Talk:Women in Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Women in Islam article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Changes 2 Slavery 3 Being bold 4 Beating totally prohibited? 5 Sources 6 Inheritence 7 Sources 8 In relation to men 9 Adultery/rape cases in Islam 10 Gender equality in Islam 11 Rights as mothers in Islam 12 Is it compulsory for women to cover their heads? 13 al-Hibri 14 Aminz' reversion 15 POV in the first sentence 16 Lead 17 Absurdly soft language, POV 18 Women as prisoners of war 19 clothing or other signs as wives 20 Closed society 21 How women are really treated in Islam 22 Restriction of movement

[edit] Changes

Text in "quotes" is changed. TruthSpreader^Talk 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

???TruthSpreader^Talk 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Statements like "in the eyes of God" are POV, as Qur'an does not say that. It says clearly, from one being. It means, by their creation or by nature. TruthSpreader^Talk 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

???TruthSpreader^Talk 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on slavery was taken from a source, you cannot remove one of them, just because you don't like it. TruthSpreader^Talk 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

???TruthSpreader^Talk 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Some argue that this command shows that Qur'an does not want to make difficulties for women" , this statement was sourced. then why it was removed. TruthSpreader^Talk 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

???? TruthSpreader^Talk 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What is "highway robbery"?TruthSpreader^Talk 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

???? TruthSpreader^Talk 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Women as sex slaves" is just showing one aspect of slavery, while article is more general, (unless you have something else in your mind). TruthSpreader^Talk 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

???? TruthSpreader^Talk 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I need solid answers to above questions. TruthSpreader^Talk 19:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that if your need is critical you leave the comment on the user's talk page. (You only waited two hours...) Also, you should not have reverted all of Lao Wai's changes, because some were fixing broken English, and were good and uncontroversial changes. (Like "Qur'an" to "The Qur'an" Thankfully it appears that Osmanja has done further English fixes as well. Please be careful in reverting edits with multiple parts, you may be reverting things which are not unjustified. - BalthCat 21:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slavery

I have a cold, I feel rotten, and this is not the moment to get involved in an edit war. However, I will just take this opportunity to express my incredulity that Truthspread is busily trying to absolve Islam of all blame wrt slavery, insisting, as if it were a matter of fact, that the intent of the Qur'an was to gradually abolish slavery. That's an opinion, not a fact.

I'm feeling grumpy about it because I'm editing a late Victorian book about Africa with copious references to Arab slave traders. Most Muslims seem to have thought that slavery was just fine and dandy. I don't know why Truthspreader's version of the message of the Qur'an should get special treatment. Zora 05:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is an opinion but is held by some academic scholars. Lewis tells this interesting story:

"In 1842 the British Consul General in Morocco, as part of his government's worldwide endeavor to bring about the abolition of slavery or at least the curtailment of the slave trade, made representations to the sultan of that country asking him what measures, if any, he had taken to accomplish this desirable objective. The sultan replied, in a letter expressing evident astonishment, that "the traffic in slaves is a matter on which all sects and nations have agreed from the time of the sons of Adam . . . up to this day." The sultan continued that he was "not aware of its being prohibited by the laws of any sect, and no one need ask this question, the same being manifest to both high and low and requires no more demonstration than the light of day.

The sultan was only slightly out of date concerning the enactment of laws to abolish or limit the slave trade, and he was sadly right in his general historic perspective. The institution of slavery had indeed been practiced from time immemorial. It existed in all the ancient civilizations of Asia, Africa, Europe, and pre-Columbian America. It had been accepted and even endorsed by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as other religions of the world."

John L Esposito states that "Much of Qur'an's reforms consists of regulations or moral guidance that limit or redefine rather than prohibit or replace existing practices."

But Schimmel and Azizah Y. al-Hibri for example argue that Islam's regulations theoretically would abolish slavery. Islam's reforms seriously limited the supply of new slaves, Lewis points out. In the early days of Islam due to rapid conquest and expansion, a plentiful supply of new slaves were brought, but as the frontiers were gradually stabilized, this supply dwindled to a mere trickle.' The prisoners of later wars between Muslims and Christians were commonly ransomed or exchanged. --Aminz 05:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. TruthSpreader, Zora is a very respected editor and is an scholar for herself. You'll find her quite neutral and helpful :). --Aminz 05:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I definitely respect Zora as she is one of the senior wikipedians here. I don't mean to imply that Islam abolished slavery, rather Islam gave slaves option to get their freedom from their masters, if they want. This is based on an opinion, which I have already referenced. If you think that my language is implying something else, feel free to change, or if you like to add something from Islam and Slavery to add other opinions, it is upto you. But the only problem is that this article is not about "Women as slaves in Muslim societies" rather it is an article on "Women as slaves in Islam". Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 07:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, other groups that kept slaves freed them. There were free blacks even in the southern US before the civil war. Greek and Roman freedmen were ubiquitious. I'm finding it hard to think of a slave-owning society that didn't also have emancipation. Zora 08:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Lewis points out that the Islamic legislation "brought two major changes to ancient slavery which were to have far-reaching effects: "the presumption of freedom" and "the ban on the enslavement of free persons except in strictly defined circumstances". Muslim jurists defined slavery as an exceptional condition, with the general rule being a presumption of freedom (al-'asl huwa 'l-hurriya — "The basic principle is liberty") for a person if his origins were unknown. --Aminz 08:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, Islamic practice of slavery was much more humane. Lewis says: "In the Islamic empire, the humanitarian tendency of the Qur'an and the early caliphs was to some extent counteracted by other influences. Notable among these was the practice of the various conquered peoples and countries which the Muslims encountered after their expansion, especially in provinces previously under Roman law. This law, even in its Christianized form, was still very harsh in its treatment of slaves. Perhaps equally important was the huge increase in the slave population resulting first from the conquests themselves, and then from the organization of a great network of importation. These led to a fall in the cash value and hence the human value of slaves, and to a general adoption of a harsher tone and severer rules. But even after this stiffening of attitudes and laws, Islamic practice still represented a vast improvement on that inherited from antiquity, from Rome, and from Byzantium." --Aminz 08:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Being bold

I was invited and then remineded to edit on this article, so i am going to be bold and do so. Sorry for not doing so earlier. Peace, and hope my efforts are appreciated. --Striver 15:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Women in Islam/sandbox --Striver 15:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beating totally prohibited?

The article currently states:

“

Beating wives for any other reason is completely prohibited, as Muhammad is attributed to say: I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them.

”

However An-Nisa 4:34 states:

“

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

”

So which is it? jaco♫plane 15:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get the source from with the part where someone went up to Prophet Muhammad and that this person was told that women are not to be beaten? Just wondering. --Fantastic4boy 05:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The article says that beating rebellious wives is provisioned but not for any other reason. See Rights and obligations of spouses in Islam. TruthSpreader^Talk 15:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ohh, of course, I misread the article. Thanks, jaco♫plane 15:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually it does not say that. It says that beating is allowed if you fear your wife may be disobedient (although nushuz is related to honor so it really means anything that might shame you as a husband). That is a small but significant difference. Lao Wai 16:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It is never interpreted this way by scholars. "nushuz" is used for rebellious behavious, something that challenges the authority. Other interpretations would require jurist's opinions to justify. TruthSpreader^Talk 17:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is. The fear bit is obviously true and just as obviously "rebellion" in most Muslim cultures is an affront to a man's manhood. Like asking for a divorce. It is honor related. I am sure there are no end of modern interpretations. Now. In the West. Lao Wai 17:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It is very true that sadly in Muslim societies men use this directive as a licence to beat their wives. But in Islam, a women can claim divorce in court of Law on the basis of maltreatment, even countries like Pakistan have made laws (which I think are completely Islamic) that woman can claim divorce on basis of lack of trust on behalf of her husband. So in this situation, this directive can only be carried out when both partners are not seeking divorce, and husband still wants to run the family when wife is not ready to co-operate at all. TruthSpreader^Talk 17:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with leaving articles in your hands is that you are an advocate who is using this for dawa and not an encyclopedist as this shows. So what if women can ask for a divorce? No court is required to grant it and traditionally, and still in the vast majority of the Muslim world, they would not even think of it. Over half of Bangladeshi domestic violence victims tell no one - not even their families. Who would care anyway? It would be a brave woman who actually rebelled because her husband beat her. This directive contains no limits on it whatsoever. All it says is that if a husband fears rebellion, he may beat his wife. Lao Wai 17:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As we have discussed before, that this event should proceed with dialogue and separation of bed. It is not our job to interpret scriptures, as Arabic language is sophisticated enough that sometimes only a learned person can make opinion. Secondly, if women in Muslim societies are not brave enough to talk against their husbands, this is a cultural problem. But if you have some sources regarding this misuse, feel free to add it to Women in Muslim societies. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 01:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If the husbands are responsible to take good care of their wives and NOT to abuse them (as seen in the article with the statement 'not to treat them with harshness') - then what would you say about WIFE-BEATING? Many people have mentioned about wife-beating to be encouraged in Islam and stated that this is required in the Koran. Furthermore, as seen on some Internet websites, they state that Muslim wives are slaves to their husbands and that they must be treated like children - it suggests that Muslim husbands can beat up their wives any time they want and when they feel their wives are wrong and need to be corrected. Some people say that wife-beating is a rather complicated issue in Islam. Are these all true? If there's anyone who's an expert on this field, can you please help me out there? Thanks. --Fantastic4boy 06:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You would like to see An-Nisa, 34 and Rights and obligations of spouses in Islam. TruthSpreader^reply 05:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

@Fantastic4boy, The "permission" to beat one's wife falls into the category "allowed" - not "encourage" or "required". It is tolerated, as is slavery, and there is nothing requiring Muslims to keep this permitted, in the same way as nobody today would claim that slavery must be allowed because it is allowed in the Quran (or the Bible). Nobody would either claim that Muslims have to marry four wives just because the Quran allows it. Any in most Muslimcountries today beating is punished and no longer allowed. If men bet their wives, it is from my point of view more because of their culture, because they fell they ae superior and can beat their wives whenever they like. This is the same for every culture - it happens in every country and every religion. --Arabist 13:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A point to make about beating one's wife is that the verse states: "beat them (lightly)" -sholars state that it should leave NO MARK, and never 'beat' the face. Therefore, they say, it should be more of a tap than a 'beating'.
As for slavery, according to the histories I've read, many people at the time of Mohammad bought slaves for the sole purpose of setting them free, as there was some sort of 'spiritual reward' for this. Aouandme 06:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)aouandme

The verse states "beat them". The word "lightly" is added by translators to "clarify" the verse's meaning. As with all other words in that passage in brackets. There is no "lightly" in the Arabic. Some scholars say it should leave no lasting permanent damage but that is irrelevant as it is not justicable in Islamic law. Wives cannot sue. Other scholars disagree anyway. No doubt there was a spiritual reward for setting free a slave - Islamic law actually imposes the setting free of slaves as a punishment for certain sins. But so what? The Muslims took so many slaves that there were plenty to free. Lao Wai 10:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

• http://www.crescentlife.com/thisthat/feminist%20muslims/working_women_during_early_islam.htm --Striver 03:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inheritence

Women are not getting half as men in every case, as you can see under inheritence section. Hence, I find it factually wrong to mention in the lead paragraph that they get half the inheritence. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Although, I myself feel that testimony of a women can be mentioned in the lead paragraph. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've modified the lead paragraph to be factually precise (more limiting). A problem Women in Islam have is that speaking up or defying the rules can have serious consequences^[1], so they generally avoid it.PeaceThroughStrength 04:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Answering-Islam.co.uk is not a reliable secondary source. And secondly, if you are taking something from a news website, please consider adding it to Women in Muslim societies rather than in this topic. Thank you! TruthSpreader^Talk 07:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In relation to men

The source which is quoted is non-scholarly for this kind of comment. Please look at the author's profile:[1]. This is just a POV by a non-scholarly source. Yvonne Haddad and John Esposito says, "In principle, except for a verse or two, the Qur'an grants women equality" in Islam, Gender, and Social Change, Oxford University Press US, 2004, p.163 . Similarly in Carla Makhlouf Obermeyer. "Islam, Women, and Politics: The demography of Arab countries", Population and Development Review, Vol. 18, No. 1. (Mar., 1992), pp. 33-60. (published by JSTOR says: "Thus there is a certain ambivalence whereby, though all believers are equal, relations between the sexes are governed not by the principle of absolute equality but by the principle of complementarity." and also "These elements are antithetical to Koranic rulings about the equality of believers and the relative economic independence of women (right to inherit and to keep their own property). Indeed, "It is only in the matter of the rights and responsibilities of males and females that the notion of equal human worth, otherwise so intrinsic to the Koran, seems momentarily suspended." I found these comments completely opposite to your quoted source. TruthSpreader^Talk 08:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me just remind you that Yvonne Haddad and John Esposito are both apologists and thus have a pro-Islamic bias. That is POV too. It is important to also include an opposing viewpoint. Margaret Speaker Yuan has a degree in humanities- per your site, and that makes her qualified on issues of human rights and equality (or inequality) of women in society. This particular perspective was written by Azam Kamguian, and is an excerpt in Margaret Speaker Yuan's book. Azam Kamguian has made many public apparences on TV snd radio programs discussing womens rights in the middle east. Online, she is mentioned in Iran daily, BBC news, and fromtpagemag.com, Not to mention she was a speaker at the world humanist comfrence. I think that makes her a notable scholar.--Sefringle 23:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

My only argument is that having a degree in humanities doesn't make you a scholar on Islamic sciences. On the other hand, Yvonne and Esposito both are professor in this field and are acknowledged reliable sources by secular sources and their books are published by University publishers. And saying that they are apologists is a mockery of western scholarship that has been developed in 20th century. TruthSpreader^Talk 01:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

But I will not rule out that they don't have a POV. If another POV has to be put in the article, it must come from a reliable source and it should be Verifiable. TruthSpreader^Talk 01:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Also the journal paper I quoted from JSTOR, tells exactly that in which situation Qur'an differs, as Qur'an's equality is not absolute but based on complimentarity. Which means that Islam see men and women to be equal but not the same, hence both are assigned with different responsibilities and rights. As from a Muslim background, I know that in an Islamic society, you don't have equal relations with every one. Elders, teachers, and parents have to be respected, hence concept of egalitarian society in Islam is not as in western society but it is still an egalitarian society, as it is based on complimentarity (give and take) and not on absoluted equality (all are same with the same set of rights and responsibilities). TruthSpreader^Talk 02:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The WP:RS#Non-scholarly sources allows Azam Kamguian's writings to be published, since it says "A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or reccomends it.

According to the WP:RS#Scholarship, it says "Has the material been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." Azam Kamguian is reliable in this case as well, because (see origional paragraph) she is mentioned in other sources as well as the ones above, the following academic database: [2]

--Sefringle 02:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I respect your findings but it is stated in the source itself that her opinion is as a humanitarian, not as an expert in Quranic sciences. It is just like we would call Muhammad as a sensualist as it is written in a publication of Esposito, but actually if you look at the context, he is talking about people who have maligned Muhammad with no strong backing. Similarly, Azam Kamguian is referred in the given publication as a humanist. That is just like saying, Pervez Hoodbhoy has some different interpretation of Qur'an (and he normally gives lectures on Islam as well) but he is a physict and his opinion on Qur'an has no value in academic circle. TruthSpreader^Talk 02:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Though you do have to admit this section has a highly pro-islamic viewpoint on the relationship between Islam and women. It should be more neutral, and that is why I included her viewpoint.--Sefringle 00:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! I've a feeling as well! But then what if the claim is factually true? As Gren said here Having criticism and praise does not produce NPOV. Our strive is to present the right picture infront of readers. But I think, a reader can definintely find fallacies in Islamic treatment from the Lead paragraph, and then women in nature was already favourable to woman before recent addition and now it still says that a few verses are not favourable to women. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 01:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think, the point where western scholarship has converged is that women has been treated in basic Islamic teachings as good (but not very good as western democracy would look at) but then there are cultural problems associated with it as well, which causes problems. For that reason, Women in Muslim societies would be a better article to add stuff. TruthSpreader^Talk 01:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important and relevant to include verse 2:222-223 within this article though, as it is relevant to women in Islam. If Azam Kamguian is not scholarly enough a person to mention it under, we should find someone who is who mentions the verse.--Sefringle 21:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been discussed under Rights_and_obligations_of_spouses_in_Islam#Sexual_relations. I just didn't put in this article, because I thought that article would become too big. What is your assessment? TruthSpreader^Talk 07:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That article mentions verse 3:222, which doesn't really exist. It doesn't mention verse 2:222-223. Still, this article probably should mention it somewhere--Sefringle 10:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that was 2:222, as there is no verse as 3:222 and I've corrected it. The issue is partially discussed in Women_in_Islam#Religious_responsibilities but if you want to add, sexuality section in the article, it is upto you. TruthSpreader^Talk 07:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adultery/rape cases in Islam

In the statement regarding adultery and rape, if it's difficult to press charges against men and that women must have four witnesses to prove that she's been raped - does this mean the men can get away with his crime if she can't prove that she was raped (instead of the woman raping the man)? I've always thought the Sharia system to be just and doesn't discriminate men from women. --Fantastic4boy 06:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well the statement is only true if woman gets pragnant and without marriage this pregnancy will only be because of fornication. But, I am not sure in this case, the alleged man can be prosecuted and if yes, will he have to show four witnesses in this case? I personally think that he will not have to show four witnesses as condition for four witnesses is only to give privacy and give individuals protection who fornicate by mistake. And in this case, the man should be identified by normal forensive evidences as woman is also caught in the same way. I don't have a source, otherwise I'd have put this opinion. TruthSpreader^reply 06:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gender equality in Islam

In what sense are men and women equal in Islam? What rights do both genders have in common in Islam? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fantastic4boy (talk • contribs).

You forgot to sign. You can sign by typing ~~~~. Anyways, everything except what is mentioned. TruthSpreader^reply 06:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As almost everything possible is mentioned, women are not equal to men in almost every aspect of life.Lorenzinho 11:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Women right’s was a legitimate part of the discussion of human rights in general remained contested even in the UN right through the 1980s. However, in the international year of the women that was announced by the UN in 1975 was the first World Conference on Women. It took place in Mexico City and approved a world action plan for the equalizing of the position of women. “It has only been since the 1990s that the relevant UN documents routinely indicate the human rights dimension of violations of women’s rights, particularly in the case of violence against women” (Gottstein 1998, 82). On the other hand, the Qur’an (Islam) established a movement for the renaissance of women’s rights 1400 years ago. The model of gender equality is exemplified in the Qur’an rendition of Adam and Eve. The Qur’an states that both sexes were independent, identical and deliberate. The Qur’an states: “And their Lord answered them: Truly I will never cause to be lost the work any of you, Be you a male or female, you are members one of another.”(Ibid, 3:195). It is clear that the Qur’anic view of women is no different than man. In other words, the Qur’an specified that woman is equal to man in religious duties. Therefore most Muslim women agree that Islam gave them their full rights. ”There is no doubt that in the Qur’an that men and women have the same ontological status, the same ethical values apply to them, and that they have the same religious obligations, whichever way they otherwise share their socio-economical responsibilities”(Al-Hakim 2005, 134). The social reality, however, in Islamic world is far away from the ideals of the Qur’an. ”They disappeared into a doubtful private sphere and shared their brothers’ fate of ignorance, cultural alienation and exploitation” (Tohidi 1998, 143). Therefore, Muslim women started to struggle for their rights in the beginning of this century.--Alibektas 15:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rights as mothers in Islam

As part of my contribution this article, I've included the part for women's status in Islam as a mother and that it is a respected one. I've stated that the with Prophet Muhammad saying: "Paradise is at the feet of Mothers," and that this statement suggests that children are not to act disrespectfully towards their mother (e.g. using foul words and raising their tones towards their mother). Would anyone like to add on this? --Fantastic4boy 07:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Um. We need relaible sources before we include sections like this. The sources you mentioned were not scholarly. If you re-insurt it, try to phraise it without praise to Islam, for that would be POV.--Sefringle 06:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is it compulsory for women to cover their heads?

Some people say that Muslim women are obligated to cover their heads and to just leave their faces exposed but others say it is not obligated but strongly recommended to do so. So, I'm just wondering which one is the correct decisions for women to undertake as good Muslims? --Fantastic4boy 07:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Try having look at Hijab article. There is alot of dispute among traditional understanding and scholarly sources. Even some contemporary Muslim scholars are also reviewing their stance. Cheers! TruthSpreader^reply 07:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] al-Hibri

She is a lawyer and publishes in journals of law. She is not a historian or a scholar of Islamic studies. She is not a reliable source for Quranic exegesis. Arrow740 06:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Her research includes "Islamic Jurisprudence"[3] and the journal is reliable. Please do not remove sourced material before discussing it. --Aminz 06:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert Spencer and Bat Ye'or also research Islam but they are not allowed in Islam, Muhammad, etc. The journal is a reliable source, but not for Islamic studies, and this includes Islamic jurisprudence. It's a law journal, for crying out loud. If you want to file an RfC on her please do so by all means. Arrow740 08:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

al-Hibri is not a controversial scholar as writers like Robert Spencer are. Her research interests includes Islamic Law. The journal is a peer-reviewed journal, it has all the qualifications. SHE HAS TAUGHT A COURSE ON "Islamic Jurisprudence"--Aminz 08:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It must be a peer-reviewed journal on the relevant subject matter! It does not matter what she has taught a course on. Do you find this in WP:RS? Saying that "the Quran recognizes slavery only as an unacceptable transitional period" is intellectually bankrupt. Arrow740 08:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

could we please keep this discussion in one area? cf. Talk:Dhimmi#al-Hibri. ITAQALLAH 09:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aminz' reversion

Aminz, you reverted my attribution of Ghamidi's statement to him (it is an extreme minority view and should not be included at all), and the reference to the Quran. As you know, the Quran sanctions sex with ma malakat aymanukum as well as with wives. Do you admit that? We cannot include a statement in this article that we all know to be false, even if it is sourced. Either way, I request that the full context be provided on this talk page. Arrow740 08:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV in the first sentence

The sentence "The Qur'an is explicit in maintaining women's religious and moral equality" is clearly POV. We shouldn't state opinions as facts. I have rephraised it in a less POV manner.--Sefringle 22:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well! The statement is not wrong at all, when we talk about moral and religious equality. Qur'an cleary has some verses, which has been written in the article, which suggest that. Secondly, it is not what Muslims believe. It is the opinion of secular scholarship. If it would be said that women are equal in Islam, that definitely is POV, but not the statement which was already there. TruthSpreader^reply 23:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It most certianly is a POV statement. It is an opinion of some secular scholars and some muslims, however, it is not the opinion of all secular scholars on islam. I doubt, for example, Robert Spencer who is a secular scholar on islam believes the quran assures equality of women in Islam (See [4]) And the way it was stated, this opinion is stated as a fact.--Sefringle 02:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to refer to me any publication of Robert spencer et al. which is published by peer-reviewed University presses or famous scholarly press? TruthSpreader^reply 04:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The US govt has long considered him an expert, and they have a lot more to lose if they're wrong! Arrow740 04:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you please show me the printing press, where his publication has published? I am pretty sure that you can't even use "George Bush" as a reliable source, even though he is the president of USA. TruthSpreader^reply 04:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[5] see this video. He is interviewed by fox news.--Sefringle 04:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Com'on! I thought that you were kidding me. Is fox news a reliable source??? TruthSpreader^reply 04:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

<reset> The Islamic studies establishment is currently biased against the truth, but this will change. Arrow740 06:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the trend is going opposite. If you disagree, have a look at early 20th century literature by Orientelists, then mid 20th century orientelists like Watt, and then late 20th century scholars. And if you have access to scholarly jounrals database, just have a look at scholarly papers, which are published in 21st century. You will feel a huge difference in opinion. The picture of early Islamic society is getting better and better.

But anyway, I am waiting for an answer from Sefingle! TruthSpreader^reply 08:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Whats wrong with fox news? That they are conservative and thus unreliable and unscholarly? Just because you don't agree with their politics (I don't always either) that doesn't mean they are not a peer reviewed press or scholarly. They are as reliable as some of these other "questionable" sources.--Sefringle 01:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

By this you are implying that if "George Bush" says on Fox News that "Islam is religion of Peace". Will that statement be true and presentable as reliable information and will that statement make "George Bush" a reliable Islamic scholar??? TruthSpreader^reply 02:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, because George Bush has not had any education in Islamic or religous studies.--Sefringle 02:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You've got the point. Secondly, his ideas are not endorsed by any scholarly institution. The same reason you can apply on Robert Spencer, who has only Master degree in Catholicism. And God knows that he even did that degree by course work or research work. He might be considered a scholar, atleast with a doctorate degree or some scholarly publications. Otherwise we will get into the trouble of incluiding all the people who say their opinions in media, and most of them might have master degrees as well. TruthSpreader^reply 02:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Small correction: Robert Spencer has a degree in Religous studies, not Chaholicism. --Sefringle 02:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

His MA thesis is entitled "The Monophysite in the Mirror" and concerns the conversion of John Henry Newman to Catholicism in 1845 and Newman's denunciation of the Church of England as monophysite. This gives alot of his insight into Islam. Secondly, I just ask for a single scholarly publication he has made, which can be used in this article. TruthSpreader^reply 02:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems we drifted off topic. I wasn't bringing him up to mention him in this article. I brought him up to prove that all islamic scholars don't believe that women in islam are treated equal, just because some do.--Sefringle 03:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

But I would like to know those scholars who don't consider women in Islam to be equal religiously and morally! I will look into some other publications, and may rephrase the leading section. TruthSpreader^reply 03:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

They get less inheritance, can't have more than one husband, can't have sex with slaves, and their testimony in a Muslim court isn't worth as much as a man's. Also little girls can be married off to old men ala Aisha and Muhammad. There's more. Arrow740 04:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

The first and last sentences in the intro are not clear. What is "However, contemporary analysts have renounced treatment of Muslim women as essentialist, ahistorical and lacking in class perspectives with respect to Islamic injunctions" supposed to mean? Arrow740 19:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence means modern scholars renounce the treatment of women in Islamic society, as it is against Islamic injunctions. And those Muslim scholars or conservatives who preach such behaviour, are not keeping the view of Qur'an and early Islamic society properly in front of them (this has happened only recently that secular scholarship doesn't believe that Hijab is essential for women and the stress which is given on women's obedience etc.). The first sentence also has the same meaning more or less. TruthSpreader^reply 21:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So the sentence is implicitly picking certain Islamic injunctions as right and others as wrong. What does "essentialist" mean here? What does "lacking in class perspectives with respect to Islamic injunctions" mean? And how did the Umma get it so wrong? Arrow740 21:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Essentialism is a narrow view of something. And "lacking class perspective" means people look at one or two verse in Qur'an which give upper hand to husband in the house, but forget the other verses of Qur'an which are explicit in men and women equality. And your last question, how Umma got it wrong? This is answered on Hijab article, that many customs were absorbed in Islamic society from Bazyntine and Persian society, which were later on confused with the religion and people approximated their ideas over the Qur'an. But because, Qur'an is still the best source for early Islamic society, secular scholars don't agree with many contemporary and Medievel Muslim scholars. TruthSpreader^reply 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So it should be "broad" instead of "class?" So why don't we replace "However, contemporary analysts have renounced treatment of Muslim women as essentialist, ahistorical and lacking in class perspectives with respect to Islamic injunctions" with "Some contemporary analysts have renounced Muslim treatment of women as proceeding from a narrow understanding of the core Islamic texts, and not from the precedent set by the earliest Muslims." Though I'm going to do some research and we'll see what I find. Arrow740 22:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Absurdly soft language, POV

"Woman's primary responsibility is usually interpreted as having to raise children. Some Muslims believe that if women fulfill this, they may have a career if they wish and their husbands agree. Qur'an puts the main responsibility of earning over husband and asks wives to be obedient to their husbands. Hence, permission to work is generally considered conditional. As in Qur'an:"

Wow. "Some Muslims"? "And their husbands agree"? The Qur'an ASKS women to be obedient to their husbands? Asks?? That's not even close to accurate!

This is written to make the lack of employment rights of women more palatable to western sensibilities. It does not attempt to represent reality and I don't think wikipedia should have any part of it. Let's call it what it is. The NPOV reality on women's right to work in Islam, and certainly in many Muslim societies is simple: They don't have it.

Here's a NPOV writing on women's employment rights in Islam: "The Qur'an generally forbids women to work, unless they have already raised children. In the Qur'an women are commanded to be obedient and so permission to work is also conditional on the husband's approval."74.99.88.43 02:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That's silly. The Qur'an says nothing--people interpret it. What you say is true for some Muslims in some times but not always. I can assure you a peasant Muslim woman in 1600s India was working even from a young age and I doubt she believed she was being un-Islamic. Religious views are shaped by social conditions and it is clearly not for you to say that such views are illegitimate. For instance for quite a period of time no one would have thought that Hindu 'polytheists' could have been protected people--and yet when Muslims moved into South Asian they became that. Did Islamic law change? Yes. Can we say "that's not really Islam"? Of course not--because Islam is a religion defined by Mulsims. So, do many clerics from large Muslim establishments in both Saudi Arabia and Egypt talk about women needing permission to work? From the best of my knowledge, yes. Does this mean that Muslims who disagree (such as large portions of the Egyptian and Saudi populations who do work) are doing something un-Quranic? Hell if I know. The problem is yours is written like you're a cleric who is telling people what the Qur'an says. An encyclopedia takes the notable positions of religious authorities and the realities of the populace and weaves them into a tale to realistically portray Muslims. Now, we can debate if most clerics believe that this should happen to women or if it's only a few or if most influential clerics do but the Muslim population disagrees with their clerics or if all clerics are liberals swingers and Muslims are stern mean people. Those are legitimate topics... but, this is not Qur'an interpretation class. gren グレン 16:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's really all in interpretation, and Wikipedia cannot write about what is Islamic seperately from what goes on in Muslim societies, then this article should be deleted and replaced with a redirect to Women in Muslim societies. 169.132.38.100 16:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this article is seriously POV and I just haven't had time to deal with it. WP isn't a cleric and can't issue fatwas regarding what is and isn't Islamic. This article preaches. It was established by an editor who didn't like the emphasis on "reality" in Women in Muslim societies. Zora 18:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to overhaul another article, when I'm done with that one I'll get to this one. Arrow740 06:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Women as prisoners of war

That is related to Women as slaves. --Aminz 14:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] clothing or other signs as wives

What clothes do women wear to show that they are married? A Christian wife may wear a ring, for example. Is there any such tradition? Thanks! --Flammingo^Parliament 12:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closed society

I think that if the Islamic community would be more open, many things about the Islam would get clearer. It's their choise, but if they don't decide to be more open, they can't tell us that we're discrimating, because they are.Lorenzinho 11:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How women are really treated in Islam

How women are really treated in Islam ? Get a clue here.--CltFn 13:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restriction of movement

We have had two users (Aminz, Itaqallah) today remove this section. See [6], [7] It relates to Islamic rules specificly presuming to restrict the travel rights of women or groups of women. How is it contended that specific rules like that (only applicable to women), and that aspect of life (ie. travel), have no relevance to the subject 'Women in Islam'? Islam restricts the dignity of women to travel independently or with other women as a group. What's wrong with revealing that groups of women are forbidden to travel more than 48 miles, .. which would cover most interstate travel??—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidYork71 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 9 March 2007.