Talk:Women in Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Women in Islam article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Contents 1 Changes 2 Slavery 3 Being bold 4 Beating totally prohibited? 5 Sources 6 Inheritence 7 Sources 8 In relation to men

[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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Sources

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

[edit] Inheritence

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

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

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

[edit] Sources

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

[edit] In relation to men

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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