? He draws our attention to an instance where Muhammad hurt Aisha by striking her in the chest at home, and another instance where Aisha commented that it is the muslim community where domestic violence against women is the largest problem. So if he's 'not reliable', what's the unreliability that's he's been charged with or found guilty of .. in any of his seven published books and contributions to many respected publications on the general subject of Islamic scriptural exegesis? He's an expert commentator on Islam who's not gained a reputation anywhere in particular for being 'not reliable'. Even his Misplaced Pages biography concedes that he's a 'writer on Islam' and the author of 'bestsellers'.66.29.115.69 (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Anon, we have discussed Spencer in the past. please take a look at this by Carl Ernst. Spencer does not have any degree in Islamic studies. He is just a writer. He does not publish his works through presses that practice blind peer-reviewing. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

So Carl Ernst, an academic, has vague objections about his reliability. So Daniel Pipes, another academic, has the opposite view. I'm persuaded that someone who has been invited by so many publications and media orgs, themselves reliable sources (eg. New York Times, BBC, CNN etc.), about the same broad subject is not himself unreliable. This notion that a focused degree is -required- for establishing reliability as a source needs to be squashed too. Hillary Clinton would be a reliable source about Bill Clinton re the life they've lived together, similarly Sammy Davis Jr and Dean Martin about the time they spent with Frank Sinatra - even Kitty Kelley (his biographer, who never met him). None of them achieved a degree in researching the other as a subject matter - but all can nevertheless be said to have attained or demonstrated reliable expert knowledge about it. Robert Spencer is in that category.66.29.115.69 (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes himself is a critic of Islam. NYT, BBC and CNN are News Agencies not reliable academic circles. Spencer is indeed notable as a critic of Islam but not as a scholar. --Be happy!! (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

However, CNN, the NYT and the BBC are reliable sources for wikipedia. Having been published by reliable sources such as those lends some credibility to the writings of those who have been published by them. However, I've removed him and would welcome a more neutral source to flesh out that subsection. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That Spencer appeared on CNN doesn't make his statements there reliable in anyway for wikipedia. Also, note that your recent edit to the article constitutes original research (WP:OR) by citing a primary source directly. Reliable secondary sources evaluate reliability of the reports, compare them with other incidents (e.g. times that other things happened or nothing happened) and provide an scholarly view regarding its relevance to the scope of this article. To cite an example in this way provides a skewed version of the general relation of Aisha and Muhammad.--Be happy!! (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not in any way OR to cite a primary source. You've completely misread that policy. I agree, showing up on CNN doesn't make him reliable for wikipedia. Being a best selling author on the topic of Islam does. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Having a best-seller book doesn't add reliability. It just increases notability as a writer. Yes choosing what to cite from the primary sources and how to present it as a summary of the matter is what a person has to do when citing the primary sources and that's why it is OR. This has been the common practice in all the Islam related article for a long time. --Be happy!! (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not OR. Read the bloody policy and try to comprehend it. We'd have no articles if we could not use material from primary sources in the manner you seem to believe is OR. Being a party published by a respected third party publishing house does make Spencer a reliable source per the POLICY WP:V not simply the guideline WP:RS. You should really brush up on these things, Aminz. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why the issues of 'bestselling' and and 'respected publishing house' are being brought up all over again. Bestselling means nothing when it comes to reliability. It is in fact normal for most controversial books. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for most scholarly books, as they don't set out to whip up the kind of frenzy attempted in polemical tracts. And Regnery might be a respected press for conservative political literature... but it ain't no respected press for academic studies, that's for sure.

Primary sources should have backing from an appropriate secondary source, especially when they are open to interpretation as is the case with this instance (I suppose you could do a g-search for 'la-ha-da' and 'Aisha'. Not that such would be reliable for use on Misplaced Pages, of course). ITAQALLAH 19:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Credentials for two recently-incorporated sources

• Dr Alamgir Hussain
• ‏Dr James Arlandson

also, as requested, here is a third party published source for Robert Spencer on this subject.66.29.115.69 (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

James Arlandson isn't a reliable source on Islam, as was determined here and elsewhere. FPM too is widely accepted as being an unreliable source on Misplaced Pages as determined here. ITAQALLAH 18:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Further,
Dr Hussain has been published by Academic Press who say of themselves " an independent scholarly press specializing in monographs, revised dissertations, primary sources, bibliographies, textbooks, and other books reflecting scholarship in the humanities and social sciences". Robert Spencer is published by Prometheus Books, which has been around since 1969, and which according to its WP article "publishes scientific, educational, and popular books, especially those of a secular humanist or scientific skepticism nature" and there's various reputable names on their roster including the odd Prize-winner here and there.66.29.115.69 (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You raise a lot of red herrings. Prometheus books is likely a respected publisher in the area of secular humanism, but not particularly established or reliable on Islamic studies. Likewise... Spencer, whose qualification pertains to early Christianity, is neither an authority nor a reliable source on Islamic studies. Can you elaborate a little more on Hussain? What is his qualification in? And precisely what books has Academica press published of his (do note that he didn't author this 'Beyond Jihad' book that you attribute to him)? He seems to be more of a political commentator.

In any case, 66, you aren't likely to succeed in inserting unscholarly polemical material from sources like these. ITAQALLAH 18:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

66, you are continuing to insert unreliably sourced material of partisan flavour. Your latest source, who appears to be an unreliable and clearly untrained individual, says "Aisha, in the Qur'an states: "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing woman" and that means a Muslim woman"!! The standard of sourcing is getting progressively worse. ITAQALLAH 03:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Earlier, I inserted this text as a compromise (Itaqallah removed it without really discussing the substantive differences between this and what came before):

Critic of Islam Robert Spencer argues that Aisha's statement that "he struck me on the chest which caused me pain" in Sahih Muslim, 4:2127 constitutes evidence of domestic violence of Aisha by Muhammad.(Spencer, Robert. Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't. Regnery Publishing (2007), p182. Critics of Islam have also argued that Aisha's statement "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women" in Sahih al-Bukhari, evidences abuse of Muslim women.(http://www.islam-watch.org/AlamgirHussain/islams-rebel-women.htm Secular Islam Summit: Islam’s Rebel Women Make Their Mark, by Alamgir Hussain (PhD))(http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={B46F5A5D-E35D-4673-88D0-FBCF931ACAF8} "Muslim Feminism?" by Robert Spencer. FrontPageMagazine.com, April 24, 2005)

I think this is a fair compromise between the two sides here. This article is not solely about what Muslims say about the topic, it is about what others say as well. If people are notable for their criticism of Islam and are presented as such in the article, it is fair to present their views. Allowing only those with doctorates in Islamic studies to have their views presented in the article results in views mainly (or solely) with those sympathetic to Islam. In this compromise, Spence and Arlandson are presented as critics, not as scholars. I think their criticism is notable and should be included. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not about only having views of qualified individuals related (though it's important). If the specific criticism is really and truly noteworthy, it will have been reported by third party reliable sources (i.e. ), instead of us determining what critiques are most appropriate upon surveillance of polemical sources. The same goes for apologetic material, it wouldn't be acceptable to cite pro-Islam websites or Zakir Naik or Ahmad Deedat (who, like Spencer et al., are noted for their comments on Islam) on this issue either. I contend that Spencer is not a reliable source. In fact, he is a questionable source making some rather dubious claims... his views on this topic aren't worthy of discussion unless other appropriate sources have picked up on them. ITAQALLAH 19:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as dubious claims go, I don't think that these claims are as crazy as a lot of the others Spencer et al make. How else, frankly, could the statement "he struck me on the chest which caused me pain" be interpreted? This is one where the primary text standing alone is nearly sufficient. Spencer's criticism does seem to be notable in this instance, because it was published by Regnery Press, which seems to be a reliable source for seeing what criticism is notable. The other stuff that has only been printed by polemical websites I understand may not be notable. I'll do some searching in Google Books and see if I can find any better sources for the Bukhari 72:715 statement. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the other statement can also be attributed to Spencer in that same book on the same page.

Critics of Islam including Robert Spencer have argued that Aisha's statement that "he struck me on the chest which caused me pain" in Sahih Muslim, 4:2127 constitutes evidence of domestic violence of Aisha by Muhammad. They have also argued that Aisha's statement "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women" in Sahih al-Bukhari, evidences abuse of Muslim women. (Both statements referenced to Spencer, Robert. Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't. Regnery Publishing (2007), p182.)

How about that? I would definitely be open to some scholarly commentary on the verses to rebut the criticism if you have any but I didn't see any in my Google and Google books searches. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The second sentence in my paragraph could also be sourced to Spencer, Robert. "When Islam Isn't Islam." Human Events (April 18, 2005). I'm not entirely sure how important a conservative magazine Human Events is because I know nothing about the world of conservative magazines. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Analysing primary sources is not as simple as you might imagine. Here's one example. Aisha said: "The Messenger of God never did hit any of his wives or any of his servants. Neither did he hit anything with his hand, but for God's sake, or for stopping maharim (prohibitions), or (in this case) his revenge is for God (not for himself)" (cited in Roald p. 149, also translated here) - note the narrator. Surely you can appreciate that it's not always an issue of just picking out narrations which depict things in a certain way. I discussed your narration above. She uses the word lahada, which means push (not daraba, which means strike). Muslim scholar Gibril Haddad claims poor translation, saying that it is more appropriately rendered 'He pushed my chest with a push that made me sore'. I'm not advocating using these sources, just so you know. ITAQALLAH 20:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, I take issue with quoting Spencer or any questionable source directly. If there is a third party reliable source which says Spencer says such and such, then I think that's acceptable. ITAQALLAH 20:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how a third party publishing Spencer's claims has less credence than a third party reporting on Spencer's claims. Surely a notable publisher giving views air time means that claims have some significance. (I'm open to being convinced that these aren't notable publishers because I really don't know.) In any case, I would prefer an explanation and a rebuttal of Spencer's views to nothing at all. If anything it allows readers to be able to discredit what Spencer is saying and see how critics' views differ from scholars' views. Maybe I'll work up another proposal when I have more time to think about it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way do you have a citation for the daraba/lahada translation issue? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I provided one forum link above providing a fatwa from an IslamToday website, but I can't find the original page. Some forums connected to Gibril Haddad post his comments on the issue too. None of it is suitable for use here, though. I guess you can do a google search for lahada etc. to see what you can find. ITAQALLAH 20:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Regnery press isn't a third party here (i.e. independent of Spencer), it's the publisher of Spencer's books. It is a publishing house which is reputed for its material on conservative politics (see its 'Politically Incorrect Guide' page), not Islamic studies, and is frequently used by Spencer. Hence it's not an independent source which actually discusses his views.

The point I'm making is that questionable sources themselves shouldn't be referred to directly. Some of Spencer's critiques are noteworthy - you'll see them mentioned in reviews, reports, articles (and so on), some really aren't. It's decided by whether independent reliable sources have deemed it significant enough to mention (irrespective of whether they are valid or not). ITAQALLAH 20:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(Deindent) Ok I've been doing a bit more looking... It seems that both of these claims are also made by Spencer in the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, which does appear to be notable. It received a 1700-word review in the National Review, smaller discussions in other sources, and was on the NYT bestseller list for 3 weeks (#14 one week, #15 two more weeks for nonfiction paperbakcs). If any criticism of Islam is notable, I think this book surely is. (It's currently the 3rd-bestselling book on Amazon about the history of Islam, which I find shocking.) It seems like enough notable people are discussing this issue on both sides that it would be good to include balanced coverage of the claims and rebuttals. What do you think of this?

Critic of Islam Robert Spencer has argued that Sahih Muslim, 4:2127 offers evidence of evidence of domestic violence of Aisha by Muhammad. In Abdul Hamid Siddiqui's translation, Aisha narrates that "he struck me on the chest which caused me pain". Other scholars, however, have translated this verse differently. Gibril Haddad's translation is "He gave me a push or slap on the chest which made me sore"; he interprets the gesture as "a Prophetic gesture associated with driving away evil influence (wasw?s) and conferring blessing." Anne S. Roald has offered Sahih Muslim, 30:5756 as evidence of a positive relationship between Aisha and Muhammad; in it, Aisha narrates that Muhammad "never did hit any of his wives or any of his servants."

(Cites: Spencer, Robert. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam. Regnery Press (2005), p70. Haddad, Gibril. "The Imposition of Hands in the Sunna." Roald, Anne S. Women in Islam: The Western Experience. Routledge (2001), p149. ISBN 0415248965.) The Haddad source is kind of questionable -- looks self-published and non-notable -- but could be good as a place-holder until better evidence is found. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I just found a better source than Haddad--it's where I'm guessing Haddad gets his translation from. Evidently in Al Minhaj bi Sharh Sahih Muslim, Imam Nawawi says "The word "lahada" according to the lexicographers means, "to push" (dafa'a)." I get this from a web forum (which also shows the original Arabic), so hopefully someone who reads Arabic can confirm the translation and find the original citation in the online Sharh here. Here's what my new proposal looks like:

Critic of Islam Robert Spencer has argued that Sahih Muslim, 4:2127 offers evidence of evidence of domestic violence of Aisha by Muhammad. In Abdul Hamid Siddiqui's translation, Aisha narrates that "he struck me on the chest which caused me pain". Medieval Islamic scholar Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi, however, wrote in his commentary on Sahih Muslim that the verb used by Aisha, lahada, is equivalent to dafa'a, meaning push rather than strike. Anne S. Roald has also offered Sahih Muslim, 30:5756 as evidence of a positive relationship between Aisha and Muhammad; in it, Aisha narrates that Muhammad "never did hit any of his wives or any of his servants."

(Cites: Spencer, Robert. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam. Regnery Press (2005), p70. Al-Nawawi, Yahya ibn Sharaf. Al Minhaj bi Sharh Sahih Muslim, . Roald, Anne S. Women in Islam: The Western Experience. Routledge (2001), p149. ISBN 0415248965.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Spencer's book being a best-seller (many controversial, patently unreliable books can be best-sellers) has no bearing on whether he should be used in this or other articles IMO. If these critiques are noteworthy, and I don't believe they are, they will have been noted by reliable sources. I appreciate your good-faith efforts... but I really feel the whole discussion should be avoided given the lack of reliable sources on both sides (Nawawi's statement, so you know, can be found here under ( ‏( فَلَهَدَنِي ). ITAQALLAH 20:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• The above discussion is continuously beating around the issue as to whether Spencer should be used. Everyone should realize that there is community wide consensus that Robert Spencer is an unreliable source. Unreliable source means no inclusion, and I haven't seen any exception to that policy. I can certainly ask the talk pages of WP:V and WP:RS, if you want.Bless sins (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

References

1. ^ http://muslimhope.com/JamesArlandson/DomesticViolenceInIslam.htm Domestic violence in Islam - The Quran on beating wives, by James M. Arlandson)

Pakistan

Is this article correct in stating that there is no law against domestic abuse in Pakistan? Reading through Dawn newspaper, the perpetrators of abuse are always booked under the Womens Protection Act. Wouldn't that be a law against abuse? A quick search shows that Musharraf signed this bill into law in 2006 Inf fg (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That appears to have to do with the punishment of women in cases of rape. There was a law proposed in early 2007 relating to domestic violence specifically, but as of early 2008 it hadn't been passed. I can't find anything more recent. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Syria

Could we add something about the idea of honor killing to the article? Common particularly in Syria, where the law is rarely enforced, and when it is only allows for 2 year prison terms for murdering a wife/sister/cousin who a man thinks is engaged in a sexual relationship. Fuzbaby (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Namus

This whole section on Namus does not belong in this article, and none of the sources appear to connect this cultural notion to the topic at hand. I have removed it for now. ITAQALLAH 17:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Revision

I was very surprised when I came across this page ‘domestic violence and Islam,’ for it is such a critical and significant topic, yet it does not encompass a lot of topics that are imperative, such as different interpretations of the Qur’an, definition of domestic violence and its implications on Muslim communities. I’m envisioning a major expansion of the article—which in my opinion much needed for an important topic like this—and have already finished writing the rough draft. This includes the definition of domestic violence in relation to Islam community that I mentioned, how Islam affects women in general, and different interpretations of Qur’an—conservative, feministic, and misinterpretation view—. Also, I want to expand and edit the exiting entry, such as treatment of the domestic violence in Qur’an because I think the actual paragraph of verse 34 of An-nisa, which is subjected to different interpretations is needed to be written down so that the readers know exactly what was referred. I also want to add Ahmed Ali’s translation, which translates differently from others, to offer the discrepancies of translations. Ahmed Ali’s translation of word Idribuhunna as ‘‘to forsake, to avoid, or to leave’ should be added under proper and improper occasion of beating to delineate the similar argument. Furthermore, ‘availabilities of remedies for abused wives’ title sounds awkward and I want to change it to ‘Solution.’ Lisa Hajjar in her article “Religion, State Power, and Domestic Violence in Muslim Societies: A Framework for Comparative Analysis” proposes to ask a series of questions in order to analyze if a country is working towards solution against domestic violence such as: Has the state signed and ratified the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and if so, is this authority used effectively to prohibit and punish domestic violence? Are there national laws and/or administrative sanctions prohibiting domestic violence? Also, I want to expand the divorce section under the ‘availabilities of remedies for abused wives’ which requires expansion by wikipedia. I found data of domestic violence in Morocco and Allah’s words in 2:231 from Qur’an about the divorce and how women should be respected and without revenge after the divorce. Also, I want to add the ‘legislature and law enforcement’ section under the ‘Solution’ and mention how it is re-enforced by King Hassan II in Morocco. I know I have a lot of reference to Morocco about the domestic violence, but that’s because it was mentioned a lot in a lot of literatures that I was reading. But it would be great if other people can look up case studies from different countries and add to it. Chloe.s.kwon (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of merging two articles

Regarding merging this article with Islam and Domestic Violence, I'm a little confused why the articles wouldn't be merged (aside from needing to do some clean-up work.)

How about if I take a stab in User:CaroleHenson/Islam and domestic violence and see how that seems to come along? If it seems to be a problem for folks, or there is another issue against merging, no harm done.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see anyone weigh in with concern about merging the article, so I went ahead and copied in the merge article for folks input. I will still continue to work on the table of information about use - and law/remedies available for victims. If there's anyone who is Islamic, it would be great to have a set of eyes check over some of my copy-edits/merging of information, specifically in the Woman in Islam section. Any thoughts about the changes?--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Reintroduction of summarized info

It seems that these edits are reintroduction of topics that are now summarized in the article, which:

• means that there's duplication of points
• the article is longer and less concise
• the piece about Moroccan law is a complete duplicate, see this section, Morocco

To reintroduce the material:

• can we get consensus that is a desired action?
• rather than pasting the information in, merge the salient points and watch placement with the Quran section?

Thanks so much for the interest, it is definitely an interesting topic and I can see why there's interest in adding the additional information.

The question is, will people get lost in the material? And, what can be added to the existing article that is missing that will be helpful to the reader without making the content too long?--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

there is another issue i would like to point out. the huge "incidence of domestic violence among muslims"-section disrupts the flow of the article logically as the section has nothing to do with "islam and domestic violence", but rather "muslims and domestic violence", constituting coatrack. the section has to go. that would render the article more readable and open up space for further expansion.-- mustihussain  22:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

i removed the coatrack-content.-- mustihussain  17:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"The best solutions for stemming the tide of domestic violence..."

The sentence starting with "The best solutions for stemming the tide of domestic violence..." at the end of the introduction section of the article is clearly a point of view, rather than a statement of fact. It could be argued that the "best" solution is education, reducing poverty, or any number of things not mentioned. Even the the most efficacious solution can't be called the "best" without some degree of bias, as there is bound to be opposition to any policy. There is no citation for this sentence. If this was a statement made by some organisation or notable person, it should be attributed to them. Without this, it is an opinion written as fact, regardless of whether it's true or not. I've labelled it with and tags for now. TimofKingsland (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I am going to get rid of this sentence soon, unless someone disagrees or fixes it.TimofKingsland (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

New Addition

Add this → "{{Talkback|Talk:Islam and domestic violence|New addition|ts=~~~~~}}" template on my talk-page, if you're worried I'll not be quick to respond. I repeat, please do it before reverting/erasing my changes. I can prove that these are all legitimate and reliable sources.  Brendon ishere 17:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed your WP:OR content, this is not a blog. Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hadith are regarded by traditional Islamic schools of jurisprudence as important tools for understanding the Quran and in matters of jurisprudence. Sahih Hadith are only second in authority after Qur'an. This article is about Islam and domestic violence and they are authentic Islamic sources..I have not picked them up from blogs. Stop reverting this.  Brendon ishere 12:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The use of primary sources is not a good idea in an article like this one. Please find secondary sources that discuss these hadiths before inclusion. The interpretation of primary sources (especially religious texts) should not be undertaken by Wikipedians, but by scholars. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"The use of primary sources is not a good idea in an article like this one." - Why?
"Please find secondary sources that discuss these hadiths before inclusion." - So you mean in an article about Islam I'm not allowed to include quotations from authentic hadiths? Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material. So, Hadiths are themselves secondary sources gathered by Scholars. So Pardon me, I don't understand what is it that you are trying to achieve here.  Brendon ishere 15:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Policy: "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Here there are untold numbers of Quran verses and hadiths, and the selection and interpretation of them is a matter for religious scholars and other experts. The verses/hadiths could be quoted in the context of analysis by secondary sources, but assembling an article full of whatever hadiths you think are relevant is original synthesis. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"relevant", yes of course they are relevant. This is about "Islam and domestic violence" (between husband and wife) these hadiths discuss just that. Do you mean, I simply need to exclude these hadiths? We cannot insert the whole collection, can we? So we must insert whatever fits the description and are reliable. Now what's your issue with that? I repeat, Hadith are regarded by traditional Islamic schools of jurisprudence as important tools for understanding the Quran and in matters of jurisprudence. They are reliable secondary sources (they are not primary sources).  Brendon ishere 16:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not original synthesis. I did not "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". I quoted the hadiths in full and in proper context.  Brendon ishere 16:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

How on earth is a religious text a "secondary source"? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Quran is the religious text. Hadith are not religious text themselves since they are just narrations of people closest to Muhammad, but not revelation of GOD. Nevertheless they are used in matters of jurisprudence and understanding Quran better. Now you may argue that hadiths are x, y or z and it'll be your POV.

That's what I'm trying to tell you.  Brendon ishere 17:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

So can I just restore my contributions?  Brendon ishere 17:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

There are times when using primary sources are appropriate. You can split hairs about whether the Quran is primary and the Hadith secondary, but for the purposes of Misplaced Pages the Quran and Hadith comprise a collection of primary sources that define Islam. Just as there are scholarly interpretations of the Quran, so too are there scholarly interpretations of Hadith — leading to widely-held acceptances (differing between Shi'ite and Sunni schools) about the relative merits and reliability of specific Hadith.

As an analogy, the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in the Christian Bible, are also secondhand accounts just like any of the Hadith. And the Bible is a primary source for information about Christianity. Similarly the Hadith are primary sources with respect to Islam, so it would be best to drop the line of argument that the Hadith are secondary sources. That argument won't get anywhere, trust me.

Given that the Hadith are primary sources, we can still include them because they are reliable sources for the statements they make. However, quoting any Hadith must be done without any interpretation whatsoever. And that's the problem here. I think it's a great idea to include such quotations, but doing so in the context of an article on domestic violence synthesizes an association between those quotations and domestic violence. That's fine if the association would be obvious and non-controversial to any reader of this article. Otherwise, reliable secondary sources are needed to establish that the association exists. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your comment for the most part, Amatulic. However, I must clarify so that others who read this mind understand,

1. I didn't bring the usability of the sources into question.
2. This whole article is about association between Islam and domestic violence.
3. I didn't interpret them even a bit, I quoted them in their entirety (from an authentic website).

   "That's fine if the association would be obvious and non-controversial to any reader of this article." - I think the connection is pretty obvious and direct. I don't think it should seem anymore "controversial" than what's acceptable in most cases (e.g. Holocaust denial, Piss christ, etc).

I think WP:NPOV says something interesting which applies here. Misplaced Pages summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. Any interpretation should not carry more weight than it deserves. Now, if there are any other interpretation of these hadiths (apart from which I have presented) I am fine with their inclusion too. Include both, that's our job to present every valid information to readers.

“While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Misplaced Pages policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship.”  Brendon ishere 18:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Check this version and tell me if it has any unreliable or exaggerated claim. I will try to provide new references and/or validate my claim, or accept its deletion.  Brendon ishere 19:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, the problem is the context. In the absence of any discussion of these Hadith by reliable secondary sources, this is just quote mining.

Some hadith are considered unreliable by Muslims, and there is no indication whether these are relevant from that standpoint. Without any secondary source discussion, it appears that the quotations were gathered together to give the appearance (i.e. synthesize a conclusion) that Islam promotes domestic violence.

Non-Christians, by analogy, often like to quote the Bible to demonstrate contradictions and moral bankruptcy, but a collection of quotes isn't really meaningful without reliable sources weighing in on relevancy and the proper context.

It would be far better to look at the numerous secondary sources available on the subject. Searching scholar.google.com for "hadith" and "domestic violence" yields a treasure trove of reliable sources; unfortunately one can see only abstracts or the first pages, so going to a library would be the way to obtain them. Here and there one can find full articles, such as this one — see page 3, which contains an interesting discussion about one ostensibly peaceful hadith about lightly tapping one's wife, and how that hadith tends to be applied.

If the reliable secondary sources covering this subject are so numerous, it makes little sense to include primary source quotations instead of the discussions available in the secondary sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"Some hadith are considered unreliable by Muslims" - and theory of evolution is considered unreliable by Many. So what's your point?

"there is no indication whether these are relevant from that standpoint." There is no indication whether intelligent design is relevant from any standpoint.

Yet, we have room for both in wikipedia. Holocaust denial is controversial yet we have enough room to accommodate that too. How can anyone possibly say the we can't include authentic hadith in articles that deal with "Islam" and its doctrine?

Besides, hadith are pretty self-explanatory don't you think? What more can we do? In hadith Aisha is clearly saying that Muhammad "struck me on the chest which caused me pain". What more context do you need?

Hadith are clearly saying that Muhammad stated "A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife", what quote mining are you referring to (see below for the whole hadith)?

In Al-Tabari Muhammad says about women that "they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves", what context are you referring to? Hadiths clearly say In Muhammad's presence his companions slapped his wives on their neck.

This needless search for context has no end. It clearly says that it's okay. I'm including the quotes from hadth that were included. Tell me what context are we missing here and if it were so significant why the collectors of Hadith had left it out?  Brendon ishere 20:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to know in what reliable source does it say that Hadith is a primary source?  Brendon ishere 20:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The text should not be restored. A centuries-old narration of what Muhammad said/did (I know this is what a hadith is) is a primary source. See WP:ISLAM: "The Qur'an and hadith are considered primary sources but they shouldn't be quoted in support of a particular argument unless also backed up by a cite to a reliable secondary source." Please inquire at the reliable sources noticeboard or WT:ISLAM if you'd like further input about appropriate sourcing. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I don't think that religious texts are "self-explanatory", especially when originally Arabic and read in English translation. This is why secondary sources are needed. If your view of what the hadiths mean (whatever this "self-explanatory" view is) is accurate, then it will be presumably also be reflected in secondary sources. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Brendon, I sympathise with you. I'm sure you added the quotes in good faith, and you obviously did a lot of work. I know it would be disappointing that this work has been removed. Unfortunately, as the other editors have pointed out, the work you've done doesn't follow Misplaced Pages's policies. I'm not sure from your answers that you quite understand why using these quotes in the manner presented is against policy, so I'll expand on what some of the other editors have said. To give an analogy - it would be just as inappropriate to go and and insert all these quotations into the Culture and menstruation or Gender roles in Christianity articles. Adding those quotes — even though they are in the bible, their meaning seems clear, and they appear to be within the scope of those articles — could give the reader a skewed perspective of mainstream Christianity's view of menstruation today. Without a reliable secondary or tertiary source saying the quotes are examples of why Christians believe menstruating women are unclean (or something similar), they are being used out of context to convey an opinion, even though the quotes themselves are within the context of the articles. Including the text surrounding the quotes doesn't provide the necessary context either. Context in the sense I and the other editors are referring to would come from the relevance of those passages to real-world Christian beliefs and practices surrounding menstruation, not whether they are legitimate passages of the bible referring to menstruation. In the same sense, the argument about the context of the quotes you used is about the lack of a citation affirming their real-world relevance to Islamic beliefs and practices surrounding domestic violence, not whether they are legitimate quotations from hadith concerning domestic violence. This relevance needs to be affirmed by a cited reliable secondary or tertiary source.

Religious texts are open to interpretation, and are often contradictory. On top of this, the relevance of individual passages from religious texts to the practice of the religion varies — between passages and followers, and over time. Just because a passage seems relevant, and its meaning obvious, doesn't mean that's necessarily the case (see the article on 1 Timothy 2:12: I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.). That's why reliable secondary or tertiary sources are necessary to ascertain their relevance and meaning. If using the quotes you've found in the context of this article is readily accepted, these sources should be easy to find — a large amount of academic material has been published about the role of women in Islam. To quote Jimbo Wales:

• If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
• If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides.
• If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Misplaced Pages is not the place for original research. — (from here via here)

I think you might have suspected that your edits could be controversial, given that you started the conversation saying "If any one takes issue with one of these inclusions please let me know here, before reverting the changes I can prove that these are all legitimate and reliable sources". I'm sure you've added the quotes to expand the information in the article, not to cause controversy or violate Misplaced Pages's policy, but in the future, if you believe that an edit you are proposing might be controversial or against policy, may I suggest you discuss it on the talk page before doing all the work? Otherwise you risk having the same thing happen again. The work you've already done need not be lost though. While it's not suitable for Misplaced Pages as it is, there are many other places to publish this material on the internet that do not have policies like Misplaced Pages's. If you feel some of these quotes are indispensable to this article, please find reliable secondary or tertiary sources that affirm their use in this context (not just the use of hadith in general). However, if you do this, please cut down the number of quotations to the most relevant ones (see WP:QUOTEFARM). If you're still not sure how your recent edits violate policy, try having a look at WP:ISLAMOR.

I hope this clears things up for you. Please don't restore the material as it is again, unless there is a consensus to do so. At the moment, you are the only editor arguing for its inclusion. — TimofKingsland (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hadiths that were included

I have done my part by providing a Sahih hadith that is widely subscribed to by Muslim and Non-Muslim scholars and Islamic Jurists. What more do we need? My point is, what we have is sufficient for inclusion.

Narrated Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab: Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat Allah's handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you.

— Sunan Abu Dawood, 11:2141

Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.

— Sunan Abu Dawood, 11:2142

Narrated `Abdullah bin Zama: That he heard the Prophet delivering a sermon, and he mentioned the shecamel and the one

who hamstrung it. Allah's Apostle recited:−− 'When, the most wicked man among them went forth (to hamstrung the she−camel).' (9
1.1
2.) Then he said, "A tough man whose equal was rare and who enjoyed the protection of his people, like Abi Zama went forth to (hamstrung) it."
The Prophet then mentioned about the women (in his sermon). “It is not wise for anyone of you to lash his wife like a slave, for he might sleep with her the same evening. ”

Then he advised them not to laugh when somebody breaks wind and said, "Why should anybody laugh at what he himself does?"

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:62:132

Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur’an.

— Al-Tabari (translation of Ismail Kurbanhusein Poonawala), Vol. 9, p. 113

...He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was 'A'isha who had narrated this:

Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) 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 struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?— Sahih Muslim, 4:2127

...Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) came and sought permission to see Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). He found people sitting at his door and none amongst them had been granted permission, but it was granted to Abu Bakr and he went in. Then came 'Umar and he sought permission and it was granted to him, and he found Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) sitting sad and silent with his wives around him.

He (Hadrat 'Umar) said: I would say something which would make the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) laugh, so he said:

Messenger of Allah, I wish you had seen (the treatment meted out to) the daughter of Khadija when you asked me some money, and I got up and slapped her on her neck.

Allah's Messenger (mav peace be upon him) laughed and said:

They are around me as you see, asking for extra money.

Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) then got up went to 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) and slapped her on the neck, and 'Umar stood up before Hafsa and slapped her saying:

You ask Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) which he does not possess.

They said:

By Allah, we do not ask Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) for anything he does not possess. Then he withdrew from them for a month or for twenty−nine days.

Then this verse was revealed to him:" Prophet: Say to thy wives... for a mighty reward" (xxxiii. 28). He then went first to 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) and said:

I want to propound something to you, 'A'isha, but wish no hasty reply before you consult your parents. — Sahih Muslim, 9:3506

--What context are you missing here?  Brendon ishere 20:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, what is missing are reliable sources that claim these particular hadith are used as justification for domestic violence among Muslims. It may be self-evident to you, but that conclusion is basically WP:SYNTHESIS without reliable sources to back it up. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

But, no one is making the claim that "these particular hadith are used as justification for domestic violence". So why do we need reliable sources for something we are not claiming in the first place?? Please tell me this.  Brendon ishere 06:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see my answer in the above section — TimofKingsland (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind efforts, but I didn't find the answer I am looking for.  Brendon ishere 09:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Having the quotes in the article is in itself a statement that these quotes are important to the understanding of the subject matter. If the quotes aren't relevant, they shouldn't be there. If you're claiming they are, cite a secondary or tertiary source claiming the same. — TimofKingsland (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

If i may be so bold (don't mistake my politeness for sarcasm) I think you're asking for a reliable source for essentially proving the reliability of another source. If I provide one source you may simply reject it on the grounds of being unreliable or you'll ask me to provide another reliable source that proves the previous source was reliable. This cycle has no end to it.

Hadith are talking about "domestic violence", because they are talking about Muhammad and his views about domestic violence. Since Muhammad was the prophet of Islam, Muhammad's interpretation counts. There is not scope of interpretation, no matter how forcibly one claims it. The hadiths are pretty self-explanatory. And if you are still not satisfied, leave everything as they are I will try to find some secondary source and then maybe we will discuss it here.  Brendon ishere 12:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

References

1. Al. Tabari (1990). Volume IX: The Last Years of the Prophet: The Formation of the State A.D. 630-632/A.H. 8-11. SUNY press. p. 113. ISBN 978-0-7914-1071-4. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

New sources

AL-NAWAWI (Reliance of the Traveller)

Nawawi is one of the great Islamic jurisprudence scholars. He was a 13th century Shafi’i scholar. His work was used by Ahmad Naqib in writing "Reliance of the Traveller". This book is a "Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law". From the section m10.12, "Dealing with a Rebellious Wife", page 540,

"When a husband notices signs of rebelliousness in his wife (nushuz), whether in words, as when she answers him coldly when she used to do so politely, or he asks her to come to bed and she refuses, contrary to her usual habit; or whether in acts, as when he finds her averse to him when she was previously kind and cheerful), he warns her in words (without keeping from her or hitting her, for it may be that she has an excuse. The warning could be to tell her, "fear Allah concerning the rights you owe to me," or it could be to explain that rebelliousness nullifies his obligation to support her and give her a turn amongst other wives, or it could be to inform her, "Your obeying me is religiously obligatory"). If she commits rebelliousness, he keeps from sleeping (and having sex) with her without words, and may hit her, but not in a way that injures her, meaning he may not (bruise her), break bones, wound her, or cause blood to flow. (It is unlawful to strike another’s face.) He may hit her whether she is rebellious only once or whether more than once, though a weaker opinion holds that he may hot hit her unless there is repeated rebelliousness."

If the wife does not fulfill one of the above-mentioned obligations, she is termed "rebellious" (nashiz), and the husband takes the following steps to correct matters:

(a) admonition and advice, by explaining the unlawfulness of rebellion, its harmful effect on married life, and by listening to her viewpoint on the matter;

(b) if admonition is ineffectual, he keeps from her by not sleeping in bed with her, by which both learn the degree to which they need each other;

(c) if keeping from her is ineffectual, it is permissible for him to hit her if he believes that hitting her will bring her back to the right path, though if he does not think so, it is not permissible. His hitting her may not be in a way that injures her, and is his last recourse to save the family.

(d) if the disagreement does not end after all this, each partner chooses an arbitrator to solve the dispute by settlement, or divorce.

COMMENTARY OF BAIDAWI (source)

Baidawi was a Persian Shafi’l scholar who was so respected that he was referred to as "The Judge".

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others

Men are the maintainers over women just as rulers are over their populous, and Allah gave two reasons for this exaltation:

One is due to the completeness of men’s brain over women’s deficiency, their management skills, and their extra requirement of worship; this is why men were chosen to be prophets; religious leaders; rulers; and enforcers of commandments; legal witnesses in a court of law; fighters in the cause of Allah; receivers of more share of the inheritance and in control of divorce. The other is their duty to pay dowry to their wives and provide for them.

It was told that Sa’ad bin Al Rabee’a wife became disobedient so he smacked her. Then her father went to the messenger (saw) to file his complaint, wherein the messenger ruled in her favor. Then this verse was sent down, at which point the messenger said: we wanted something but Allah wanted another, and Allah knows better.

and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion

if you fear their disobedient

Admonish them

Then advise them and leave them alone in the sleeping-places Do not share bed with them, or do not face them when sleeping on the same bed or do not have intercourse with them.

and beat them

Means in a non severe manner.

And these three options have to be followed in the same order

Does Islam Allow Wife Beating?

Commenting on this issue, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former President of the Islamic Society of North America, states

"According to Quran the relationship between the husband and wife should be based on mutual love and kindness. Allah says: "And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect." (Quran: Ar-Rum 21)

The Holy Quran urges husbands to treat their wives with kindness. (In the event of a family dispute, Quran exhorts the husband to treat his wife kindly and not to overlook her positive aspects). Allah Almighty says: “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.” (Quran: An-Nisaa 19)

It is important that a wife recognizes the authority of her husband in the house. He is the head of the household, and she is supposed to listen to him. But the husband should also use his authority with respect and kindness towards his wife. If there arises any disagreement or dispute among them, then it should be resolved in a peaceful manner. Spouses should seek the counsel of their elders and other respectable family members and friends to batch up the rift and solve the differences.

However, in some cases a husband may use some light disciplinary action in order to correct the moral infraction of his wife, but this is only applicable in extreme cases and it should be resorted to if one is sure it would improve the situation. However, if there is a fear that it might worsen the relationship or may wreak havoc on him or the family, then he should avoid it completely.

Quran is very clear on this issue. Almighty Allah says: "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 to guard. As to those women on whose part you 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 and Great (above you all). If you fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family and the other from hers. If they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation; for Allah has full knowledge and is acquainted with all things." (Quran: An-Nisaa 34-35)

It is important to read the section fully. One should not take part of the verse and use it to justify one's own misconduct. This verse neither permits violence nor condones it. It guides us to ways to handle delicate family situation with care and wisdom. The word "beating" is used in the verse, but it does not mean "physical abuse". The Prophet (p.b.u.h.) explained it "dharban ghayra mubarrih" which means "a light tap that leaves no mark". He further said that face must be avoided. Some other scholars are of the view that it is no more than a light touch by siwak, or toothbrush.

— Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former President of the Islamic Society of North America, source

In Arab and Islamic countries, domestic violence is not yet considered a major concern, although its frequency is quite high. Surveys carried out in those countries have shown that the ratio of women who have been exposed to violence by their husbands is at least one in three women.

In Turkey, violence is perceived as a discipline tool, which lead to legitimization of violence within the family and society that reproduces and camouflages violence. There are legal provisions accepting the legitimacy of domestic violence. In Turkish Criminal Law, there is no special provision for domestic violence. It is easier for a woman to complain to the formal authorities about violence in the street than about domestic violence.

Because of the traditional role of woman in Islam, women are more likely become victims of domestic violence and are less likely to complain.

Women tend to accept violence as something normal. This might be related to the fact that men culturally posses women, that manhood is associated with violence, that sexual roles are rigidly differentiated, and that violence is widely accepted as a form of behavior. The Islamic rules which prescribe obedience to women may also contribute to this, since women consider opposing their husband as a sin.

— United states National Institutes of Health

(emphases are my own addition to highlight germane points and to be duly corrected before inclusion)

Discussion about the sources

I think that these would be appropriate references for the article. Al-Nawawi is already cited once in the article (current reference 24). However, you need to ensure that you are using a reliable translation and not cherry-picking Islamic scholars' opinions to advance a point of view. It appears that you have pasted this text (including the intros about the scholars) from Answeringislam.org, a polemic anti-Islam website. This is where even a tertiary source could be useful to put this scholarship into question - can you find a recent scholarly book of some sort that describes these scholars' influence and authority? (I'm imagining a book published by a university press about Islam and domestic violence, or something along those lines.) Also note that even if you have appropriate sources, it is not appropriate to simply cut and paste into the article. Look at how Al-Nawawi is incorporated into the article now as an example of an appropriate use of sources. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The translation?

"However, you need to ensure that you are using a reliable translation and not cherry-picking Islamic scholars'" - I know. I am working on it.  Brendon ishere 14:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This article by people who appear to have some sort of relevant training (note: I haven't read it so reserve the right to change my mind) would be a better starting point than answeringislam if you are intending to improve the article rather than simply make it conform to your point of view. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

More possible sources: , , , , , , , . The appropriate way to look for sources is to start somewhere neutral (say Google Books or Google Scholar), type in keywords, and see what reliable sources come up, rather than starting at an unreliable website with a distinct point of view. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right. There are many reliable sources.

If needed, I'll purchase some books by Islamic scholars and read them, don't worry. I'll get some way to prove what I'm saying. Nothing is going anywhere. But, I see your point.

Although I don't agree that it's a knock-down argument, I see the argument is valid.

The same way intelligent design is still valid.

It is what it is. I am working on it.  Brendon ishere 14:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know much about "answeringislam". So I won't comment about that, but I know this much that mentioning it would do more harm to me, than good. Don't worry I won't try to "push" the article towards my POV. I said, I'm working it. That's all I said. If you could only focus on what information I post and what references I provide on this page, I would be grateful (accepting or rejecting that request is, of course, up to you).  Brendon ishere 14:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, you provided text copy-pasted from answeringislam, which was a red flag! (From their "about us" page: "We want that Muslims come to faith because they become convinced of the truth of the Gospel through the soundness of the material we present, and we want our Christian brothers and sisters to develop their convictions about their own faith and about Islam for the same reasons: Because it is true." Clearly not a good starting point.) I tried to steer you in a more productive direction in response to what you posted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I only said, if you could only focus on what information I post and what references I provide on this page, I would be grateful. So, I don't know where you're taking this conversation. I am not a fan of answeringislam, I googled "wife-beating in Islam" the page showed up. That's all. I knew from its name that it must be a website of a competitive faith. I don't care about your criticisms of "answeringislam". Did I cite answering Islam website as a reference-link? Nope. I simply picked the quotations from that website. I told you if needed, I'll purchase some books by Islamic scholars and read them, don't worry. Hence, let's not digress too far off the topic. BTW, is my latest addition in the sources, trust-worthy enough? Or am I trying all this in vain?  Brendon ishere 18:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that the Siddiqi quote is a good source, at least for the view of a notable member of the Muslim community. I still think it would be even better if you could start with tertiary sources to put all these views into perspective in terms of their importance and whether they are mainstream or minority opinions. This source for example might be useful in that regard. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The bolding, however, is not original to the quote. There also appear to be at least some errors in the transcription of the quote. Also, the original source seems to be IslamOnline.com, where this fatwa was submitted in 2004 by Siddiqi. The polemic sites also attribute the quote to IslamOnline.com. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

"tertiary sources " - Initially whatever I posted was "primary source" so people told me to find secondary source, now that I have got some they are anything but okay. I already predicted this would happen I think you're asking for a reliable source for essentially proving the reliability of another source. If I provide one source you may simply reject it on the grounds of being unreliable or you'll ask me to provide another reliable source that proves the previous source was reliable. This cycle has no end to it.

"The bolding, however, is not original to the quote." - yes. Of course, I'm not here to be poked and prodded like a third grade student. You very well know why I emphasized it. I emphasized it to show you what it says about the clarity of Quran on this issue.

"IslamOnline" - again, did I cite IslamOnline as a reference-link? And this doesn't look to me like a polemic website. Why are you digressing off the topic again and again? Former President of the ISNA is a prominent figure and not to mention a well-versed Muslim. If you're not interested in including anything that delivers the truth about Islam, then just say so and I may go somewhere else.
"There also appear to be at least some errors in the transcription of the quote." - then help me fix it or fix it yourself. I should humbly remind you, incessantly complaining about minuscule things is not going to help improve Misplaced Pages, am I wrong? I need your constructive support if we're going to improve Misplaced Pages (it doesn't mean that you're not giving me that support right now).  Brendon ishere 10:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't some of these findings (which I have mentioned) directly corroborate the hadiths I have posted?  Brendon ishere 12:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If a secondary source is hundreds of years old, it may have to be put in context by other tertiary sources. Misplaced Pages has high standards for appropriate sources, particularly in contentious articles, so you will just have to deal with this. Re IslamOnline, it's not a polemic site. It's a popular site for Muslims to learn about Islam. I am just pointing you to the actual original source of the quote. It's always best to track down where things were written originally, particularly if a quote is being reprinted by sources tending to criticize/misrepresent the views of their opponents. (I go through this exercise whenever I'm writing articles--I'm not just picking on your sources.) Re the transcription errors, if you just copy/paste from the original source they will be fixed. There's one sentence at least where the initial "the" is omitted and there is an omitted or added quotation mark--I don't remember precisely. If you simply copy-paste along with quotation marks, rather than adding bolding to editorialize, then you won't have this problem. Do you have any proposed changes you'd like to make to the article text based on the sources that you have found? No matter what the source, it is not appropriate to copy/paste huge chunks of text because that is not appropriate encyclopedic style--but if you suggest actual edits, then other editors can help evaluate them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"It's always best to track down where things were written originally" -  I agree, sometimes it's necessary. But sometimes just pointing out the original source of the quote, may be needless and digressive. That I am saying.
But apart from that, you have a good point, which I won't deny. I see that no matter how trust-worthy hadiths may seem to me, they are not enough. I get it. My bad, I forgot verifiability is the ultimate threshold.

"I go through this exercise whenever I'm writing articles--I'm not just picking on your sources" - thank you for clarifying.

"if you suggest actual edits, then other editors can help evaluate them." - Please elucidate! I may want to "suggest actual edits" and want to have others' evaluation, but first clearly tell me what does that mean and entail? I don't want to edit the article myself. I would prefer if someone more experienced than me, did it with me or helped me do it.  Brendon ishere 17:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you see in the article that needs improvement, and how would you fix it? I'm envisioning that you put text here that you would like to insert into the article, or that you would like to replace portions of the article text with. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

See, I would like my new sources section to be evaluated properly (I'll keep on adding new sources here in this talk page but not in the article), and subsequently, if needed with other reliable sources, inserted in the article. But, given that I'm still a relatively inexperienced editor and a learner here, I would prefer if it was done by or under the supervision of more experienced user(s). I would like at least their feedback before proceeding any further. You may utilize the new sources as you deem fit. It's apparently not the right time for me to get in this action . Nevertheless, I'm preparing.  Brendon ishere 11:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Brief summary of what we have got so far

1. Quran, the clear truth and the best explanation sent down to make everything clear, says if a wife is disobedient to her husband, her husband may first admonish here, second refuse to share bed with her and finally beat/hit her.
   (Note: 38:44 even describes a way to beat your wife and Ibn kathir corroborates this.)
   opposing claim:
   1. Quran doesn't even say "beat" in 4:34,
   2. Quran's translation was wrong till now. From Yusuf ali to Pickthall to Muhsin khan to Al-Hilali/Khan to Ibn Kathir to Rodwell to Arberry, all were completely wrong about Islam.
   3. Daraba can be used to mean separate from them, so here "idribo-hunna" must mean "separate from them" (although there is another phrase اضربوا عنهن Adriboo Anhunna that means "separate from them"). Anybody who says otherwise is just sorely mistaken.
2. Quranic verses with the verb form iḍ'rib:
   Quran 7:160 and 2:60 :
   iḍ'rib — “Strike”
   Quran 2:73:
   iḍ'ribūhu — “Strike him”
   Quran 8:12 :
   fa-iḍ'ribū-fawqa — “so strike above” and
   wa-iḍ'ribū — “and strike”
   
   opposing claim:
   1. You're cherry-picking, they are out of context.
3. Several Sahih (authentic) hadiths, which are subscribed to by millions of muslims (including jurists and scholars) around the world, are claiming that Muhammad hit his wife Aisha, let others hit his wives in his presence and eventually allowed beating wife, although he had first prohibited it.
   opposing claim:
   1. Including hadiths is a great idea but Hadiths are primary sources
   2. don't tell the correct/complete story in their proper context.
   3. Find secondary sources. Hadith are not secondary sources (even though hadiths are not religious text themselves and are just narrations of people who were closest to Muhammad about Muhammad, they are not secondary sources) because WP:ISLAM says so.
   4. It's tantamount to quote mining if we include these hadiths and let the readers decide.
4. Several prominent scholars (from past to present) are claiming that "Quran is clear about this" and it allows for beating a disobedient wife, provided that first two options of admonishing and refusal to share beds with them are exhausted.
   opposing claim:
   1. These are good sources but the websites (which I didn't mention in the first-place) are unreliable.
   2. Translations may not be reliable. (as though those Scholars who say Islam doesn't allow beating are intrinsically more reliable.)
   3. I still think it would be even better if you could start with tertiary sources to put all these views into perspective in terms of their importance and whether they are mainstream or minority opinions.
5. UAE supreme Islamic court explicitly says beating is allowed provided that the abuser doesn't injure his wife.
   opposing claim:
   1. Yes, but where is the association of those judgments with the specific hadith you quoted?

Note: this is basically asking for a reliable source for the claim that is yet to be made because no one is making the claim that "these specific hadith are used as justification for domestic violence"..this article is about Islamic doctrine and domestic violence.

Come on now. It doesn't get any clearer than this.  Brendon ishere 10:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

References

1. "Quran Dictionary Verse (7:160) - Word by Word". Quran Online. Retrieved 12 May 2012.
2. "Quran Dictionary Verse (2:60) - Word by Word". Quran Online. Retrieved 12 May 2012.
3. "Quran Dictionary Verse (2:73) - Word by Word". Quran Online. Retrieved 12 May 2012.
4. "Quran Dictionary Verse (8:12) - Word by Word". Quran Online. Retrieved 12 May 2012.

Marital rape in Islam

Does Islam recognize forced sex in marriage as a form of abuse? If so, does it advocate for its prosecution under any law? Does the concept of marital rape exist under any shape?188.25.159.251 (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Islam and domestic violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070414164755/http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/sau-summary-eng to http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/sau-summary-eng
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110813095734/http://www.ncdsv.org/images/Muslim%20Power%20and%20Control%20Wheel.pdf to http://www.ncdsv.org/images/Muslim%20Power%20and%20Control%20Wheel.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible WP:NPOV Violation

This passage ] isn't NPOV. It should probably be removed, but for such a controversial issue, a talk page discussion is probably the way to go. Any thoughts? @Al-Andalusi:. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: I removed the 2 paragraphs on the grounds that they are WP:OR. For example, "Muhammad believed women were inferior to men with regards to intelligence" is based on WP:Primary sources which is problematic on its own. Further, the sources make no reference whatsoever to domestic violence to begin with, which makes their inclusion here a violation of WP:SYNTH because there is an implied conclusion (not supported by the sources) that domestic violence happens in Islam because Muhammad believed that women were inferior to men. The end of the paragraph with the "woman is considered to have been created for his pleasure" claim is uncited, and and is a false one as Muslims unanimously believe that human beings were created for the sole purpose of worshiping Allah. As for my other edit ("Violence against non-Muslim women and girls"), this is Counter-jihad propaganda and the link to Islam is unfounded and does not hold up to scrutiny, not to mention the abysmal sources. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jason from nyc:, what is your defense for the restoration of the sexual assault claims to an article on domestic violence and Islam? where do you see the connection? Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Domestic violence is violence against women. It is about male supremacy and the wider context is relevant. Please restore the consensus until a new consensus is reached per WP:BRD. Please do not edit war. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with the removal of the paragraphs that cited only religious texts; this was pure original research.

However, Al-Andalusi's arguments against the paragraph about violence against women are mostly groundless. Sources like The Guardian and The New York Times are not "abysmal" sources, they are reliable sources. The reports in those sources are factual, and easily verifiable that countries like Sweden and Germany have experienced a disproportionate number of incidents of rape perpetrated by Muslims, and those countries are trying to do something about this. The deleted paragraph doesn't claim that a culture of rape is a characteristic of Islam, although including it in this article does have that implication, I'll admit. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jason from nyc: Not according to Misplaced Pages: "Domestic violence is a pattern of behavior which involves violence or other abuse by one person against another in a domestic setting, such as in marriage or cohabitation". Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Amatulic: The paragraph has Counterjihad and Eurotrash propaganda written all over it.

1. The described sexual assault/rape claims are not reported as domestic violence. Again, why is this content here?
2. The title "Violence against non-Muslim women and girls" is statement that claims non-Muslims are particularly targeted among possible targets.
3. The first source is an opinion titled: "Sweden Opened Its Doors To Muslim Immigration, Today It’s The Rape Capital Of The West". This IS an abysmal source. It correlates between the rise in the number of reported sexual assaults and the increase in "Muslim" immigration. A disputed claim. Rape in Sweden goes into more analysis.
4. "Muslims have also targeted children in sex trafficking schemes and child rape." Cites The Guardian, but the article makes no such claim. The word "Muslim" is not even there in the article.
5. NY Times on immigrants being taught wisdom from Norway. And this is relevant here because?
6. Breitbart is a crappy source.

I don't see any good intentions behind including this content here. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, @Amatulic:, that the New York Times article is substantial and it is used several times through out the paragraph. The cultural context discussed in the article is important to understand the general cultural factors that have importance to our article. Al-Andalusi does have a point with the Guardian article. While the individuals mentioned are Muslims, the Guardian article does not connect that fact with the behavior involved. A better source would be needed. PS, Your last concern about miss-implications is valid. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jason from nyc: No consensus was ever reached, and the content remained largely unchanged. Let me make it clear to you Jason, if you are to insert your Counterjihad propaganda crap again into this article, then you leave us with no option other than to report you to ANI. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You do not have veto-power. Your argument, that this type of background material shouldn't be in the article, wasn't accepted. Several people agree with me that it should. I agreed with you that the Bretibart source isn't reliable and the Guardian source doesn't support the given statement. But we have a consensus for the rest. Stop edit-warring and accept the consensus. And please stop the personal attacks. They don't intimidate me but they create a hostile atmosphere that might discourage new editors from contributing. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• What's reliable here is a NYT article, which is misrepresented in the section, and a Guardian article, which has nothing to say whatsoever on the topic. The offending paragraphs (they used to be even worse) are not neutral, they suggest that Islam is a rape-friendly culture and that Europe is being flooded by rapists, and they lack reliable sources to verify the statements made. Also, I see no consensus for anything whatsoever; edit summaries by Amatulic and others merely indicate that "there seem to be reliable sources", if I may paraphrase. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies:, You don't agree that Amatulić, Flyer22 Reborn and myself are in agreement on the need for this section? We also find it needs to be rewritten to avoid miss-implications. Are you agreeing with Al-Andalusi that the New York Times citation has no relevance for our article? I want to understand clearly your objections. I thought we had an agreement on the need for a section but that it required more work. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Misimplications? I don't see a need to rewrite what was cut for all the right reasons. I am not really interested in parsing the arguments of others here, and I don't see there is consensus for a need for such a section. In general, if we're going to have content of this kind, this possibly inflammatory kind, in an encyclopedic article, we should require strong sourcing--that means books and academic articles, not a few newspaper articles from here or there. And note the comments below. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• The whole NPOV, Islamophobia, RS stuff aside, how is the paragraph in question at all about domestic violence? Only one sentence about spousal rape and honor killings seems remotely related. On top of all the other concerns, the paragraph is COATRACK. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• • - Completely agree with Drmies and EvergreenFir above. Non-neutral paragraph which misrepresents the only reliable sources it uses and is tangential at best to the subject of the article. — Rhododendrites \\ 20:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with Drmies etc. Section was POV synthesis which used unreliable sources and misrepresented the one reliable source. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, the entire "women in islam" section has little, if any, connection to domestic violence except insofar as to insinuate that there is a connection. It would be one thing if it were actually a summary of women in Islam given as background/context, but instead it selectively highlights e.g. clothing, leaving us to assume that one is connected to the other. This may be unpopular, but given we have a pretty well developed article on the subject, I removed the section save the {{main}} links pending the addition of an adequate, less contentious summary (ideally one which attempts a connection between the role of women in Islam and domestic violence). — Rhododendrites \\ 21:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Islam-related articles
• Mid-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• C-Class Gender studies articles
• Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• C-Class Women's History articles
• Mid-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles