Talk:Nikah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Pakistani Custom

Removed this portion because this is a local Pakistani custom, not necessarily Islamic.


Contents

[edit] Mahr

There have been a large section about mahr in this article, and it does not belong here. Mahr belongs to all weding forms, and it is supposed to be covered in Islamic Marriage Contract.

Please move your mahr editions to that article.

--Striver 21:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting Lao Wai's Edits

Lao Wai, could you cite sources for "The most important feature of a marriage in Islamic law is the giving of mahr which makes sexual intercourse legal." There are no other hadiths written here, why are you adding those? Why are you adding info on slaves to an article on Nikah? --Irishpunktom\talk 10:04, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I did cite sources for it, but because Striver asked I moved it. You have now reverted me three times (thus breaking the 3RR rule) for something I have already moved. I added them precisely because there are no hadiths there - the article could do with some evidence. The bit on slavery was added because, of course, Islamic law says you can marry four wives and as many slave women as you like. Oddly enough I think that belongs in an article on marriage in Islam. Although I will admit it may be in the wrong article. And the paternal cousins is not something in the past. Please argue a sensible case for revertions, don't just go and do it, especially not repeatedly. Lao Wai 10:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
The 3RR says you can not revert more than 3 times, that is 4 times. We have loads of articles on slavery, this is an item on marraige and shold deal with marraige, Husband and wive. As for the paternal bit, In places liek Gujarat and the frontier it occours amongst Maternal Cousins too, thus, leaving it simply at First Cousins makes more sense. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:22, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
I will accept the removal of slavery bit. Perhaps this was the wrong place. I will think about it anyway. But 4 times only makes it worse. If you break Wikipedia rules there will be consequences in the end. Don't keep doing it. Talk first anyway. It is not the paternal bit, it is the passive tense. Leave it please. Lao Wai 10:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Thats fair enough, I didn't see it that way, but your last edit makes it clearer. The edits you made seem to be designed to add your own POV spin into the article. You should never at that "x" is most important, but what is most important in some sections is almost always disputed in others. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Well the paternal bit is important, but I will think it over. As it happens I do have a POV on marriage, but my edits are complete separate. I will not accept being reverted just because you think you know why I do what I do. Argue a proper case and I'll be reasonable. It is not my opinion that mahr is most important. It is Muhammed's and hence most Islamic scholars. I did not say so. He did. Hence it belongs - if not here then elsewhere. As can be seen by the case of Ali and Fatimah (although I expect Striver would dispute that hadith). Lao Wai 11:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Lao

You just added that virging can be married away without consent. That is false. Please source or remove it. --Striver 17:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Well actually there is a source on Wikipedia, in the article Islamic View of Marriage that says "The woman needs her juridical guardians consent if she is a virgin." I could probably have phrased that better. "A widow shall not be married until she be consulted, nor shall a virgin be married until her consent be asked." The Companions said, "In what manner is the permission of a virgin? " He replied," Her consent is by her silence." From the dictionary of Islam "Liberty is allowed a woman who has reached the age of puberty, to marry or refuse to marry a particular man, independent of her guardian, who has no power to dispose of her in marriage without her consent or against her will; while the objection is reserved for the girl, married by her guardian during her infancy, to ratify or dissolve the contract immediately on reaching her majority." A girl under the age of puberty cannot consent in any meaningful way. The question is, if she does not want to be married, and the marriage is dissolved, has her husband been committing adultery? Obviously not - it is a valid marriage between the age it is contracted on her behalf and the time she gets it dissolved. But I would be happy if you rephrased it to make it clear that very young girls, who cannot in any rational sense consent, can be married as long as they are silent. After all Muhammed married a wife who was too young to even understand what was going on. Lao Wai 18:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I dont belive aisha was 6, more like 14. What you are refering to is bethorasal, not marriage. They are not allowed to have intercourse until the betrothal is solemnized in a marriage, and that only happens if the girl is post pubescent and concenting. Sunni claim she was bethrod at six and married at nine. She can be bethrod at young age, but not married. --Striver 03:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of Pipes link

Daniel Pipe's article is not about Nikaah. It's about "Arabian Sex Tourism". Your characterization of it as being about Nikah is original research. In fact, the article mentions "nikaah" only twice, and both of the times its in a quote by a Muslim that is saying how the sex tourism is totally unlawful under nikaah. Pipes usually doesn't write about Islamic marriage rules because he is not an Islamic theologian, and here he wasn't either, as he didn't even use the word in his own writing. Please find a better article. Yuber(talk) 16:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Yuber. The Article is about using the practice of using Nikah as a front for sex tourism. That is entirely relavent to understanding the role of Nikah in Arabian/muslim society. Klonimus 17:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Erm, no it's not. You wrote this as the subtitle of the article:"on the abuse of Nikaah as a front for prostitution". Pipes never wrote that.
Other people who regularly edit this article have been informed. Yuber(talk) 17:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
That's nice, now you are trying to start multi user edit wars. Klonimus 07:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
No, but there are people much more knowledgeable than you on this subject who also edit this article, and their opinion counts as well.Yuber(talk) 13:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The link added is only another article by Pipes that uses speculation and his own personal opinions (without any sources btw) to create criticism on just about anything to do with Islam. Just the title of the article shows how much Pipes has speculated and then reading it shows that he has started making up his own stories. The article barely relates to Nikah at all, it talks mainly about men who stalk women and then marry them. The word occurs about once in the entire article (in a quote too) and barely focuses on Nikah as a principle; only an occurence in one society. It has nothing to do with Nikah itself, it only talks about "sex tourism". I don't know why klonimus relies on pipes for information on everything. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason the article is such a bad source is that Pipes never uses the word nikaah. In fact, it's only in one or two quotes by Muslims condemning the sex tourism industry as going against nikah. Pipes himself calls these corrupt acts "sham marriages", and isn't commenting on nikah itself. So I'd like to know, how isn't it original research that Klonimus says this article is "on the abuse of Nikaah as a front for prostitution"?Yuber(talk) 18:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


Klonimus, Karl... I saw your post on Jayjg's talk page (Klonimus) and I figured I'd address it, well, at least the issue on this page. I more or less agree with Anonymous... it's not really related, at least, not really more related than sex slavery in the Phillipines is related to the Catholic view of marriage. It also definitely does not belong on this page because of the scope of the issue. So, I would ask you (Karl and Klonimus) to please move this issue to Islamic view of marriage. I think I will still disagree with you or at least ask for some kind of better presentation, but that is about the marriage process, and this is an exploitation of the marriage process not a contractual issue, which is pretty much what nikah is. Can we agree to move this issue to Islamic view of marriage as that article's scope is large enough to cover this issue? gren グレン 00:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The Article in question is about muslims using Nikah as front for sex tourism. It is entirely relevent to an article on Nikah because it is about how that islamic instution is being used by real muslims in the real world. If nikah is being used innapropraitly, that merits coverage on the nikah page.
I might further add that several editors have been acting here in bad faith, espeically Yuber (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) who has engaged in actions proscribed by his RfAr(revert warring), and Anonyme who is doing the same buffing/reverting that cost him his RfA. Klonimus 07:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
My point was that this issue is about more than Nikah, it's about the Islamic marriage system because it involves the divorce too. I also don't think it's notable, representative or whatnot and merits clarification. In the end it's not a big deal as long as it's portrayed in a way not making any normative claims, because, those claims would have to be seriously backed up.
I haven't read over Yuber's RFAr ever but since you informed Jayjg he mentioned he'd look at it and something about contacting and arbitrator and action should be taken if it's in violation. I also would not consider any of this necessarily bad faith. You added a link a while ago that when noticed by Yuber and Anon was reverted... each of you is making your claims and that leads to revert wars... I would hesitate saying that you are right and they are wrong because there really is no consensus on the issue. I would encourage you to work this out and I think one of the best ways might be through expansion, because (it seems to me) that it sticks out unwarrantedly and glaringly in an article this short, however, in a longer article it would fit. I do understand both sides and I wouldn't strongly agree with either. I still do feel that it belongs on Islamic view of marriage a lot moreso than here. gren グレン 09:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Yuber's objections to this link seem to me to be sound. The link is a short, poor-quality article of very dubious relevance to the subject of this article. The mention of nikah is only part of a quote from another article in a newspaper. The author of the piece linked to is a controversial polemicist. I'm sure that with a bit of work, the article could be expanded and improved and that would be a much better use of people's time than a revert war over an at best not-very-useful link. Palmiro | Talk 14:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Would we add a section on beating your wife to an article on Marriage under the Christian tradition? I dont think so. Lets not try to rubbish each other religions in wikipedia please. the link has no place - and should stay off. Unbehagen 19:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Klonimus, it is relevant. Queeran

[edit] link vote

(here was s deleted voting sugestion by Striver)

Don't_vote_on_everything. While this may not be everything, I believe a vote here is of no real use and should be solved by other means. Voting doesn't make things more encyclopedic or anything. gren グレン 05:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] POV

More common among the rednecks? Source? Accuracy? I thought it was the Saud dollar rich shaykhs..

Further, the pree aranged marriage section is inaccurate and needs a prose check. --Striver 00:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Why just not spit it out: three Muslims have fewer sexual partners in a lifetime than one westerner. Much better to something like that in a factual and sourced manner than saying "no, we dont do that, maybe some hillbilly, but not we in the city".... --Striver 00:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Are you sure, maybe three muslims have more sexual partner's than three westerner, but they keep it a secret. This sort of lame speculation has no place in an encyclopedia. It's also well known that even saudi arabia is having a bit of an AIDS problem. Klonimus 01:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Either way, if we are going to make an assertion there should be some kind of study backing it up. gren グレン 02:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence rate: 0.01% (2001 est.)[1] --Striver 05:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It's probably *alot* higher than that. That figure reminds me of China reporting that they had a total of 8 cases of HIV in 1990. Here's a link to an AFP articleHealth-AIDS-Saudi: Saudi Arabia has 6,787 HIV/AIDS cases, up five-times from 16 months ago , December 1, 2003. Just based on that data in that article the rate of infection in saudi citizens is at least 0.07% and is probably much higher. Given the sexually repressed nature of saudi society, I would be wholly unsurprised to see many cases go unreported.

Klonimus 08:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It is advisable that any issue not relating to Nikah ceremony not added to this article.

Siddiqui 19:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk about actual customs?

Hey lovely people, I'm marrying into a Muslim family and came to this page to better understand the Nikah. Rather than just discussing polgamy--which is a rather Western-centric, Orientalist perspective--why not talk about the Nikah itself, perhaps the different variation in different cultures (e.g., India, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, etc.)? I'm trying to understand what is expected of me in the Nikkah, and this page offered absolutely zero. Poo!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/i/k/Talk%7ENikah_3230.html"