Talk:Women and Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not a forum for general discussion of Women and Islam. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

	Islam Portal This article is within the scope of 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.
Assessment comments This 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 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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
???	This article has not yet received a rating.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Women and Islam article.
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. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

To-do list for Women and Islam:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: add Women's education and Islam section, add section under modern scholarship and politics that provides a consolidated defense for women's status in islam (across topics) by conservative scholars Copyedit: all Wikify: intro Verify: all the statements without references, some of which are of dubious accuracy. some of the unreferenced statements may be referenced on subpages. a few of the references in the footnotes have been dropped along the way (making empty footnotes), and they should be found and re-added. Cleanup: dress code section (merge facts into hijab if necessary and rewrite blurb to highlight most important things in hijab article), marriage section (make sure it highlights most important facts from Islamic marital jurisprudence article), gender roles section (make so it doesn't repeat right to work, write better blurb using info from gender roles in Islam), criticism Expand: gender roles, sex segregation NPOV: double-check for npov and re-add banner if necessary Other: double-check sub-articles to make sure their footnotes don't include short-form references to books only given in long form on the women and islam main page. also, two subpages, gender roles in Islam and domestic violence in Islam are looking pretty sad.
Priority 1 (top)

Contents 1 2 Criticism 3 Changes 4 Slavery 5 Being bold 6 Beating totally prohibited? 7 Sources 8 Inheritence 9 Sources 10 In relation to men 11 Adultery/rape cases in Islam 12 Gender equality in Islam 13 Rights as mothers in Islam 14 Is it compulsory for women to cover their heads? 15 Al-Hibri 16 Aminz' reversion 17 POV in the first sentence 18 Lead 19 Absurdly soft language, POV 20 Women as prisoners of war 21 Clothing or other signs as wives 22 Closed society 23 How women are really treated in Islam 24 Restriction of movement 25 POV tag 26 Levy 27 {{Cite Check}} tag 28 Quotefarm 29 Burkini 30 Merge from Women in Muslim societies 31 Taliban and women 32 Women in the mosque 33 Education 34 Repetition 35 Intro rewrite 36 Removal of contradictory paragraph 37 Another contradiction 38 WP:EL cleanup 39 Newest merge proposal (Women in the Qur'an) 40 Possible content to incorporate from Women in the Qur'an 40.1 History 40.2 Financial rights 40.3 Right to divorce 40.4 Right to remarry 41 Response to VoluntarySlave 42 Response to challenge to revision (shortened version) 43 Cousin marriage 44 Reference section needs repair 45 Restrictions on marriage 46 Good job, Calliopejen1 ! 47 pasted from Criticism of Islam 48 Women in some muslim countries have "FEWER" rights 49 Secondary sources 50 Ayaan Hirsi Ali 51 This is not hijab! 52 Misconceptions about women in Islam

[edit]

"many Muslims believe that domestic violence is acceptable" 1. sources? and 2. what the hell... i thought this was an encyclopedia. ;) i removed it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.171.218 (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Guys, the Criticism section needs some real work. It's very POV and I've even spotted a few typos. They're making it sound like the Criticism of women in Islam is stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.96.213 (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

haha very funny read some history before writing these people, first lets read a german peasant in Anatolia about how muslim woman was then read Turkish historians then come and write about where women are placed in islamic world, Ottomon formal religion Bektaşilik is the first philosophy in the world to mention absolute equality between genders as well as continuing islamic racial equality, About womens "private space" in muslim countries, I guess people writing this never heard what "Baciyan-i Rum" is, First organisation of women (Meaning Sisterhood of Rome) formed a challenging place to women with even their men (who had 3 major civil organisations in Anatolia at the same time) on trade, manifacturing (even had an indsutrial site in todays Kayseri) as well as in battle grounds, Ops wait these were occuring even before 14th century, Western and Eastern women was only seen as Baby production facilities... Wasnt those the Franks who have checked! virginity of "Joan D'Ark" just a hundred years ago... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.97.81 (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[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)

"Over half of Bangladeshi domestic violence victims tell no one - not even their families." This is true in the West as well. The vast majority of domestic violence is never reported, irrespective of the household religion. Is Islam responsible for that too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.171.218 (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2008 (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)

Well, the edits I am making to all of the topics regarding Islam, are correct. I have edited out all of the BS that society wants to portray. I know that this is right, because I am a Muslim myself. So please do not undo any edits I have made. And just to be clear about one thing: Islam does NOT tell you to beat your wife. In cases of adultery, there must be 4 people that have witnessed the crime, or the woman who committed adultery must admit to it. That is the only way you can say that this woman has committed adultery. And once a woman is found guilty of it, according the historic law, she must be whipped 80 times by the executor (definition executor: 2. Law A person who is appointed by a testator to execute the testator's will. - from thefreedictionary.com). And to clear up the slavery issue, Islam disapproves of slavery. It is haram (meaning against what Islam says; illegal)/ wrong. Mnagi85 03:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Society wants to portray? You think it is all a conspiracy by any chance? What you think Islam is or is not, is irrelevant. What matters is what most Muslims think Islam says. And most Muslims have always thought that the Quran tells them to beat their wives if they "rebel". As they do in larger numbers than non-Muslims. Seems a fairly obvious reading of the Quran to me. Why do you think they are all wrong? I agree that as far as zina, so much more than adultery by the way, you need four eye witnesses. Or a pregnant single woman. It is true that the Quran calls for whipping, but the aHadith call for stoning and stoning is what Muslims have always done. Islam does not disapprove of slavery - Muhammed owned slaves, he sold slaves and he made free people slaves. It simply calls freeing them a good deed. Do you have any evidence for any of these claims? Lao Wai 15:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"You think it is all a conspiracy by any chance?" So according to you, there is no bias against Islam in the West today?

"What matters is what most Muslims think Islam says." The title of the article is Women and Islam, not Women and Muslims in come Muslim countries. Sorry.

"It simply calls freeing them a good deed." It also explicitly states to treat a slave like your brother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.171.218 (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2008 (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 ^{[Qur'an 2:222]} 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 ^{[Qur'an 3:222]}, which doesn't really exist. It doesn't mention verse ^{[Qur'an 2:222]}. 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)

Hi,

I removed the statement:

"Scholars differ in their treatment of punishments for rapists and rape victimes. Some do not differentiate between rape and adultery, while others do; however, there is a consensus that in the former offence the victim is not prosecuted."

It had no citation and is AFAIK incorrect. The correct position in regards to rape is what I have stated:

"According to a Sunni Hadith, the punishment for rape in Islam is death, there is no sin on the victim, nor is there any worldly punishment ascribed." Referenced by According to a Sunni Hadith, This is the sourced hadith:

"When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered (raped) her.

She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: That (man) did such and such to me. And when a company of the Emigrants came by, she said: That man did such and such to me. They went and seized the man whom they thought had had intercourse with her and brought him to her.

She said: Yes, this is he. Then they brought him to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him).

When he (the Prophet) was about to pass sentence, the man who (actually) had assaulted her stood up and said: Apostle of Allah, I am the man who did it to her.

He (the Prophet) said to her: Go away, for Allah has forgiven you. But he told the man some good words (AbuDawud said: meaning the man who was seized), and of the man who had had intercourse with her, he said: Stone him to death.

He also said: He has repented to such an extent that if the people of Medina had repented similarly, it would have been accepted from them."

{Truth 06 13:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)}

There seems to be some good information at http://www.geo.tv/zs/Zina_article_Final.pdf and http://www.islam-democracy.org/documents/pdf/6th_Annual_Conference-JulieNorman.pdf. I will try to incorporate this into the article if I have the opportunity but others can do so as well. Calliopejen1 02:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gender equality in Islam

Template:QA In what sense are men and women equal in Islam? What rights do both genders have in common in Islam? —Preceding unsigned comment 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?

Template:QA

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)

I agree that there is a ton of dispute over this, with many scholars saying the answer is no but with more traditional/concervative muftis and such saying yes. From what I have read there is no Qur'anic injunction to wear it, and the only hadith that specifically states to is considered weak (Abu Dawud volume 3, book 27, chapter 1535, hadith 4092 is considered mursal)so it really seems to be more a cultural tradiation, and in Muslim countries without Arab influence it is not common (Indonesia). Gtadoc 17:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why their is ton of dispute?

Quran 33:59 - O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful.

What way you would like us interpret the above verse? if it is not followed then their are consequences in following verses

Quran 4:34- 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).

I hope their is no disagreement on the source

[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

Q&A

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)

Gulf Arab women (and probably others) wear both wedding and engagement rings in the same way as in the West.Anjouli 09:32, 14 May 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??—Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidYork71 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 9 March 2007

[edit] POV tag

It is because of the points I raised the Tom harrison's page and sentences like this:"Islam restricts the dignity of women to travel independently or with other women as a group." --Aminz 20:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You opened this discussion way after you inserted the tag so we crossed each other. Anyway could you move that discussion from the admin's page to here to where it should be? Then we can discuss it here. I hate to make the admin see "You have new messages" when its not a message for him. Now that line, it follows with why that statement is so. You can change that to whatever you want. What do you think is the less POC version of this issue? Clearly women have a restriction on traveling according to the Islamic ref website used. If you think it can be worded better, go ahead. --Matt57_{(Talk•Contribs)} 01:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Further the picture is non-representative. No women in Iran has such veiling. --Aminz 08:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The woman in the black viel? It says its from Yemen. Arent there hadiths saying that women should be veiled and stuff? If you really follow Islam, women should be veiled, according to hadiths. You know this, right? As for your original objection, I believe that also is supported by hadith or religious rulings etc (travelling issue). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Islam does limit the extent to which women can travel without men, but to say it restricts their dignity sounds very POV to me, so I've changed the sentence. — Elembis (talk · contribs) 00:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Levy

Re [8], Arrow, what is Levy's quote? Verse 2:73 reads: "He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then is he guiltless. For Allah is Oft-forgiving Most Merciful." --Aminz 06:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never had that book. I suppose we should remove the Qur'an ref. Maybe Levy used a different numbering of the verses, ask Itaqallah to check it out. Arrow740 07:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

you don't have the book, yet you seem to know what is or isn't relevant, and whether or not the citation has been manipulated (which it has). if you check the work, you will know that Levy is not talking about female slaves, but is talking about slave rights/restrictions in general, which have been discussed in Islam and slavery. similarly, the mukataba stuff is not relevant specifically to women. ITAQALLAH 11:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to have the book to know that material attributed to it (if accurate) is relevant. Arrow740 23:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

and if you read my comment above you will know the attribution is not entirely accurate. aside from the fact that the material is biased and inaccurate representation of Levy's comments in general, to assign a context not verifiable in the text is original research. ITAQALLAH 17:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what context assignment you are imputing to me. The fact is that female slaves are women. Arrow740 21:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

female slaves are women: quite right. i don't see female slaves being specified in these citations to Levy. this link synthesised by DavidYork is, if you recall, exactly what he attempted in Islam and children, using the same refs but prefixing the word slaves with 'child' - as has been done here, but with a different prefix. ITAQALLAH 21:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So? Are you saying that saying that certain punishments for present or prior unbelief that apply to all slaves apply to women or children in particular is original research? Arrow740 08:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

not all slaves were non-Muslim. as for your question, in short: yes. you are postulating what the source does not, making an assumption that is not necessarily true. for example, a lot of the punishments for legal infringements applicable to slaves in general would not apply to child slaves, for they would not be considered baligh. so to make this sweeping assumption is flawed, and we should stick to representing precisely what Levy states instead of supporting the exploitation of sources committed by DY. the content itself is also a misrepresentation of Levy even without the erroneous assumption. ITAQALLAH 11:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Cite Check}} tag

I'm removing it due to a lack of reasoning given by the anon IP who placed it. I'll also be removing a vandalism (BOSOM) in the same edit. --ProtectWomen 18:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotefarm

I added this tag because this article consists of mainly quotes. It seems like over 50% of the article is just quotes.--Sefringle 04:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The article opens with criticism and proceeds to rebut it. The entire section "Women in their nature" boils down to an argument about what the Qur'an and Muhammad really meant to say, rather than a historically-grounded and non-judgmental discussion of women's real-world experience in Islamic societies. The section Women in Islam outright declares that controversial practices are un-Islamic, sourced entirely to Esposito. There are many Muslims who would disagree with the tendentious claims of this article, and we're not here (or shouldn't be here) to either correct them or excommunicate them. The quotes here play the unfortunate role of beating these designated ignorants over the head with cherry-picked scripture.

We can sum it up as 1. Critics claims that women are treated like garbage in Islamic societies and 2. they are right but 3. this is not the fault of Islam because 4. Islam commands the opposite. These last three features are unacceptably argumentative, and the views of critics certainly do not merit mention in the lead (if at all.)Proabivouac 06:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if you took steps to fix it. Arrow740 16:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burkini

The Burkini might be necessity or innovation, but either way we shouldnt forget how the sexual revolution (including freedom for women and their clothing) started in the going swimming of the 18th and 19th century; only after English (and later, European) people got used to going to the beach, they slowly grew accustomed to leisure clothing, not necessarily showing more skin, but the bathing costumes were an important step. The picture subtext should consider this.--Flammingo^Hey 15:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point; see the sources in rational dress and swimsuit if you want to do a re-write. BrainyBabe 14:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Women in Muslim societies

On the Women in Muslim societies page, a consensus has developed in favor of merging its content to this article. I'll be working on that in the near future. Any assistance is appreciated. Calliopejen1 13:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Especially with the new content being added, this page is hugely long and much of its content should be moved to subpages (many of which already exist). Calliopejen1 02:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the merger to Women in Islam. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well; both articles seem to cover the same content. Calliopejen1 02:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. "Women in Islam" is more accurate. "Muslim society" is a POV terminology. Sina Kardar 15:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree Merge it to Women in Islam--Sefringle 03:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taliban and women

I just deleted this and replaced it with what I thought was a better blurb from Taliban treatment of women; some of its content might be salvageable.

Taliban religion minister, Al-Haj Maulwi Qalamuddin, told The New York Times that "To a country on fire, the world wants to give a match. Why is there such concern about women? Bread costs too much. There is no work. Even boys are not going to school. And yet all I hear about are women. Where was the world when men here were violating any woman they wanted?"

Although the Taliban claimed that the education of girls in rural Afghanistan was increasing, a UNESCO report stated that there was "a whopping 65 percent drop in their enrollment. In schools run by the Directorate of Education, only 1 percent of the pupils are girls. The percentage of female teachers, too, has slid from 59.2 per cent in 1990 to 13.5 per cent in 1999." The Taliban regime was considered by some Muslims to be no more than a sect, one that was not recognized by most Muslim nations and was an incorrect representation of Islamic teachings. However, it was also recognised by many Sunni Muslims as the most thorough attempt to implement Sharia in the past century.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Women in the mosque

Most of the work and changes going on have been detailed and careful. The only large-scale one I find glaring is as follows. One sourced paragraph, which provides a useful historical and modern overview, has disappeared, and another, without sources and largely about men (not women), has replaced it. The section title is now "Women in the mosque", which the section isn't entirely about. It jars with the rest of the (much improved) article.

Original paragraph (now gone):

At the time of Muhammad, the women prayed at the rear of the building while the men were at the front; however, they would have been within earshot of the imam (leader), and any men entering the mosque would have had to pass them. A saying attributed to Muhammad is: "Do not forbid the mosques of Allah to the women of Allah" ^[2]. Also, on the Hajj, the mandatory pilgrimage to Mecca, men and women pray side by side. In most modern mosques, however, women and men are segregated into separate sections, where they perform ablutions (wuzu) and prayers (salat). Any women's groups or classes will normally be held here too. Usually there are separate doors for each gender, with the children entering with their mothers before being led to madrassa (religious school).

Current paragraph:

On Fridays many Muslims pray in congregation, and men, women, and children are segregated into separate groups. (See "Sex segregation" above.) Every other day in the home the family prays together. The man will lead the prayers, as he is considered the head of the household. His wife and children will stand behind him as they pray. The man, as the leader of the prayers, also has the obligation to look after the family's copy of the Qur'an -- it is he who will take it from its place of rest, uncover it and place it on its reading stand, and then back again.

I find the original version more useful. Can we re-incorporate it?BrainyBabe 16:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Not sure if I accidentally deleted that.... Calliopejen1 17:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift reply. Yes, it appears that you did delete that para, which I will re-add. Also, I think, you inserted the second one. Can we delete that too? BrainyBabe 17:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, now I see what I did. The content was moved into the sex segregation subpage, with a note under sex segregation taht sex segregation is important within mosques. I don't feel too strongly about whether these details should be retained on the main page or should be moved into the subpage. The other paragraph is unsourced, but if true it adds some new information about the roles of men and women during worship. I don't feel too strongly about it either. Calliopejen1 20:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've moved that seocnd para to Gender roles in Islam (and THAT article is a mess, but there's only so much one can do...). I think THIS article is tightening up well. BrainyBabe 20:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Education

It would be great to have a short section on women's education and Islam if anyone is inclined to do a bit of research. Calliopejen1 20:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repetition

Para is repeated under gender roles and then Right to work. Where should it go? BrainyBabe 20:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and deleted it from the latter. BrainyBabe 15:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro rewrite

I'm undertaking a rewrite of the intro because it has been accused of npov violations (which I don't really see, but oh well) and because it introduces facts (some unsourced) that aren't included in the body of the article. I'm going to try to integrate the sourced content from the second paragraph into the other parts of the article, then remove it. Calliopejen1 08:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of contradictory paragraph

I can't make any sense of this. I removed it from the "Legal matters: right to give testimony" section. BrainyBabe 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"There is however a difference of opinion among the companions of Imam Malik regarding bodily affairs which relate to wealth, like advocacy and will-testaments, which do not specifically relate to wealth. Consequently, Ash-hab and Ibn Majishun accept two male witnesses only in these affairs, while to Malik Ibn Qasim and Ibn Wahab two female and a male witness are acceptable."^[3]

[edit] Another contradiction

This one is from the marriage intro. It says a guardian called a wali can give away a young girl, but only under certain circumstnaces. Then it refers to the guardian being her father or son. I don't have access to the texts. Can someone sort this out? BrainyBabe 15:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Under Hanafi fiqh, the wali (male guardian of an unmarried woman) may give in marriage a girl who is a virgin and also a minor, after informing her that her suitor has presented himself. Her silence is taken as consent, but even if she says that she does not consent, the marriage is still lawful.^[4][5] Hanafi fiqh also strictly requires in such a case that the wali should be the bride's father, or else her son or other relative in the descendant line, if she has one; if not, then some other male relative may act.^[6]

[edit] WP:EL cleanup

I just went through and deleted a ton of external links. I did my best to sort out what came from authoritative sites and what didn't, but I definitely could have made mistakes. If anyone wants to re-add some of these, I won't feel offended. :) Here's the original list of links, with duplicates removed:

• Women in Islam Vs Women in the Judaeo-Christian Tradition - Sherif Abdul Azeem - WAMY
• [allaahuakbar.net/womens/index.htm Women in Islam] A Salafi perspective
• Women in Muslim History: Traditional Perspectives and New Strategies
• Islam and Women's Rights
• Free and Equal under the Qur'an - an analysis by Havva G Guney-Ruebenacker
• BackToIslam.com Articles about Women in Islam
• More to life than window dressing In this special feature, a successful Belgian-Algerian Muslim woman recounts what it was like growing up immersed in two cultures with divergent views of women. August 2006
• Women, Islam, and the New Iraq, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2006
• The status of women in Islam by a Muslim author
• How parental rights are not granted to women when it comes to divorce and children's movement Real stories
• Relation of the Sexes, a lecture by Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall in 1925
• Women's Position in Islam
• ”Muslim Women, By: Sultan Al-Farhood” http://www.islam-truth.com/Muslim_Women.htm
• IslamicFeminism.org
• Tafseer of Surah an-Nisa, Ayah 34 Dr. Ahmad Shafaat, Islamic Perspectives. August 10, 2005
• Muslim women take charge of their faith, International Herald Tribune, December 4, 2005
• Gaza women join Hamas fighters by Khaled Abu Toameh, published in the Jerusalem Post August 21, 2005
• The Position of Women in Islam, online book.
• WOMEN IN THE MIDDLE EAST: PROGRESS OR REGRESS?” Middle East Review of International Affairs, Volume 10, No. 2, Article 2 - June 2006
• The Modern Muslimah Forum
• The First Muslim Woman on Record to Lead a Public Mixed-Gender Jum'ah Prayer
• A Statement from the Organizers of the March 18th Woman-led Jum’ah Prayer - MWA!
• The central role of women in Islam and Islamic history
• "The Liberation of Women in the Middle East" by Azam Kamguian.
• A Sufi feminist perspective
• Afghan women under Taliban rule
• In memory of Saint Jani A site dedicated to a Muslim woman
• The Noble Women Scholars of Hadeeth
• Skeptics Annotated Quran: Women in the Quran
• Women scholars in Islam by Khalid Abou El Fadl

[edit] Newest merge proposal (Women in the Qur'an)

Just found yet another (partially) redundant article! I think the bits about the status and role of women generally should be merged into this article, but the accounts of specific women should be left as is where is. Calliopejen1 03:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. That article should be about female people (girls and women) mentioned in the Quran; this one should incorporate the sections on rights, responsibilities, spirituality, etc. BrainyBabe 14:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible content to incorporate from Women in the Qur'an

I was cleaning up that article... Looks like most of this is already in Women and Islam but it may contain some good supporting citations.

[edit] History

It must be noted, that although the Quran does not grant men and women the same rights in regards to certain issues, some Muslims believe that the scripture nevertheless alleviated the position of women on a social and economic basis, in comparison to the treatment of women within various pre-Islamic faiths (that arose before the 7th century CE). [9]

The Quran accords both sexes with different rights, as it argues that women are distinct from men and vice versa. Thus the Quran says:

"And for women are rights over men similar to those of men over women according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them." ^{[Qur'an 2:228]}

[edit] Financial rights

Regarding inheritance the Quran says:

"From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or large, - a determinate share." ^{[Qur'an 4:7]}

Other verses grant women a lesser share than men:

"God chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance, and if there be one (only) then the half" ^{[Qur'an 4:11]}

"They ask thee for a legal decision. Say: God directs (thus) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs. If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the inheritance: If (such a deceased was) a woman, who left no child, Her brother takes her inheritance: If there are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance (between them): if there are brothers and sisters, (they share), the male having twice the share of the female. Thus doth God make clear to you (His law), lest ye err. And God hath knowledge of all things." ^{[Qur'an 4:176]}

In response, orthodox Muslims contend that men are expected to meet their responsibility to fulfill the financial needs of their female relatives. Women, however, are under no such obligation.

The Quran makes it obligatory for men to provide for their ex-wives:

"For divorced women Maintenance (should be provided) on a reasonable (scale). This is a duty on the righteous." ^{[Qur'an 2:241]}

If the woman gains custody of a child then the man must provide for his offspring as well:

"And the mothers may nurse their children for two whole years, if they wish to complete the period of nursing; and it is incumbent upon him who has begotten the child to provide in a fair manner for their sustenance and clothing." ^{[Qur'an 2:233]}

A man is also ordered to make arrangements for his widow:

"Those of you who die and leave widows should bequeath for their widows a year's maintenance and residence ..." ^{[Qur'an 2:240]}

[edit] Right to divorce

Marriage in Islam is perceived by some as a sanctified bond that should not be broken except for compelling reasons and/or as a last resort. Couples are instructed to pursue all possible remedies whenever their marriages are in danger. [10]

"And if ye fear a breach between them twain (the man and wife), appoint an arbiter from his folk and an arbiter from her folk. If they desire amendment God will make them of one mind. Lo! God is ever Knower, Aware." ^{[Qur'an 4:35]}

Although, the Quran does give the husband the primary right to dissolve his marriage over a four-month delay period ^{[Qur'an 2:226]}, during a time in which his wife may become pregnant and/or there may be a possible reconciliation between the couple ^{[Qur'an 2:228]}.

But at the same time, the scripture also allows the wife to end her marital union through a Muslim court under certain circumstances, such as when she's faced with: cruelty, desertion without a reason and/or the unfulfillment of conjugal responsibilities etc. on the part of her husband: [11]

"If a woman feareth ill treatment from her husband, or desertion, it is no sin for them twain if they make terms of peace between themselves. Peace is better. But greed hath been made present in the minds (of men)." ^{[Qur'an 4:128]}

Some also interpret the following verse, as to allowing a woman to end her marriage (through Khula), by returning the wedding dower that was given to her by her husband. [12] This in compensation for choosing to leave a man who has not created any offenses within the marriage: [13]

"It is not lawful for you (Men) to take back any of your gifts except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by God. There is no blame on either of them if she give something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by God so do not transgress them." ^{[Qur'an 2:229]}

Either way, the husband is not allowed to keep his wife in a marriage against her will: [14]

"When ye have divorced women, and they have reached their term, then retain them in kindness or release them in kindness. Retain them not to their hurt so that ye transgress (the limits). He who doeth that hath wronged his soul. Make not the revelations of God a laughing-stock (by your behaviour)." ^{[Qur'an 2:231]}

[edit] Right to remarry

The Quran allows divorced women to remarry:

"And when ye have divorced women and they reach their term, place not difficulties in the way of their marrying their husbands if it is agreed between them in kindness." ^{[Qur'an 2:232]}

[edit] Response to VoluntarySlave

Salaam,

Thank you very much for adding the references, but how can they be classified in political terms? What may be liberal to one is moderate to another, conservative to another. I know this from experience, for I am conservative to liberals, liberal to conservatives, so, I may be right down the middle, a moderate. It is as told; there is no prohibition against Muslim women marrying men of the Book in the sharia, only in fiqh. That is not a liberal, moderate or conservative position. It is simply a fact. The reasoning used to create a prohibition is man made and derived from traditional cultural notions of women as property, needing to be controlled. If this can be deemed to be a tenet of Islam, I would love to know how. FOA 20:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to challenge to revision (shortened version)

Muslim Woman and Non-Muslim Man

A revision that I made to the section about marriage that, before editing, stated that Muslim women are forbidden from marriage with men other than Muslim men has been cited as contradicting an about.islam.com article. I'm not sure how about.islam became the measure of what is Islamic, but I'll play along. This is the article, with emphasis added by me:

Interfaith Marriage in Islam

The Qur'an lays out clear guidelines for marriage. One of the main traits you should look for in a potential spouse is a similarity in religious outlook. For the sake of compatibility, and the upbringing of future children, it is most recommended for a Muslim to marry another Muslim. However, in some circumstances it is permissible for a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim.

Muslim Man and Non-Muslim Woman

In general, Muslim men are not permitted to marry non-Muslim women. "Do not marry unbelieving women until they believe. A slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, even though she allures you.... Unbelievers beckon you to the Fire. But Allah beckons by His Grace to the garden of bliss and forgiveness. And He makes His signs clear to mankind, that they may receive admonition" (Qur'an 2:221).

An exception is made for Muslim men to marry chaste or pious Jewish and Christian women, who are referred to as "People of the Book." This comes from the understanding that Jews and Christians share similar religious outlooks - a belief in One God, following the commandments of Allah, a belief in revealed scripture (Books), etc. "This day are all things good and pure made lawful to you.... Lawful to you in marriage are not only chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time, when you give them their due dowers, and desire chastity not lewdness. If any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost" (Qur'an 5:5).

The children of such a union are always to be raised in the faith of Islam. This should be discussed thoroughly by the couple before they decide to marry.

Muslim Woman and Non-Muslim Man

Under no conditions is a Muslim woman permitted to marry anyone but a Muslim man. The same verse cited above (2:221) mentions, "Nor marry your girls to unbelievers until they believe. A man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever...." No exception is given for women to marry Jews and Christians, so the law stands that she may only marry a believing (Muslim) man. As head of the household, the husband provides leadership for the family. A Muslim woman does not follow the leadership of someone who does not share her faith and values.

My comments:

Despite the claims of this article, which contradicts itself, there is no basis for creating a prohibition against Muslim women marrying men of the Book in the Quran nor in the Sunnah. First of all, an "exception" for men in the Quran would mean that the Quran has been abrogated from its original Message since the advent of Islam in the time of Adam, the first Prophet of Islam. Abrogation is a highly debatable position to take when dealing with the Holy Book.

Second, a basic principle of Islamic jurisprudence is the asl al-deen: The halal is that which Allah has made lawful in His Book and haram is that which He has forbidden, and that concerning which He is silent He has permitted as a favour to you.* Since ayah 2:221, as referred to by the article, prohibits marriage to 'idolaters' for both Muslim men and Muslim women, one need provide further support for the supposition that Christians and Jews (ahl al kitab) are 'idolaters', ie, committing shirk, requiring an exception for any Muslim to marry among them.

Since the Quran states repeatedly that no 'idolaters' will be rewarded for their rejection of faith and failure to submit to His Will, one way we can determine if ahl al kitab are included among them is to research who are those that Allah says can possibly be included.

[2.62] Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

[5.69] Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

So, clearly, the group "ahl al kitab" is not among those who are lost.

An excerpt from the article states:

An exception is made for Muslim men to marry chaste or pious Jewish and Christian women, who are referred to as "People of the Book." This comes from the understanding that Jews and Christians share similar religious outlooks - a belief in One God, following the commandments of Allah, a belief in revealed scripture (Books), etc. "This day are all things good and pure made lawful to you.... Lawful to you in marriage are not only chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time, when you give them their due dowers, and desire chastity not lewdness. If any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost" (Qur'an 5:5).

There is a contradiction inherent in the statement that Jews and Christians share similar religious outlooks - a belief in One God, following the commandments of Allah, a belief in revealed scripture (Books), etc., so Muslim men can marry their women, but Muslim women can't marry their men using the same ayah that prohibits both men and women from marriage with 'idolaters'. No debatable, man-made abrogation is required.

5:5 is referred to as the ayah that created the "exception" for men.

This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).

However, since no exception is needed, does the explicit permission granted here constitute a prohibition for women? The general rule is that as the majority of law giving in the Quran is directed to men, they is also extended to women. For example, I know from hadith that many of the foods of the ahl al kitab are permissible to me, a woman, if I say 'Bismillah' over it before I eat. This permission is embeded in an ayah that we are told limits interfaith marriage to men, yet doesn't limit eating the food of the ahl al kitab to men.

There is no prohibition in the Quran nor the Sunnah against Muslim women marrying ahl al kitab men. That comes from fiqh law, and can, thus, be considered to be mukruh rather than impermissible. Fiqh law also considers marriage between Muslim men and non-Muslim women living in the west to be mukruh, but that is rarely cited, creating the impression that the same source , fiqh, can be taken so seriously that it can create sinful acts for women that Allah did not, or be completely ignored when ruling against a privilege for men.

I have examples of the above and regarding challenges to the tradtion, which is based on Arab patriarchy and the concept that women follow the lead of men, which is not Quranic, but tribal. The assertion in the article that "As head of the household, the husband provides leadership for the family. A Muslim woman does not follow the leadership of someone who does not share her faith and values." is very telling of this tradition. In Islam, women follow the leadership of God, not man. The requirments for doing so are the same for both:

[33.35] For Muslim men and women,- for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in Charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in God's praise,- for them has God prepared forgiveness and great reward.

(Citations available in my talk)

I have not yet learned how to add citations or to do some of the fancy things available here, but I will learn. I would appreciate it if the cultural aspects that have been incorporated in Islam and which constitute ethno-Arab traditional interpretations can be discerned without the dependence on websites as the arbitors. As Dr. Turabi said, we should always refer to the origins that are Quran and Sunnah, and no prohibition against intefaith marriage for Muslimas can be found there.

I can add more historical context, if requested.

Humbly submitted FOA 20:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Reported in Al-Hakim, classified as sahih (sound)

[edit] Cousin marriage

The following sentence was removed, with the comment that it wasn't relevant to the article on women.

It is permissable to marry one's cousin.

I think this brief statement within the section on restrictions on marriage should be re-added. Many cultures around the world have prohibitions or taboos against cousin marriage; others encourage it. Different religions, contemporary and historical, have had different rules in favour or against. It is useful to have a simple statement that Islam does not ban it. Cousin marriages are relatively common in some Muslim-majority nations (eg Pakistan), and it would be helpful to the reader to point out that, in the case of this religion, there are no prohibitions against it. If no one objects I will re-add it in a day or two. BrainyBabe 13:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I still think this is not something that belongs in this article, and I think should be in Islamic marital jurisprudence instead. As far as I know, this rule would affect women and men in the same way (and yet is not notable as an example of parity, which would also belong in the article). I also don't think it's relevant to the status of women. If I'm missing something, please explain. Calliopejen1 13:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The same argument about parity (whether it is deemed notable or not) could be made at several points within the article, e.g. age restrictions on marriage, and the sentence "According to Islamic law (sharia), marriage cannot be forced." In practice, among Muslim immigrant communities in the West, cousin marriage is relatively common, as an arranged (or occasionally forced) match and partly as a way to bring another family member to the destination country, and this is something that affects young women especially. It is merely one brief sentence with a useful wikilink that adds to the overall understanding of the piece. I will add it to the Islamic marital jurisprudence as well, but thinkit fits neatly here too. BrainyBabe 12:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference section needs repair

The reference section from #51 down are all jumbled together. I sought to fix them, but can't.

I'm not seeing this anymore, so I'm assuming it's been fixed? Calliopejen1 00:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

PS - Is there a section on "Men In Islam"? If not, why not?

For starters, there's much less written on it. (For example, a google search for "women and islam" pulls up about 90,000 results, while "men and islam" pulls up 500). There's no reason we can't have such an article though, so feel free to start one if you'd like (with the obvious caveat of citing reliable sources, etc etc). Calliopejen1 00:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Calliopejen1. It does look like they're fixed.

Women in Islam is a western obesession. Men in Islam is clearly underrepresented. I may just start the page. FOA 09:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restrictions on marriage

We seem to keep moving back and forth between two versions of the section on whether Muslim women are permitted to marry non-Muslims. One claims that there is diversity of opinion on the topic, sourcing this to a statements or interviews with some fairly prominent Islamic scholars. There doesn't seem to be any problem of reliability with the sources here; but this version might give undue weight to a minority view.

The other version is more problematic, however. This version asserts as undisputed the idea that Muslim women may not marry non-Muslims, sourcing this to Yohanan Friedmann's Tolerance and Coercion in Islam. I don't doubt that this is an impeccable scholarly source; the problem is that, on the pages given as references at least, it doesn't say that Muslim women are not permitted to marry non-Muslims; what it does say is that Muslims are not permitted to put themselves in an inferior position to non-Muslims. The inference from this that Muslim women are not permitted to marry non-Muslims appears to be contribution of a Wikipedia editor, not a reliable source.

Anyway, this is just to explain what I take to be at stake in the back-and-forth over this section. Currently the best-sourced version appears to be the version that discusses the question as controversial, but there do appear to be questions over that version too. VoluntarySlave 05:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There are two pages cited. Please defend your use of about.com. Arrow740 05:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I know, that's why I said "pages". Maybe I've missed something in the source, though - if it does explicitly discuss the marriage issue, please quote it. And, what use of about.com? There's only one ref. to about.com that I can see, in a different section of the article. VoluntarySlave 06:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have NEVER used about.com as a reference. That is a misunderstanding on the part of Arrow740 who has not read my comments here carefully, nor, has read my citations. The reference to about.com is from a challenge to my revision by another revisor who used about.com as HER source to challenge my revision. If you look, you can see that my response states that I don't know how about.com became a reliable source.

I have been offering the version that cites a diversity of opinion. However, I don't see this as giving weight to a minority view since the "prohibition" is from fiqh and not sourced directly from the Quran nor the Prophet's Sunnah, and fiqh may be challenged as applicable for all times and places. My comments in an earlier response cites the fact that there is no verse in the Quran that restricts Muslim women to Muslim men, nor prohibits them from marriage with men of the Book; that they are limited is an interpretation that is challenged. Marriage between Muslim women and ahl al kitab men can only be mukruh because since Allah reserves the pronouncement of sins for Himself. If someone can show that Allah pronounced it to be a sin, I would love to see it that source. In addition, there is substantive evidence to show that not only did Muslimas (including one of the Prophet's daughter's) remain married to non-Muslim men for many years after their own converisons, there is evidence that learned early Muslims did not oppose the practice of Muslimas marrying non-Muslim men.

The same source that "prohibited" Muslim women from marriage with men of the Book also "prohibited" Muslim men from marriage with ahl al kitab women in the west. They did so under the same legal principle that was done to restrict women, mashlaha, the preservation of the best interest of the ummah. But, as is the "prohibition" against women marrying out, this "prohibition" is also not a sin and can be only considered to be mukrah. However, there is a true double standard in that two laws, upheld for centuries, are given such vastly different emphasis and weight, so that Muslim men feel few restrictions on whom they marry, but Muslim women are allowed to believe God has created a sin exclusive to them. Wikipedia is not intended to be a place that slants to one view over another.

The scholars that I cite in my version are traditionally trained, as am I. They simply do not put the interest of a long held ijima before what they see in their own examination of the authoritative sources of law. The early imams did not consider themselves to be infallible, but encouraged exploration and even rejection of their views if they were found to be incorrect. I am no raging Muslim feminist. I am simply a humble perpetual student of the faith who wishes to present an objective view of the Word, unbiased by cultural practices (which fiqh takes into consideration). It would be best to be fair to conflicting views, and I have hoped to do that by acknowledging that there has been a tradition of prohibition, that fiqh has created it, and that there are those who challenge it.

The conflicting revision is clearly biased, imo. To say that it is prohibited due to a Muslim need to avoid inferiority, but that Muslim inferiority can only be brought about by interfaith marriage with ahl al kitab men opens a whole can of worms about presumptions about what Islam teaches about gender roles, and why Muslim men who marry ahl al kitab women are not put into an inferior position by doing so. Oh, but figh rulings about interfaith marriage with ahl kitab women in the west says just that! Thus, while Islamic law acknowledges the possiblity of any Muslim, male or female, being put into an inferior position thru marriage with an ahl kitabi, the Quran still does not forbid, nor encourage it for either gender.

I would like the opportunity to settle the issues around this section so that I may move on to other areas that I would like to engage in with the limited time I have to spend here. Thank you for reading my rather lengthy response. FollowerofAllah FOA 06:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I could see the section was sourced to Khaleel Mohammed so to remove them complaining about something else("about.com") is strange. --Aminz 07:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that there is an effort to impose a limited view of this issue on this page. Despite the challenge to the revisor's including his/her own personal prejudices into the section (cited in VoluntarySlave's comment), he/she continues to replace a well-cited section with less objective and unbalanced revision that suits their own agenda.

It would be appropriate for Arrow740 to explain why he/she believes that his opinion carries more weight than those of three prominent scholars cited in my version so that his/her rationale may be evaluated. I haven't come under the impression that Arrow740 is an Islamic scholar of any note, or even a follower or student of Islamic law and history. If I am wrong, please correct me. FollowerofAllah FOA 16:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Which part of WP:ATT did you not understand? Please stop "balancing' material referenced to a reliable source with claims from random websites. Beit Or 20:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of inserting biased slanted opinion don't you understand? There are LOADS of websites cited in that reference list, but mine are the only ones that offend you? + Muslims may not place themselves in a position inferior to that of the followers of other religions.^[7] Pursuant to this principle, Muslim women may not marry non-Muslim men.^[8] The quote from Friedman bears no logical relationship to the second sentence, and has no greater support in the WP:ATT or reliable source than does mine except to be slanted. When did Thomas Friedman become an Islamic scholar? What makes his opinion a more superior source than the scorned about.com? How can excluding the public opinions of valid Islamic scholars with a secular journalist's be construed as anything other than prejudice? Surely, there are better and more credible sources re this issue. I refer you to neutral point of view. What about neutral point of view is so hard to understand?

Please stop insisting that this quote bears any substantial weight to the issue, and that it outranks the opinions of Islamic legal scholars. Perhaps, it will be best to simply cut the entire section re restrictions on marriage since it seems to be playground for mischief rather than a meaningful addition to the information. Meanwhile, I have combined both views; the Friedman quote is undoubtedly the extremist position. FollowerofAllah FOA 07:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that support your claims. Please stop inserting links to random websites that you have unearthed. Beit Or 19:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, the text you removed is sourced to Dunstan M. Wai, The Southern Sudan: The Problem of National Integration (published by Routledge, a mainstream publisher), an article by Khaleel Mohammed (a professor of religion at San Diego State, that is to say, a credentialed academic) and an interview with Hassan Turabi (a notable cleric) in a "major pan-Arabic news daily". It seems to me that these are all reliable sources - please explain specifically what you think is wrong with them, rather than reverting. In particular, please don't revert to a version that gives inaccurate page references to the Friedmann book - neither page 35 nor page 37 discuss marriage; page 162 does mention marriage in connection with the prohibition on Muslims placing themselves in a subordinate position to non-Muslims, so would be a good reference for that interpretation. VoluntarySlave 22:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wai confirms thje rest of the section. Though redundant, he can be retained. The rest are random websites. Khaleel Muhammad may be a decent man, but he is a minor scholar and the website where he published himself is not a reliable source. Beit Or 17:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wai says that the restriction on Muslim women marrying non-Muslims is dominant but not universal; given that he seems to think that it's worth mentioning the difference of opinion here, isn't it worth us including a sentence on it too? As for the Khaleel Muhammad and Turabi cites, I think they're reliable as evidence of the views of the authors themselves, that is, as examples of jurists who dissent from the dominant view. I don't know that either of them are notable enough to justify mentioning their dissent by itself; but as examples of a minority opinion mentioned by a secondary source (Wai), I think there's an argument for including them. VoluntarySlave 20:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see ijma. In Islamic law, a view that goes against the consensus (a minority view as you put it) has no strength. Khaleel Muhammad is not an Islamic scholar; he cannot issue fatwas (and even if he could, see above). Beit Or 20:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no ijima regarding what constitutes ijima. Additionally, no Muslim of any rank can create a sin where God has not. I posted scholars who maintain that they cannot find any prohibition in the sharia, the divine law, that opposes or denies marrying out to Muslim women. Fiqh is not divine, is applied to specific populations, circumstances and times, and may be challenged. The "prohibition" is from fiqh and not sharia. There is a distinction to be made and I may expand the section to include it.

Please explain why is Friedmann, another source that cannot issue fatwas (if that is the measure of validity, he fails), a reliable source re Islamic law and the application of a "law" against Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men? Why is it not proper to state that there is a challenge to the tradition that there is a prohibition in sharia against interfaith marriage for Muslim women? In fact, the reference to Khaled Abou El Fadl can be referenced to more than one idea in the section. His fatwa, which is specifically about interfaith marriage for Muslim women, states that he finds no prohibition in the sharia pertaining to it, and he is no minor scholar. Neither is Mohammad; he has ijaza from Shia and Sunni schools. We need to come to a suitable and NEUTRAL compromise that does not rely on a non-Muslim to decide Islamic practice. FollowerofAllah FOA 20:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, VoluntarySlave. Why is it that all of a sudden, this small section of an article has garnered so much interest and antagonism from people who believe that Muslim scholars with ijaza have no credibility? I frankly don't care who gets it right, as long as they get it right. I'm also curious as to your objections to the sources, Beit Or. They are not "random websites", as you claim, and they are certainly not the only websites in the reference list. Your objections appear arbitrary, under the circumstances. FOA 01:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Reliable source, citation #59 of the neutral version of the disputed text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_Abou_El_Fadl Reliable source, citation #63 of the neutral version of the disputed text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_al-Turabi Reliable source, citation #62 of the neutral version of the disputed text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaleel_Mohammed FOA 01:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740's latest revision. He complains about Khaled Mohammad, but retains Freidmann, as though he is a higher authority of Islam:

- Islamic jurists have traditionally held that Muslim women may only enter into marriage with Muslim men.^[9] This principle exists because Muslims may not place themselves in a position inferior to that of the followers of other religions.^[10]

Freidmann has no undue authority or weight over the tenets of Islam. To retain him while eliminating valid dissenters does not promote neutrality, and elevates a non-Muslim over Muslim scholars, who have the right to interpret law, as that is what Islamic scholars tend to do. Apparently, Arrow believes in Friedmann more than s/he believes in allowing Muslims to pose valid and reasoned challenges to the status quo. Is that a substantial platform upon which to rely upon one's own preferences instead of allowing for diversity of thought, a tradition in Islamic jurisprudence? FollowerofAllah FOA 05:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good job, Calliopejen1 !

I like your edit to Restrictions on Marriage. I was looking for ways to do a better incorporation, and you did well! FOA 08:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! But note that I don't necessarily approve of the sources you've chosen because I haven't looked over them... You'll still have to deal with the other editors about that. Calliopejen1 09:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I just did a quick search in google books for

marriage OR marry "muslim woman" OR "muslim women" "non-muslim man" OR "non-muslim men"

and here are the top seven or so results that I could access. Lots of good information here. Some writers seem to go each way, but most say it is not permitted. Maybe others want to look at more of the book results even beyond these. Calliopejen1 16:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

*http://books.google.com/books?id=46gI7MAgiOkC&pg=PA70&ots=fmJ_YYnMDQ&dq=marriage+OR+marry+%22muslim+woman%22+OR+%22muslim+women%22+%22non-muslim+man%22+OR+%22non-muslim+men%22&sig=-yNCR3xYigX-jgkVoz5HFFCMmsQ

* http://books.google.com/books?id=TF2fVxyws90C&pg=PA28&ots=m64GSFGW8Z&dq=marriage+OR+marry+%22muslim+woman%22+OR+%22muslim+women%22+%22non-muslim+man%22+OR+%22non-muslim+men%22&sig=RYtArCAHQZWMSqd67k-dZr7hdNE

* http://books.google.com/books?id=mpQCjXm0HAwC&pg=PA131&ots=V0TT3wFuw0&dq=marriage+OR+marry+%22muslim+woman%22+OR+%22muslim+women%22+%22non-muslim+man%22+OR+%22non-muslim+men%22&sig=xmWpJnlWd6J-pzidPAFW3XLXxMc

* http://books.google.com/books?id=Yq5AUlWjZpsC&pg=PA267&ots=RxKzWOQqkc&dq=marriage+OR+marry+%22muslim+woman%22+OR+%22muslim+women%22+%22non-muslim+man%22+OR+%22non-muslim+men%22&sig=nBQ7Kp2h1o16ThRzaaWn-VS3z3M

* http://books.google.com/books?id=R1Wsf79ufqkC&pg=RA1-PA259&ots=4zHCtdFywZ&dq=marriage+OR+marry+%22muslim+woman%22+OR+%22muslim+women%22+%22non-muslim+man%22+OR+%22non-muslim+men%22&sig=Yr-v0tpQztTtN1VyAH7Fi4TvY7s

* http://books.google.com/books?id=a0nToibj6K4C&pg=PA163&ots=98VtFCfzDP&dq=marriage+OR+marry+%22muslim+woman%22+OR+%22muslim+women%22+%22non-muslim+man%22+OR+%22non-muslim+men%22&sig=wce0dQPIql1tzk2GpKIEvcuYhdk#PPA162,M1

* http://books.google.com/books?id=OTx1qbA8OW8C&pg=PA483&ots=yQUSOhcIPp&dq=marriage+OR+marry+%22muslim+woman%22+OR+%22muslim+women%22+%22non-muslim+man%22+OR+%22non-muslim+men%22&sig=Sqc00jlL6qgtUwGYPGXwmO0iOZg

Thank you! I do have book references, but I have to learn how to incorporate them as cites. I also acknowledge, in the neutral version, that fiqh rulings do say it is not allowed, but it should be also acknowledged that the rulings disallow it under the same principle, mashlaha, that marriage with non-Muslim women is deemed to be not allowed in the west - the best interest of the Muslim community, not because it is explicity forbidden by the Quran or the Sunnah. Muslim men marry non-Muslim women in the west all the time, and rarely is it ever denounced as a violation of fiqh law (the reference to Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl's website mentions this restriction.) The Caliph Umar forbid Muslim men to marry ahl al kitab women under that principle, as do one or two other countries today, so it has precedent. The over emphasis on disallowing Muslim women under fiqh law and allowing Muslim men to do what fiqh has ruled against is a topic that will need addressing as part and parcel fo the politics of fiqh culture, and this is but a tidbit of it. If we are going to have a section called "Restrictions in Marriage", let's keep it real and not bind it into a personal agenda based on one biased source (Friedman). Thanks again! FollowerofAllah FOA 18:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The template you want for citing book references is (memorably enough) {{Cite book}}, which like {{Cite web}} goes inside <ref name="SOMETHINGUNIQUE">...</ref>. :) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pasted from Criticism of Islam

This is POV but maybe has some facts that could be incorporated. Calliopejen1 22:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Women are treated as second class citizens in many Islamic countries and societies. This disparity stems form the fact that equal rights are not granted to women. The Qu'ran is interpreted as an affirmation of the patriarchal nature of Islamic societies. The rule of talaaq or divorce is one of the most misused ones particularly in India.^{[opinion needs balancing]} The Qu'ran holds that divorce should be a lengthy and drawn out affair giving ample time and scope for reconciliation.^{[citation needed]} However the interpretation of the verses as triple talaaq or instant divorce by only saying "Talaaq ! Talaaq ! Talaaq !" is more popular to dissolve marriages. All the rights of the woman are usurped. Central and State Governments in India have been criticised by Muslim scholars when they have attempted to intervene in such matters to secure the rights of women. Some Muslim countries have permitted divorce by newer technologies like text messages so that the Muslim man can divorce to his wife by sending her a text message without having to ever see her.^[11][12]

[edit] Women in some muslim countries have "FEWER" rights

How can you possibly dispute that? To say they have "different" rights is misleading. Women can't testify in court, dont have choices in marriage, don't have choices in atire: that means they have FEWER rights. Come on people, there's no reason to go overboard politically correct here and beat around the bush. In some muslim-dominated countries, women have FEWER rights. Period. 70.234.159.24 22:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

that's an uncited point of view. please see our policy on neutrality. i don't necessarily advocate using the word "different", but it is less biased than "fewer." ITAQALLAH 22:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of the WP:NPOV policy. But it does not apply here, as my suggestion does not show a POV. Count the rights of women in countries where Islamic law is the state law, such as Iran, and you will simply see fewer rights belonging to women, period. It's not a POV. Women once had fewer rights than men in the United States, and blacks had fewer rights than whites over 100 years ago. Not different rights: fewer rights. The same is true with women in muslim nations like Iran today. The phrase "different" was misleading, as "different" can imply a number of things from "different but equal" rights to "a different amount of rights." "Fewer" rights is the most accurate term that should be used. 70.234.159.24 22:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

to suggest that Islamic law offers less rights for women - which it seems you are - is simply a viewpoint and an assertion which is not cited to any reliable sources. ITAQALLAH 22:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he is suggesting that many Islamic countries give women fewer rights, regardless of how scholars interpret the religion. 140.247.243.169 09:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

what has a country's being "Islamic" got to do with women's rights if it's not related to Islamic law? ITAQALLAH 21:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secondary sources

Although a claim sourced to primary sources is bieng inserted ([15]), we need secondary sources to verify this. The souces used are Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud and Tabari. None of these are reliable, nore secondary.

I request that if someone can provide a secondary souce, then do so, else this claim will be removed.Bless sins (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

what is wrong with Tabari? Yahel Guhan 09:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Tabari is a medieval historian. Unless you believe Muhammad was the "Apostle of Allah" you may not agree with him, as he presents the orthodox Islamic view (which was prevalent at the time he flourished). For history we generally use modern sources.Bless sins (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not mentioned or cited anywhere in the article that I could find. She is a very opinionated person who spreads text which is borderline on inflammatory.

Wikipedia, to my knowledge - is an unbiased source for information. If Ayaan Hirsi Ali is discussed, she should be discussed on her own, and noted somewhere.

If pictures are cited / used in articles, they should be relevant to the article, enhance the article, or at least mentioned in some way. I'm certain most people would agree with this. If Ms. Ali's photo is required in the article, then there should be a section shedding light on her role in this subject.

Thus far, there is none.

--Kyanwan (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is not hijab!

The Rajasthani women in this picture are not wearing hijab! Original image can be seen here. The women are wearing a dupatta. Please remove this misleading image. The term hijab cannot be used to refer to any piece of clothing used by women to cover their head especially if that clothing has traditional name. As far as I know, hijab is more of a Islamic religious clothing and there is no reason to believe the Rajasthani women depicted are muslims. Thanks --Emperor Genius (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hijab is a concept not clothing. Hijab refers to any clothing that follows the Islamic rules (sometimes over-ridden by Islamic traditions).Bless sins (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misconceptions about women in Islam

There are widespread erroneous misconception about the status of women in Islam (Submission.) This misconception was augmented by some newsmedia that made little effort to correct their understanding before broadcasting their views on this matter. Adding to this misconception are the regrettable practices in most so called "Islamic" countries or societies where myths, traditions and innovations have won over the true Islamic (Quranic) teachings and where women are traditionally subdued and oppressed. In this presentation we will try to clarify the position of the true Islam (Submission) on the status of women. We will list the misconceptions then comment on every issue accordingly.

(1)Muslim women have to wear the veil: This is a very common misconception, as Quran does not command the veil (Hijab). Wearing the veil is a tradition and is only supported by the man-made books of Hadiths and Sunna. These books do not represent the words of God in the Quran and on many occasions contradict them. Please see: Women Dress code in Islam.

(2) Islam encourages wife beating: On the contrary, Quran uses the best psychological approach to discourage this widespread abuse that is widespread in both Islamic and non-Islamic societies. Please see: Domestic violence, Wife abuse and beating, a Quranic Perspective.

(3) The woman inherits only half what a man can inherit: This is a common misconception even among the traditional Muslims themselves. Quran gives the parents total freedom to give their children as much as they see fit even if this means giving the females double what the males would get. Quran, however, commands that if a will is NOT left, then the estate is distributed in such a manner that the son gets double what the daughter gets. Generally, the son is responsible for a family, while the daughter is taken care of by a husband or her family. However, the Quran recommends in 2:180 that a will shall be left to conform with the specific circumstances of the deceased. For example, if the son is rich and the daughter is poor, one may leave a will giving the daughter everything, or twice as much as the son.

(4)The woman's testimony. is equal only to half of the man's testimony: This is a gross mis-representation. The woman testimony is equal to the man's testimony except in one case only, the financial transactions. This is according to 2:282;

[ 2:282] O you who believe, when you transact a loan for any period, you shall write it down. An impartial scribe shall do the writing. ........ Two men shall serve as witnesses; if not two men, then a man and two women whose testimony is acceptable to all. Thus, if one woman becomes biased, the other will remind her. It is the obligation of the witnesses to testify when called upon to do so. ......

Financial transactions are the ONLY situations where two women may substitute for one man as witness. This is to guard against the real possibility that one witness may marry the other witness, and thus cause her to be biased. It is a recognized fact that women are more emotionally vulnerable than men. If the woman as a witness was worth half that of a man, the verse would have stated so clearly. But obviously that is not the case. Women's testimony in all other matters are equal to that of a man or even supersedes his testimony as in the case of a wife testifying against her accusation of adultery, 24:6-10. See also, 65:2, 5:106 and 4:6

(5)Muslim woman cannot have jobs outside their homes: This also is not true. The social structure in the East where Islam (Submission) prevails encourages the woman to make her house her first priority but there is no prohibition whatsoever on women having to work and earn their living. The Muslim (submitter) woman has been given the privilege to earn money, the right to own property, to enter into legal contracts and to manage all of her assets in any way she pleases. She can hold a job or run her own business and no one has any claim on her earnings including her husband. Historically, Muhammed's first wife was a merchant who hired Muhammed to work for her. Muslim women went along with their husbands, fathers and brothers during battles to take care of the wounded and help in the back lines of the troops..

(6)Polygamy is strongly recommended: This is one of the most common misconceptions about Islam (Submission.) Quran strongly discourages polygamy. Polygamy was a way of life until the Quran was revealed 1400 years ago. It was advocated and practiced by the followers of the previous scriptures. Quran came to put the first scriptural limit on polygamy and discourages it as much as possible. Please see; Polygamy, the right way In all the scriptures, the men were allowed to have more than one wife and not vise verse, since the idea of polygamy then was to populate the earth. As we know a woman can be pregnant only once a year even if she is married to four men but one man can have four children in the process at the same time if he is married to four wives. Polygamy was never meant to be abused for sexual pleasure or prove superiority. The emotional make up of a man makes him acceptable to polygamy and the opposite is true for women who prefer a monogamous relationship.

(7)Men status is higher than that of the women : Again this is not true. Many writers who wrote about women's rights refer to the statement in 4:34 as a sign of the man is above the women in status but it is a misunderstood statement. In 4:34, the expression "..al-rijalu qawwdmuna 'ala al-nisa'i.... " means "The men are made responsible for the women, and GOD has endowed them with certain qualities, and made them the bread earners." This expression simply means that God is appointing the husband as "captain of the ship." Marriage is like a ship, and the captain runs it after due consultation with his officers. It does not assign inequality but rather assigns duties to avoid conflicts and disputes.

Quran provides every possible proof that women and men are equal in th sight of God and treats both genders in the same way and rewards them in the same way. Please see; Are women and men equal in Islam? , Women in the religion of Submission (Islam) and Blame it on Eve. !.

(8) Muslim Women cannot have education: This is not true. Qur'an encourages the pursuit of knowledge by all Muslims (Submitters) regardless of their sex. It repeatedly commands all believers to read, to recite, to think, to contemplate, as well as to learn from the signs of God surrounding us in nature. In fact, the very first revelation to Prophet Muhammad was "READ" and the second revelation talked about God who teaches the people by the "PEN". In either case no gender is advocated, the order is for everyone. Islam (Submission) does not put any limit on the kind or field of education a woman may choose. Islamic history still has the mark of few women scholars

(9)Women cannot share in the political life in their communities: This also is not true. Women in Islam (Submission) have the right to vote, express their views on any public matter, run for an office and even be the head of a state.See 60:12, 27:22-44 Please see; Women and Politics in Islam and The record set straight: Women in Islam have rights.

(10)Women cannot pray, fast, do Hajj or Ummrah during menstruation: This misconception is even common among women who follow the traditional Islam that derives many of its laws from man-made books. This is totally against the teachings of the Quran. Please see; Religious Duties and Menstruation . A question/ answer report.

(11)Women are stoned to death for Adultery : This is totally false as there is NO death penalty for adultery in Islam (Submission). The penalty of adultery is equal for both men and women, and involves symbolic lashing. Social pressure, i.e., public witnessing of the penalty, is the basic punishment see 24:1-2

(12)Muslim women cannot marry Jewish or Christian men: This common misconception is advocated and promoted by men but have no basis in the Quran. Quran gives both men and women the right to marry from the people of the book, i.e. Muslims (Submitters), Jews or Christians. God also reminds us that the marriage to a believer is much better than the marriage to an idolworshiper. See 5:5 and 2:221. See also; Marriage in the Quran, and A Marriage question and answer from the Quran.

(13)Muslim women do not have the right to divorce their husbands: This is not true. Divorce laws in the Quran apply to both men and women equally. Women have the right to divorce their husbands as long as they follow the laws set in the Quran. Please see; Divorce according to the Quran.

(14)Compensation for the murder of a woman is half the going rate for men: This is totally false as both men and women are equally treated and compensated according to the Quran. Such laws are found in the fabricated books of Hadiths and Sunna and they are not the laws of God in the Quran.See 2:178.

(15)For a woman to prove rape, four adult males of "impeccable" character must witness the incident: This a gross misunderstanding of this law. Like any civil law in the civilized world, Quran urges a proof beyond doubt for such a horrendous crime. Quran accepts a proof of a crime if the proof is beyond doubt, e.g. see 12:75. Therefore although the verses of adultery which is used in cases of rape are applied, a proof beyond doubt, e.g. DNA of the offender should be an acceptable proof instead of four witnesses in these cases. Insisting on four witnesses when the other proof is beyond doubt is NOT Quranic.

(16)The legal age for girls to marry tends to be very young: This is not an Islamic law but local tribal or cultural tradition. In reality Islam (Submission) expects marriage to be established on mutual understanding, acceptance and approval. Such requirements cannot be achieved in the very young girls (or boys). Maturity, mentally, emotionally and physically is the rule in Islam (Submission) before marriage. The story of prophet Muhammed marrying his wife Aysha when she was only six is a gross lie that can be found in the Hadiths books that are full of many other similar lies that do not represent Islam (Submission.) Please see; Prophet Muhammed's marriage to Aysha.

(17)Female circumcision, also called female genital mutilation: Quran does not mention nor advocates female circumcision and all the rituals that go with it. This is NOT an Islamic practice by all means. This practice predates Muhammad and is also common among some Christian communities.

(18) Muslim women are not allowed to drive: Again this is not Islamic law but rather a local tradition in some of these so called "Islamic" countries. Quran has no restriction on the women moving freely in the society, whether this includes riding a horse, driving a car or flying an aeroplane. Local laws that require the women to be accompanied by a male relative whenever they travel are traditional laws that have NO basis in the Quran.

(19) Typically, fathers win custody of boys over the age of six and girls after the onset of puberty: This is only a local law that is not supported by the Quran. Cases of custody are to be decided on a case by case basis with the interest of the children being the priority in any judgment. God puts a great emphasis on protecting the right of the weak and unprotected kids, please see; 6:151-152, 17:31, 17:34, 2:233, 6:140, 60:12, 4:127, 4:2, 4:10, 33:5, 93:9, 2:215, .....

(20) Women must be segregated form men in public, work and places of worship: This is a common misconception even among some Muslims but has NO basis in the Quran. On the contrary, God meant for the women and men to be together with NO segregation whether in public, work or worship places. Hajj (pilgrimage) is a vivid example of how women and men are not segregated and worship in the same place, then go ahead with their lives and practice commerce after Hajj with no limits..

(21) "honor killings" of women: Murders by husbands or male relatives of women suspected of disobedience, usually a sexual indiscretion or marriage against the family's wishes. These are tribal laws, not Islamic laws. There is no such thing as HONOR killing in Islam (Submission.) All killings are condemned in the Quran. in the strongest language possible. Please see; 5:32, 6:151 and 17:33. Punishment for these killers will follow the same general rules in the Quran and would not get a lighter sentence for his claims even if they were true. After all, these killers violated the sacred laws of God in the Quran. The punishment in the Quran is based always on an attempt to save lives not to waste lives. Please see Capital Punishment in Islam.

(22) "Morality Police" keeps control on the behaviour of women: Islam (Submission) does not assign police for morality as such character is not created by force but rather by understanding of God's laws in the Quran. The practice of the so called "Morality Police" is a total innovation of some of these so called "Islamic" countries but has nothing to do with Islam (Submission.)

(23) Women cannot travel freely except in the company of a male relative, "mahram": This is a man made fabrication that has no support in the Quran. According to the Quran, women have no limitations on their moves, travels or activities. Men who hire themsleves guards on the women's moves do this out of their own wishes not beause of any religious law in the Quran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.174.156 (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)