Talk:Gender roles in Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

align="left" 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.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 28 August 2005. The result of the discussion was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP.
Peer review Gender roles in Islam has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
A summary of this article appears in Women and Islam.

Contents

[edit] Edits

I removed:

1)

"Two of the most authoritative collections of Hadiths, those of Bukhari and Muslim, give the following Saying of Muhammed.
"Allah's Apostle once said to a group of women: 'I have not seen any one more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious, sensible man could be led astray by some of you.' The women asked: 'O Allah's Apostle, what is deficient in our intelligence and religion?' He said: 'Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?' They replied in the affirmative. He said: 'This is the deficiency of your intelligence' ... 'Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?' The women replied in the affirmative. He said: 'This is the deficiency in your religion.'"
Thus although women's equality was theoretically part of Islam, in fact there were other traditions as well which demeaned women's intelligence and piety."

This hadith is disputed even among muslims.

It is in the collections of Bukhari and Abu-Muslim or so I am told. Is it? If it is then it is hardly disputed except by some modern apologists and it should go back. Lao Wai 21:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

2)


The famous Islamic jurist Ibn Kathir wrote about verse 4:34,
"Men are superior to women, and a man is better than a woman."
This opinion has been supported by other scholars such as Baidawi, Razi, Tabari and Zamakhshari.
Commenting on the division of inheritances in 4:11, Razi wrote:
"(The males share is that of two females). Man is more perfect than the woman in creation, and intelligence, and in the religious sphere, such as the suitability to be a judge, and a leader in worship. Also, the testimony of the man is twice that of the woman. So that whoever is given great responsibilities must be given correspondingly great privileges. As the woman is deficient in intelligence and of great lust, if she is given much money, much corruption will be the result. "

Since no source is given

--Striver 21:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I will provide a source if you like. Not that I care for that quote. Lao Wai 21:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I have two more problems. First being that you insert Bukhari and Muslim hadith as if they where representativ of all Muslim factions. Ad you might know, Shia view those collections as very un-authentic. Second, the part about inheritance is uncourced as well. The Quran states that when making a contract, a second woman is to be used, to support the first one in case she errs, naturaly since they are not responcible to earn mony and therefore less experienced, and therefore more prone to make a error on that field. Nothing about their wittnes being less worth in general. Please source that they are less worth in general.

Also, rember to attribute sunni hadith to sunni belife.

--Striver 11:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I will do more to distinuish Sunni from Shia views. In fact I can put a few Shia views in if you like. But Bukhari and Muslim are serious scholars. They do, in fact, represent the main source of Islamic thought. Shia are only 10% of all Muslims. All those that reject these two scholars put together wouldn't double that figure. So as sources go they are pretty well as representative as you can get. Is there any dispute about the inheritance? I will also agree there is another Shia view on that too. The Quran does not state why two women are to be used. Your claim looks like a rationalisation to me. Again from Bukhari (didn't I quote this?)
Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion."
So there you have it. Muhammed himself said two female witnesses proved the inherent defect of a woman's intelligence. At least according to the Sunnis. Lao Wai 11:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

And another thing, add ineaquality issues in the proper section of the article.

--Striver 11:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Will do my best. Lao Wai 11:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your collaboration.

About Muslim and Bukhari not being representative, i didnt say that, i said they are not representative of Islam, However, as you pointed out, they are representative of Sunni Islam. That is a important distinction. I dont mean that everything in those collections are false, only that they are not necesarily true. Actualy, shias dont have any al-authentic sources, exept the Quran. All information needs to be taken from a marja, and then its only authentic according to that marja. There are examples of hadith that are authentic by all marja, for example "hadith al-thaqalyin", but as i mentioned, there are no collections quilalent to Muslim and Bukhari in shia sources.

However, Nahj al-Balagha does have a very high status in Shia sources, and is regarded as practicaly all-authetic, although maybe not in a theoretical level.

And by the way, the verses about male-only prophets is not correct, since the male form in Islam applied to a group means "a group of including a least a man", so those verses does not disprove of female prophets.

--Striver 12:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. I liked your changes and I have tried to include your criticism. What do you think? Well given 90% of Muslims are Sunni, and B. and M. are the two most important Sunni Hadith scholars, they must be fairly representative of Islam. But no matter. I was thinking of a marja - I have a quote from one somewhere but I can't find it just yet. Can you think of any female prophets? I think that maybe I remember something, but I am not an expert. Lao Wai 14:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Please read this Sunni article: [1]
And one with the opposing view: [2]
--Striver 11:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Even the first Sunni article links to this, (sorry it is so long - after you have seen it I will delete it),

Responding to your question, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, president of the Fiqh Council ofNorth America , states:
Allah sent many prophets and messengers to different people and at different times. There are only a few whose names are mentioned in the Qur'an. Allah says, (We did send messengers before you: of them there are some whose story We have related to you, and some whose story We have not related to you.) (Ghaafir 40: 78, an-Nisaa' 4: 164). The Messengers whose names are mentioned in the Qur'an were all men. There is no woman prophet or messenger whose name is mentioned in the Qur'an. Three times in the Qur'an Allah, Most High, says, (We did not send before you (i.e. Prophet Muhammad —peace and blessings be upon him) any but men (rijal) whom we did inspire…) (Yusuf 12: 109; an-Nahl 16: 43; al-Anbiyaa' 21: 7). Apparently this means that only men were chosen by Allah as His messengers and prophets. But the word "rijal" does not mean only men. In most cases in the Qur'an this word is used to mean men only, but there are a few places where it is also used to indicate both men and women. See for example surat al-A`raaf 7: 46, (And on the Heights (al-A`raf) will be men who would know everyone by their marks…) We know that the people of al-A`raaf will be both men and women, so this means that the word "rijal" can be used for both. Similarly in surat at-Tawbah 9: 109, Almighty Allah says, (Surely the Masjid whose foundation was laid down from the first day on piety is more worthy of your standing forth there for prayer. In it are men who love to be purified. And Allah loves those who make themselves pure.) This refers to the Masjid of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) where men and women both used to come for prayers. So it is obvious that the statement "in it are men who love to be purified.." does not mean "men only". One can also refer to surat an-Nur 24: 37, and al-Jinn 72: 6. In these two verses the word "rijal" is used and it includes men and women both.
Thus the majority of the Muslim scholars hold that the prophets and messengers were only men (i.e. males), but there were some scholars of the Qur'an who said that it was possible that some women were also prophets or messengers of Allah. We can say that most of the time Allah sent men as His prophets and messengers, but there is no conclusive evidence from the Qur'an to prove that only men were sent as prophets or to say that Allah never sent a woman as a prophet.

Thus it would seem that the majority of Muslim scholars do not hold that the term is inclusive although this North American does. He is not very convincing to me. I was going to add the one about the Masjid too because it does not say all the men there love to make themselves pure. Just that (some) men there do. So if it doesn't include women it does not include women. How about if I change it to say that traditionally the majority of Muslim scholars have said there are no female prophets?

By the way, how many female prophets do you know of, in any religion, before you read that article? --Striver 11:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Well none to be honest. Except perhaps Judith, Deborah and Mary. Lao Wai 11:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure, if you also ad that Imam Al-Qurtubi,Imam Al-Razi, Imam Al-Suyuti, Imam Al-Kamal Ibn Al-Humaam, Imam Al-Mubarkafuri rejected that notion using this verse in the cahpter of "The Prophets" as evidence:

[21.7] And We did not send before you any but men to whom We sent revelation, so ask the followers of the reminder if you do not

[21.76] And Nuh, when he cried aforetime, so We answered him, and delivered him and his followers from the great calamity.

[21.78] And Dawood and Sulaiman when they gave judgment concerning the field when the people's sheep pastured therein by night, and We were bearers of

[21.91] And she who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her of Our inspiration and made her AND her son a sign for the nations.

That verse is very clear cut in my view.

--Striver 12:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Well if it is that clear-cut why have the majority of past Muslim scholars said that there were none? It does sound indicative of something to me, but if it was as obvious as that why would other people have missed it? I will think for a little while, re-read the articles you posted and try to make the changes you suggest. That there is any debate about it at all is a sign of something. Jews would not deny that Deborah was a Judge and of course Mary plays a role in Christian thought out of all proportion to any Jewish Judge or Islamic prophet. Lao Wai 13:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lao Wai

Again, It is not up to you to research the meaning and/or importance of any hadith. You cannot say what something "seems to be saying", you can, however cite Scholarly or encyclopedic sources which state this opinion. Otherwise your interpretation of these hadiths is entirely original Research. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:35, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate that as a criticism. At least it is somewhat productive. Which ones do you object to in particular? There is clearly one that says husbands did not talk to their wives. I do not want to offend, so I'll remove "seems" if you like. Lao Wai 14:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, I would encourage you to count. There are only three reverts by me. [3], [4] and [5] . Secondly, the above was written prior to your revert, so kindly don't tell me to "use Talk Page and say why" if you are not going to even bother read it. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:44, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Well that still breaks the 3RR rule so I don't see why it makes any difference. If you wrote more, or even at all, I'd have more chance to read what you have to say. As for the rest of this comment, well, can you think of an English saying that involves a pot and a kettle? Lao Wai 15:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
sigh - Just cite a source that supports this interpritation of any of the hadiths. Your opinion and interpritation of these haddees and hadiths are irrelevent. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Which interpretation? When someone says in the Prophet's time husbands and wives did not speak, it suggests that things got better after his death. It is certainly relevant. Now I rather like Striver and I appreciate his work, so I don't want to offend him (or any other serious Muslim on Wikipedia) and I suspect saying that relationships were poor would do so. So I tried to make it softer. That is not an opinion. Still, you point out where I have put an opinion and I'll remove it. Lao Wai 15:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
But that ignores other hadiths which suggest the opposite. It's irrelevent anyway, beacuse you are not an authority, and you need to cite any sources. I don't think you have any, because most of what you have written is garbage. --Irishpunktom\talk 00:20, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Find me a Hadith that says otherwise and I'll put it in. It is clear, and I have said so in the article, that there are conflicting pieces of evidence wrt the status of women in the early years of Islam. I put in some things that suggest things got better, and some that suggest they did not. Of course I am not an authority - if I were it would be Original Research. I cite my sources extensively. I doubt if there is a more comprehensively cited article on Wikipedia. Which claim do you think is unsourced? What exactly is garbage in this article? Point it out to me and I'll fix it. Lao Wai 09:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shia Views

There is an obvious problem with finding Shia views as Hadiths are often disputed and so much depends on which person you ask, but may I ask other people's views on this Iranian (and so I assume Shia) scholar?

Another eminent Muslim thinker, Hadi Sabzevari, in his commentary on Sadr al-Mote'alihin wrote:
That Sadr ad-Deen Shirazi classifies women as animals is a delicate allusion to the fact that women, due to the deficiency in their intelligence and understanding of intricacies, and due to their fondness of the adornments of the world, are truly and justly among the mute animals [al-haywanti al-sa^mita]. They have the nature of beasts [ad-dawwa^b], but they have been given the disguise of human beings so that men would not be loath to talk to them and be compelled to have sexual intercourse with them. That is why our immaculate Law [shar'ina al-mutahhar] takes men's side and gives them superiority in most matters, including divorce, "nushuz," etc. (Quoted in Soroush, Abdolkarim, _Farbehtar az ideoloji_, Sera^t, Tehran, 1373 A.H.S.). [A.H.S. = After the Hegira, in Solar years].

Would it be a POV to include this? Lao Wai 18:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Jeesus... i give up, you can do whadever you whant with this article... I prefer to focus on other articles... --Striver 19:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Well I would rather you did not give up on this one. It is the only one I could find that came specifically from a Shia soruce although obviously it is an odd comment. Actually it came from a link provided by someone else too - it wasn't even my work. The question is who is this guy, how representative is he, how can this view be reconciled with other views and how much of this sort of thing ought to be in the article? Mind you, I expect it has been badly, and maliciously, translated. Lao Wai 20:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Brother in Humanity. That quote is Sooo NOT Shia Islam. I propose you take and read a bit about what Shias think of Fatimah Zahra, Khadijah and the woman that survived Karbala. And then think how well that rhymes with woman being non-humans in human disguise, so that men would be fooled to copulate with them. ASTAKHFORILLAH! --Striver 21:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Except it is so Shia Islam in that it was clearly produced by a Shia scholar based on the work of other Shia scholars. It may not be your sort of Shia Islam, but it is *a* type of Shia Islam (unless of course the translation is entirely wrong). I know what Shia think of the women of the prophet's family. Presumably that scholar above loved his mother and his wife - it is not a contradiction to dislike women in general but think well of a few specific women that are important to you. The question is, as I said, is it true? Lao Wai 09:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Just in passing I have another Shia view, a modern one this time,
"Hojatoleslam Imani says, "A married woman should endure any violence or torture imposed on her by her husband for she is fully at his disposal. Without his permission she may not leave her house even for a good action (such as charitable work). Otherwise her prayers and devotions will not be accepted by God and curses of heaven and earth will fall upon her."
My God, where do you find that rubish? Unless that is taken out of context, i totaly reject that view, and also it being presented as the general Shia belife. --Striver 16:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with this article

This is not my field, and I don't want to enter into a debate on the issues. There is a lot of excellent work here, and (for the most part) well-referenced research (well done), but there are some problems:

  1. This article would seem to overlap in subject matter with Women in Islam. Whilst that article deals mainly with practice and this with theology and the Qu'ran, the relationship needs sorter. Perhaps this article should be re-titled 'Gender Roles in the Qu'ran' and keep itself to that issue. I've no strong ideas here - but a merger or clearer differentiation is required.
  2. This article has POV problems. I'm not disputing the 60 women in Iranian universities statistic (although it needs refs). But the inclusion of that sole statistic is POV. What about the percentage of women drivers in Saudi Arabia? Or the percentage winning custody battles in the UAR? Or comparative earnings in Jordan? It is so easy to skew an article by selective statistic. I'm not saying that has been deliberately done, but it is the clear result. I'm placing a POV warning on the article, please feel free to remove it, once this matter is sorted.

I hope this helps, I'm afraid I'll need to leave it to folks who know more about the issues to fix it. --Doc (?) 22:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Since the article is about Gender Roles, I think the section Equality and Inequality needs to be retitled, perhaps to Equality and Differences. It also needs a much greater focus on the role of men versus/compared to the role of women in Islam to distinugish the subject matter more from Women in IslamBandraoi 14:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

I guess I'm going to have to drag this out of you. You just reverted my edit there, you demand an inclusion of "gives an example of the the more assertive role of women from Medina as compared to those from Mecca" - Why? The source deals with one specific tribe from one area (the Ansar) as opposed to another (The Quraysh). All Women in Yathrib did not belong to the ansar... but.. you know that.. right? --Irishpunktom\talk 19:18, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Yes I am afraid you are. The Ansar are not a Tribe. The point is that Islam does not adopt the ways of Medina as a model. The Maliki in particular, but the other Schools in general, adopt the customs of Mecca as important. And the Quraysh are important again. So if the customs of the Meccan Quraysh are offended by the ways of the Ansar women, then it is vitally important. What lesson should good Muslims draw from such a Hadith? I am sure that not all Medinese women belonged to the Ansar. Some were Jews for instance. So? Lao Wai 20:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Whie the ansar were not "a tribe", they were not the entire women of Medina. Do you know who the Ansar where?
Further, the Sources provided do not back up the statement given. Kindly quote, if you believe it does, from the source on how it supports the statements you have made? --Irishpunktom\talk 19:24, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
I think they do. The fact that men on average are better than women is immediately obvious when you read the quote. What other statements do you have problems with? Lao Wai 20:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't see it, can you kindly reproduce the quote here?--Irishpunktom\talk 22:28, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
A pleasure.
Again, from Sahih Muslim Book 31, Number 5966, it is clear that the average man is much better than the average woman,
Abu Musa reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: There are many persons amongst men who are quite perfect but there are not perfect amongst women except Mary, daughter of 'Imran, Asiya wife of Pharaoh, and the excellence of 'A'isha as compared to women is that of Tharid over all other foods.
So how many women are quite perfect? As opposed to "many" men who are? Clearly on average women are less perfect than men.
  • Ok, firstly, I hadn't even gotten on to that yet, but thanks for bringing it up. What that hadith says is that there were many "perfect" men throughout history (i.e, the Prophets).. it most certainly does not speak of "the average man". Secondly, what is the isnad of that Hadith? If it is strong, can you source a statement backing it as such? --Irishpunktom\talk
Well yes you had actually. It is true it does not mention the word "equal" but what it clearly says is that on average men are more likely to be perfect than women. Many man are perfect, almost no women are. Not equal. The isnad is, of course, irrelevant. This is a page for what Muslims have thought, not what is "True" in a religious sense. It is in Bukhari and so is obviously influential. Lao Wai 09:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
And are you really insisting that I document the fact that most women are not lesbians (and so are unlikely to enjoy having sex with Houris)? That they have dark-eyes (as any number of Suras and Hadiths say)? Are you serious or just wasting my time? Explain what sources you want and I will provide. Lao Wai 09:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I want a source that says .1) it is obvious women don't want to go to heaven .2) That "Gardens of perpetual bliss" are more "likely to appeal to men" than women. .3) That Houris are Eternally Virgin .4) That Houris are always female .5) That Houris are unlikely to appeal to women. According to the source you provided: "That is, Allah will recreate the elderly women and make them virgins; the same will be done for old men, Allah will make them youth." - Which seems at odds with the interpritation your original research has assigned it. .6) "a good Muslim woman faces sharing her husband with these companions" - again this is at odds with the source you have provided. --Irishpunktom\talk 09:39, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
I do not say women do not want to go to Heaven. Clearly and specifically. I say that the picture of Heaven given in the Quran is male-centric. Having sex with lots of female virgins is self-evidently going to appeal to men more than women and that is all I claim.
The Houris are always female? Come on now, surely you are wasting my time. This is how it is always translated. For instance ad-Dhukhan, 44:54,
044.054
YUSUFALI: So; and We shall join them to fair women with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes.
PICKTHAL: Even so (it will be). And We shall wed them unto fair ones with wide, lovely eyes.
SHAKIR: Thus (shall it be), and We will wed them with Houris pure, beautiful ones.
And at-Tur, 52:20,
052.020
YUSUFALI: They will recline (with ease) on Thrones (of dignity) arranged in ranks; and We shall join them to Companions, with beautiful big and lustrous eyes.
PICKTHAL: Reclining on ranged couches. And we wed them unto fair ones with wide, lovely eyes.
SHAKIR: Reclining on thrones set in lines, and We will unite them to large-eyed beautiful ones.
055.056
YUSUFALI: In them will be (Maidens), chaste, restraining their glances, whom no man or Jinn before them has touched;-
PICKTHAL: Therein are those of modest gaze, whom neither man nor jinni will have touched before them.
SHAKIR: In them shall be those who restrained their eyes; before them neither man nor jinni shall have touched them.
055.074
YUSUFALI: Whom no man or Jinn before them has touched;-
PICKTHAL: Whom neither man nor jinni will have touched before them -
SHAKIR: Man has not touched them before them nor jinni.
Are you seriously suggesting the Quran promises women will sleep with men other than their husbands in Heaven? As for the edlerly bit, that applies to those who die, not to the Houri (who are Heavenly beings). I have done no original research, and if I did how would that contradict a thing I have said? That women have to share their husbands in Heaven is not in contradiction with anything I have said. Read it instead of deleting it. Lao Wai 09:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
While I am here, a Hadith too,
"A man will have intercourse in Paradise with his wives from among al-hoor al-'iyn and his wives from among the people of this world, if they enter Paradise with him. A man will be given the strength of a hundred men to eat, drink, feel desire and have sexual intercourse. It was narrated from Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "The believer in Paradise will be given such and such strength for sexual intercourse." He was asked, "O Messenger of Allaah, will he really be able to do that?" He said, "He will be given the strength of one hundred (men)."" (Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, no. 2459. He said, (it is) saheeh ghareeb).
  • Right, well I've noticed you have completely ignored the point of contention which initiated this argument, and also request for sources, and instead just rambled on. Also, you have ignored a massively wide opinion on the interpritation of Jannah, and sided with a minority Salafi'ist explicitly literalist view of the Qur'an. Your faith is your faith, and whatever yo believe is fine, but you are ascribing a minority position as the majority, and that is wrong. You are also utterly ignoring alternative translations (Like Christoph Luxenbergs critical view of the Qur'an). I would also like you to cite sources and source the isnad of that hadee --Irishpunktom\talk 11:02, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
I have self-evidently done no such thing. What point of contention are you talking about? I have provided sources until my fingers are sore. There is no way that can be a rational complaint. Rambled? You asked for proof they are female and virgins and I did. From the Quran. Childish insults will get you nowhere. Literalist? Come on, stop wasting my time. It says what it says. It has been interpreted how it has been interpreted. What position do you think I am ascribing to anyone? Christop Luxenberg? No offense but who the Hell is he? You are privileging this guy over the three main translations into English? Your faith may be your faith, but this article ought to be about what most Muslims have believed and still believe. I cite sources - but I'll move some of these Quranic quotes into the article. What isnad? What is the relevance? Lao Wai 11:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
You have not provided sources, you have provided hadiths, and your interpritation of these hadiths. You have ascribed one position to a vast religion when that religion holds many many opinions on a wise variety of subjects. Islam is not a monolith, and literalist interpritations of the qur'an are the usual reserve of a minority of the Muslim world. You have ascribed an position to all of woman kind, are you a woman? Surely you can accept that Woman-kind are not a monolith, and that the beliefs and opinions of one women does not by definition lend itself to another. Also, you focus entirely on one aspect of the Qur'ans description of Jannah, this leads top the suspicion that you don't know the rest. This entire article is original research, and you are actively attacking attempts to Source it and NPOV it. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:50, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
I am happy to specify that Islam is not a monolithic whole - a self-evident statement of fact. I have given almost no interpretation of any Hadiths. They say what they say and I have little to add to that. Literalist interpretations are in fact the mainstream position in Islam and I wonder how many people you could find who would disagree. I very carefully said most women would not like having sex with other women or sharing their husbands. Some might for all I know. There is no original research here, and no one but me is making any effort to provide any sources. The NPOV attack is a new one. Clever. Where is the NPOV bit? Oh I looked the annoymous Christop uo. Raisins? Come on, who are you kidding? Lao Wai 12:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
"Literalist interpretations are in fact the mainstream position in Islam and I wonder how many people you could find who would disagree." Omg, please! Dont asert The Salafi disease of literalism to me or my fellow Shia and Sunni brothers and sisters, will ya! --Striver 16:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
You still don't get it, do you? who the hell are you to decide what most women want or don't want, what appeals to them or does not. Unless you cite a source which has actually researched this, you can not make this statement. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:42, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
No, but then I still think you are not reading what I write or willfully distorting what I say if you do. So what is there to get? I am not deciding what women want. I am saying that having sex with female virgins is unlikely to appeal to most women. A different claim, and in the circumstances fairly reasonable. Do I also have to prove that the world is round? The Sun does not go around the Earth? How much of the blatantly obvious do you want me to prove? Now you have been rude, you have reverted what I have written, you have provided little in the way of constructive criticism and now your VfD seems to have died. OK. Can you point to one little thing you have done that has been useful? Have I been wrong about a thing? Have I misquoted a single Sura or Hadith? Have you even found one that is not relevant? In short have you done anything other than waste my time? You are really expecting me to take seriously a guy who argues good Muslim men marry raisins in Heaven? I am sure there is a place for the man, but not a page which tries to talk about what Muslims believe. Lao Wai 10:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, When you state "I am saying that having sex with female virgins is unlikely to appeal to most women" you are willfully missrepresenting the entire concept Of jannah, the ciriticism of the very langage cited by Critics (Such as Ibn Warraq of all people), the various interpretations assigned to this including ones that translate it eactly the same and ascribe the same translation but non-sexual overtones. I mean, for heaps sake, the Sufi community compromise less than 10% of all muslims, yet within them htere are more than 100 ways of interpreting this. Secondly, it is not up to you to decide what is likely or unlikely in matters of interpritation. From what I've personally seen, most Muslim do wish to go to Jannah. --Irishpunktom\talk 12:03, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I am not willfully misrepresenting anything. It is not about the general concept of Paradise, but the specific Quranic representation. As I have said before and is clear from what I wrote. You continue to misrepresent my views on this. Why? There are a number of people who do not take the words literally, I agree. I am happy to include any minority viewpoint you like, but there is no doubt about how the majority of Muslims do and always have interpreted those words. They are going to Heaven if they are good, and they are going to be married to eternally virgin Houris etc etc. I do not accept that Sufis constitute a separate group within Islam. I am not trying to be the sole judge, I am just insisting that you are not either. Let's see what the peer review has to say. I am sure most Muslims do - even the women. But that is not the point is it? Because, after all, I have never said anything to the contrary. Now, do you have a real substantive point here? Are you arguing that the clear and plain language of the Quran describes a vision of Paradise more likely to appeal to women than to men? If so, why and what is appealing to women about the idea of having sex with grapes? Lao Wai 13:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
If this is about "the specific Quranic representation" of Jannah, why, of allll the ayats concerning it, do you choose the few that concern the debated Houris ? Wheter you accept the existance of Sufi theology outside of the maddhabs is not relevant, the fact is that Sufis exist, and within their respective groups there are various interpritations, some widely held, others not so. Further, where in the Qur'an does it mention having sex with them? Further, for who exactly are these houris.. will those in the lowest part of Jannah, will they recieve houris, what about those of the highest? Hamza Yusuf describes it as an "allegory". Now if you bleive there is no allegory (Or ta’wil) in the Qur'an, you are in a minority of the minorities. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:46, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Really this is beginning to exhaust my patience. I have put up with a lot but really. Again you are wasting my time with absurd characterisations of my views which clearly you can't be bothered to read. The answer to your question is self-evident and indeed you answer it yourself - this is an article about Gender. You would think that I might pick those suras that refer to, >gasp<, gender. Your refusal to read what I write is interesting. Sex with whom? The Houris? I have provided ample evidence to that end and I do not intend to waste more time. Read what I write. I do not care about every little modern interpretation. If you insist I will include them, but the mainstream has clear ideas, historically these have been interpreted in one way. Now, in an effort to salvage something from this, would you care to explain in simple terms what your objection is? No doubt you can come up with any number of quibbles, but spell it out in big letters for us, what is your problem? What is wrong? What needs to be fixed? Lao Wai 14:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
By only focusing on one ayat concerning Jannah, you cannot make an assertion concerning what appeals to women reagrding Jannah as a whole, can you? Your original Research does not stand up. Again, where in the Qur'an does it mention having sex with said Houris? My most major objection here is that almost everything you have written is unsourced, unsupported original research which does not stand. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:07, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
No original research at all. By all means if you can find another one that refers to the pelasures to come that has a gender link put it in. I would be delighted. The article can do with all the background it can get. I have provided the quotes for that. I am not going to bother to reproduce them again. If you can't or won't read what I give you it is not my problem. Unsourced? Says the person who gave me a *radio* interview as a major source! An anonymous German scholar who seriously suggests the Quran refers to marrying raisins! Look at all the quotes on this page and in the article. I have done a huge amount of work. Wikipedia policy forbids me from saying what I think about your response to my efforts. I have done no original research. I have made no unsupported claims except at the most basic level - I don't think it is necessary to prove most women are unlikely to want to have sex with 72 female virgins. Somethings even Wikipedia can take on trust. What is your real complaint? Point out to me my so-called original research, my alleged unsupported claims. So far I have shown repeatedly that everything I have done is a reflection of mainstream Islamic opinion. As your insults show you cannot even begin to guess at my own views on any of these subjects - proof, if any was needed, I either have no agenda here or such a subtle devious one you can't work it out. NPOV indeed. Lao Wai 15:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
You say heven in the qur'an is more likely to appeal to men than Women.. says who ? You give saheeh ghareeb hadiths, Why? Of all the aspects of Jannah you only mention the Houri, despite the houri being only mentioned only once in the entire collection of Bukhari's hadiths, and one mention in the Quran. You ascribe only a lieteralist and sexulaised view on these, despite that being a minority view. The sources you have providsed to back up claims state the opposite. You have ignored appeals to cite sources. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:07, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
That is, at least, something like a genuine criticism. I do not say Heaven in the Quran etc etc. I say the description of it in the Quran etc etc. I also say precisely why. Are you still disputing that sex with virgin females is unlikely to appeal equally to men and women? Give it up. The Houri were relevant. So what if it only mentioned once in Bukhari? They take up a good chunk of the Quran's description of Heaven. They are still relevant. If you claim that a literal and sexualised view of this is a minority position you will be laughed at. I have repeatedly cited sources and I don't believe you have read my sources. Which ones? Yet again you have missed a chance to offer something useful to this article. Yet again you have wasted time and bandwidth with things that have been conclusively demonstrated time and time again. Why do you bother? Lao Wai 16:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
You do not give either an accurate discribtion of jannah as presented in the Qur'an, nor do you cte any sources for women not liking jannah. You just said "They take up a good chunk of the Quran's description of Heaven" which proves you are talking utter nonsense, because that is a flat out lie. If you are going to start talking about the Beliefs of Mainstream Islam well then you should always start with the Qur'an (one Mention of Houri), then progress to the volumes and volumes of hadith Bukhari, which, Again have only one menton of Houri despite over 200 references to paradise. --Irishpunktom\talk 22:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Headers

Come on Irishpunktom, surely there is much be one more header you can fit in there! Lao Wai 16:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Hillarious. --Irishpunktom\talk 22:14, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Upon Reflection

Upon reflection, this article actually does not in anyway deal with the Roles ascribed to the genders in Islam. it needs a complete Re-write. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:35, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Discuss the merge proposition
  • Oppose, I am against the merge because I think women in Islam should be its own article. This can talk about the male/female dynamics in a way that can't. One user said it was sexist to have only Women in Islam... well, create Men in Islam if you will. That's fine... if you look at their mandate of going to mosque, etc. that could deserve an article and this article can dicuss where the spheres of men and women need to be dicussed simultaneously. gren グレン 22:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Khadija

It is clear that this article contains a factual error - the example of Khadija shows women were not treated as property and could own things in their own right. She did after all despite having a lot of male relatives. What is wrong with including that obvious fact? Arabia was a big place. Customs varied. And a lot of what is written about the lowly status of women is probably Islamist propaganda anyway. Lao Wai 15:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Lao Wai, your POV-ridden agenda has been documented. Khadija inverted wealth from two husbands from the same tribe and married Muhammad, from the same tribe, within a year of the death of her second husband. Her wealth was thus contained within the tribe till the advent of Islam. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
My "agenda" is irrelevant. Khadija inherited something, but she also earnt. She bought and sold. She hired labor. She hired Muhammed. She sent caravans to Syria in her own name. She married Muhammed over the objections of her relatives. It is clear she was not a piece of property. It is also clear she had property rights. The article should not make a claim that is so patently false. Lao Wai 15:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Your agenda of hate is obviously relevant. Firstly, when speaking of Khadija you need to be aware that most of her waelth was inherited. The Business, that is the Caravans to Syrian and Yemen, were not her creation, but inherited. Also she was considered an Amerat, Essentially a princess within the Tribe. Indeed, Muhammad did not ask to marry her, she had an intermediary ask him owing to the large amount of "Suitors" and essentially nobles, circling in to take her inherited wealth. At this stage Muhammad, who was related in a degree to her, was rather poor and was in no position to take the wealth of a noble. He was the trustworthy, the man who fixed the Kabah, but he was not a noble. Basics here, basics. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
My "agenda" as you put it is still irrelevant. Talk to the issue not of the man. You have no idea how much of her wealth was inherited. Find me a source that makes this claim. The Business was not inherited as such - every caravan had to be re-built every time. She had to hire drivers and camels. She had to find cargos to carry. She worked at it. She prospered too - thanks to Muhammed in part. So what is she was an Amerat? As I said it is obvious that she was not property. She wished to marry Muhammed. Other richer, better born, men wished to marry her. Her wali wanted het to marry one of them. She refused and married Muhammed. A marriage she arranged. Clearly she was not anyone's property. As you say, basics, basics. And the Wiki article ought to reflect those basics - Khadija is proof that not all women were property. If you think they were find me some sources. Lao Wai 17:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
So, based on the total lack of response, can I assume that we are all agreed the article as it presently stands is inaccurate and in fact some women before Islam lived in a more liberal, or at least more varied, social environment than after? If there is no objection I will put Khadija back in. Lao Wai 10:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but what is the problem? Would you mind explaining what it is you object to before reverting? Is there a word in that that is untrue or offensive? Lao Wai 17:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry but would you stop doing that without talking about it first? What is your objection? The page as you insist is inaccurate - do we all agree on that? What was wrong with it before you started changing it back? Talk first please. Lao Wai 17:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prince Charles

While it's true that Prince Charles' views are not to be considered irrelevant, mention of him in this article regarding specific views requires citations. Although I have not been editing on this article and am not familiar with the the primary editors (with the exception of Irishpunktom) on it, in this instance it is wise to error on the side of caution and keep the previous edit out until such time as a proper citation is available. The logic of this also stems from the fact that this citation of Prince Charles' view in that particular line does not correspond to the 'class' of the other parties already referred to in that line. An additional note... in editorial comments Prince Charles is referred to as 'Big Ears'. This is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia and the utilization of such terminology should be refrained. Netscott 15:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to be considered irrelevant? Does that mean you think they should be included? Why? The man is not an expert on Islam or much else, what relevance can a Royal endorsement have? Is this article going to include a long list of celebrities who have pontificated on the subject of Islamic law? Lao Wai 17:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No... my reference to Prince Charles' views is in the general sense ... as far as this article is concerned any citation of him may indeed not be warranted... I'm not arguing one way or the other... it is entirely possible that Irishpunktom's attempts at including references to Prince Charles are completely irrelevant as myself and a number other WikiPedians have encountered such editing behavior on his part before. Netscott 17:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality Concerns

The whole article focuses on the negative aspects of gender roles in Islam. Even the selection of topics covered in this article is inherently biased. Why do we need to cover oral sex and don't mention for example that the income from womens work does not have to be shared with the family according to Islam or that violence against a woman gives her the right to get divorced etc. Raphael1 13:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This does seem a remarkably close article to women in Islam --RawEgg1 05:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow!

Much of what is in this article is representative of cultural norms rather than Islamic teachings. For example, the idea that women are relegated to the private sphere or that a husband tells her what to do is not substantively supported by the Quran and Sunnah, nor historical context. Much of it narrows Islam down to negative cultural stereotypes. I'll do some work on it later to provide more balance and clarity. FOA 09:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)