Talk:Marriage in Islam

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Roskerjellybean728.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): OREY0100.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · 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

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)

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)

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!

I believe this site gives info on aspects other pages may not. Are you saying that poligamy is something that you will not mind in your marriage, since it's Western-centric? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.227.146 (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"requires the consent of both parties very strictly if they are adults"

Under the section "societal role" there is an unsourced claim that consent is required when the people are adults. How is adult defined? Is a 13 year old an adult, as in Judaism, for example?

Newman Luke (talk) 11:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Pakistani Custom

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

Also, the word "Nikah" is very improper for Marriage, in Arabic, Nikah is having sexual intercourse. Marriage in Arabic is "Gawaz"

Please remove external web sites, not related and not reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Lewison (talk • contribs) 05:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please give a better reference than the one you gave while making such a claim -- Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 10:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • Correction***

"Nikah" is a marriage according to Islamic Law as well as Pakistani Law. Anyone who performs Nikah, has to be a registrar and must hold a license issued by Govt. of Pakistan. Once Nikah is performed, Registrar must place his Registered stamp on Nikah or marriage Certificate with his license number. And is responsible for validating the marriage. in case of dispute this person can be asked to present in front of court of law.

Note: there are many rituals like Mehndi, Manyo etc. that are performed in marriage by various communities to make marriage memorable but they are not mandatory they are traditional and cultural events.

Majority of Pakistani strongly believe that once Nikah is performed the man and woman get into a bond of life. Saying that "Nikah means having sexual intercourse" that's not totally true, using a woman only for sexual need is haram in Islam (It becomes Adultery) . According to Quran a man is not allowed to touch a woman until and uless he gave a woman a right of his wife, by performing a Nikah or Zawj(Gawz),by doing so Muslim man claim that respected woman is now his wife. (Note: There is whole section in Islam that talks about Wife's Rights and responsibilities of man towards his wife)

And according to last sermon of Holy Prophet Mohammad Peace and Blessing be upon him, "Treat your woman with dignity and give them their rights, they are for your help, respect them."

Another says of Prophet Mohammad Peace and Blessing be upon him: "Allah, Almighty God has placed one's heaven under the feet of his/her Mother."

If we combine the above statements it is clear that respect for woman has greater importance, and having sex with woman is a necessity of life, not just a desire to have sex. Islam also holds and preach spirituality as well.

(Oh God help us to understand the values of life and Message, and provide us protection from Devil and its shadow)

Following are some links that might help in understanding the context http://www.jannah.org/sisters/marr.html http://www.nikah.com/marriage/sahih_marriage_nikah.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.197.209 (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

ayesha married muhammad when she was 6 and consummated (had sex) marriage at age 9 when muhammad was 53

so was she considered an "adult" as used loosely in this obviously biased article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.246.119 (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Need Citation ****

It is right of wife to have a sex with his man, according Islam. Yes Mohammad had a Sex at age 9. But it was permitted by Ayesha.

To help you understand the life cycle, refer to following website http://www.avert.org/puberty-girls.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.197.209 (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Usage of words Heterosexual and Legal contract

There is no need to differentiate Islamic marriage with these words as done by Mhakcm. It is already written in the lede that marriage is between a man and woman (which implies heterosexuality). Further, the contrast with different religions needs to be well-supported by validated references. Shaad lko (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Cousin Marriages

Cousin Marriages are also allowed in Judaism and Protestant Christianity. They were allowed in Catholic Christianity, why single out Islam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.sam.oliver (talk • contribs) 09:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

		Proposal for removing prefixes "Islamic views on xyz"
		I have started a request move to remove the prefixes Attached with the Prophets in Islam to there Names as in Islam. Like Islamic views on Abraham → Ibrahim as it becomes difficult to search the topic. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

sources

There are several unsourced paragraphs. This page should have the 'refimprove' template in its header. --عبد المؤمن (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Watching

Is anybody watching this article?

Every now and then you need to check back-edits, not just the current one. Several unnamed editors have made recent deletions with no edit summaries. A new editor added material. The work of new editors always needs checking and perhaps adjusting.

Amandajm (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Biased passage

"Children in some Muslim sub-cultures who defy their parents' wishes may in practice, suffer penalties supported by the community but this is only due to the lack of knowledge of the Sunnah, as the Prophet would never agree to force a woman to marry somebody she doesn't want. The family should try to find somebody that suits her better, as the following Hadith illustrates."

What? This is common practice in many parts of Muslim society, it's very easy to dismiss it as a misunderstanding of the books without citing sources. --189.70.241.12 (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Divorce

Hello EvergreenFir! Where do you get your informations about divorce from? Your changes just do not reflect the classical positions of the main madhahib. --Metron (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere. Your edit just seemed odd... something about saying a word three times. If you'd give some citations from reliable sources, that would be great. So far, none of your edits are cited. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but "just seemed odd" is not realy an argument. Just doing a litte resaerch on the internet would show, that show you, that saying tree times talaq by the husband results in divorce. A Look into e.g. The Encyclopaedia of Islam would show you, that what I wrote s the traditional ruling concerning divorce.

Here some quick examples from the internet: http://www.missionislam.com/family/talaq.htm, http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/005-triple-talaq.htm, http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_151_200/triple__talaq.htm. So would you please restore my edit, thanks. As soon as I'm in a library I'll add the source from the The Encyclopaedia of Islam. --Metron (talk) 08:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material and insertion of unsourced material

User:Metron, you recently deleted a citation of The Globe and Mail, widely regarded as a reliable source. You also inserted the personal viewpoint that divorce is very difficult for women in Islam and that the marriage contract is only between the groom and the bride's guardian; the first is a personal judgment unbefitting an encyclopedia and the second isn't a universal view among Muslims - in fact the Hanafi schools, numerically the largest Sunni school, doesn't require a guardian at all so there are different opinions on the issue.
Perhaps there is something I have missed, but would you care sharing what the rationale behind these two edits was? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia of Islam is not an authoritative source

Encyclopaedia of Islam is not an authoritative source --Qdinar (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

according to wikipedia , it says there is forcing bride into marriage is possible in islam, but that is not true, because consent of bride is mandatory , according to hadithes, so, this shows this book is not authoritative, even if there are some scholars of islam with that idea, that should be shown, and may be wikipedia author did not bring/pass/transmit meaning of text of the book fully and correctly enough. --Qdinar (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You'd have to bring up the issue with WP:RSN if you feel that the encyclopedia is not a reliable source. On Wikipedia, we report on what others say, not the "truth". EvergreenFir (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

see also Talk:Wali mujbir --Qdinar (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

i have posted in that discussion though its article is removed now. i said this : i cross-post here without blockquotes :

i have found something from hadithes but that is not main idea of the hadithes but the idea of possibility of forcing into marriage can be taken from words of some hadithes : http://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/11/29 - so , it is said that widow has has more right , it look like it means that non-widow, virgin has less rights than her wali , but , there are other hadithes that strictly say that her permission is mandatory: http://sunnah.com/muslim/16/80 http://sunnah.com/bukhari/67/72 http://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/11/28

--Qdinar (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

marriage not "compulsory"

very misleading sentence in the header. Marriage is an important part of the religion. Using Jesus as an example for being single is not right. Islam is based on the Prophet Muhammad not Jesus. Zekenyan (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Muslims do not differentiate among prophets whether he is Jesus, Moses, Muhammad or Abraham. Those who differentiate among God and his messengers are not Muslim. (Al-Quran 2:285 and 4:150-151) furthermore marriage is only recommended and not compulsorySmatrah (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Bogus source

the used source "Mouhamadou, Shaykh. "Women in Islam". Noor Ala Noor." is bogus and useless. Pages of claims without references (and lacking knowledge, pure jahiliyya). Historical claims unfounded. And used wrongly by author (nobody in Old Arabia decided anything about women in 586, that refers to Gaul). Kipala (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Will raise this........ Swingoswingo (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

..I also have doubts if any such 586 AD event ever happened in France. But let's see if we find something better on the cited claims. Swingoswingo (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Wrong Info

If bride's free consent is not oibtained; the marriage IS VOID. Wrong info is provided. --Maadikhah (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you please provide some reliable sources supporting your claim? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Khomeini's risalah is only one of them. --Maadikhah (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI: Saying that in Islam, a walee (guardian) can make a girl marry a man is a claim itself that needs to be proven by reliable sources. --Maadikhah (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

We are discussing marriage-related stuff in Islam, so Islamic scholar's works can be used as resources stating one side/one point of view. --Maadikhah (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Islamophobia?! Or am I cynic/skeptic?! :/

I really read WP:Assume good faith many times and I don't want to read contributors' minds; I am sorry; but I think Islamophobia has had at least a hidden unconscious role in preparing some pieces of this article's text. I agree and am sure that in many poor/under-developed Islamic countries, marriage without consent/minors' marriage happen; but this is not Islam's whole system of laws. This is inhumane, but it shouls be given attention that Islam, like any other religion, has interpretations and subverisions --Maadikhah (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

And, according to many Muslims, common people and clergy, it is NOT Islamic to marry off people in this way. --Maadikhah (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Nikkah

I would just like to say that the meaning of "Nikkah" is to get married and not sexual intercourse. Please remove that word. We want people to know information that's real not fake. Plum3600 (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Then prove that it is fake. Swingoswingo (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Swingoswingo: Your proof.

discover-the-truth.com/2014/02/11/arabic-word-nikah-and-its-meaning/

This is not an RS and, even if it were, a cursory glance easily brings to the fore its errors and intellectual bankruptcy. We can continue discussing this site and its claims if the need be. Nearly all authors of pro-Islamic books are taqiya authors anyway. Therefore even 5,000 books saying "Nikah does not mean sex" won't change the facts about its word origin. Swingoswingo (talk) 08:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks like someone stacked up a few fake citations in an effort to make that point stick. Here's a standard reference: "Nikāḥ - marriage (properly, sexual intercourse, but already in the Ḳurʾān used exclusively of the contract of marriage)." The standard Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic doesn't include the older sense: "nikah - marriage; marriage contract; matrimony, wedlock". Anyway, these etymological details don't belong in the lead. Eperoton (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No merge given the absence of consensus, a discussion stale for more than a year and an unopposed proposal to keep a concise summary. Klbrain (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

---

I support Al-Andalusi's merge proposal. One could imagine two different articles existing under the current titles, with one corresponding to a subsection of another, but that layout isn't compatible with the current state of these two articles. They are both organized by different aspects of marriage, rather than a legal/non-legal division. They are also both of poor quality, so they would benefit from a merge and cleanup. Eperoton (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I oppose the merge. One article goes more in detail into the legal aspect in the religion. The other is broader and includes culture, history and some politics. This would be like the difference between The jurisprudence article is consitent in style with other Islamic jurisprudence articles that makeup an umbrella under Fiqh Other articles within the jurisprudence umbrella like Salah, Muslim hygienical jurisprudence and Adab seem consistent in style and section splitting. The merge would create a hole in that umbrella. CaliphoShah (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

In that case, all the material relating to jurisprudence would need to be moved to the other article and reduced here to a single WP:SUMMARY section. Otherwise, the overlapping scope is a WP:CFORK. Eperoton (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Not all just most. Keep it to a concise summary. CaliphoShah (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Quran

Could we please include a little more on the Quran's teachings and stances on marriage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1E06:C2F7:A45A:28A8:FCB6:23F8 (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Islam

Hi,

I came across this promising Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Islam (relating to women's rights) and myself supported the same editorially too. IMO since topic potential is vast many Reliable sources on Google scholar seem to be available hence the article needs more editorial hands for some more update and expansion along with appropriate references.

Pl. do join to update and expansion, your help will be most welcome.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

There is some very subjective/partial languages within this article.

This is my first time making any sort of contribution to wikipedia, so you will forgive me for lack of completely proper conduct, but this articles has some instances of impartial/moral language: Mainly this one: "In unfortunate cases where the agreement was to postpone payment of the mahr, some husbands will bully their wives and insist on the return of what he gave her in order to agree to the dissolution of the marriage, this is un-Islamic and cruel."

If I am not mistaken, language that expresses value statements, and such words as "unfortunate" or "cruel", regardless of whether many, or most, agree that it is such things, is supposed to be discouraged (prohibited?). I'm not even sure on words like 'bully', which has an innately negative moral connotation. To my knowledge, wikipedia is not for the writers opinions, but rather the opinions and words of third party sources, who may or may not use this language. If the editor of this section wants to express that it is incongruent with Islam, or that a specific scholar (or multiple people) believes this is unfortunate and cruel, than I would think they ought to find and cite people (who actually believe that) to support this opinion.

65.26.65.200 (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@65.26.65.200: You are absolutely correct, this kind of language is never allowed on Wikipedia and I will take care of it. Thank you, - Wretchskull (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Same sex marriage in islam

The topic of marriage between members if the same sect never makes a single appereance int he whole article (and there is a section exclusively prohibitations of marriage). Can we do anything to fix this? Akivahebrew (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)