Talk:Women in Islam

Archive to mid-2008

Important need to clarify what is within the scope of the article

There seems to be lots of the discussion here in on the treatment of Women in Arab societies and not the religious doctrine of Islam as it relates to women. I think that this article should focus itself on the latter, the social and cultural position of women in predominantly Islamic societies being only a tangent to Women in Islam, Islam being a theological doctrine.

That being said, the page is still lacking and should draw out more on topics like Zina and Islamic Marital Jurisprudence which are part of or an extension of Sharia and therefore properly doctrinal.

Discussion on the prevalence of rape or societal issues of oppression/education/violence/intercourse/women's rights are not part of Islam as a doctrine (unless, again, they are discussed as part of Sharia or as they appear in the Qua'ran) and belong on a page like Women in Arab societies (which is, by the way, in quite bad shape at the time of this writing) or Islamic Feminism or maybe rape or female education or violence against women or something like women in Iraq. Unless you mean to discuss the associated Islamic theology these topics really do not seem to belong here. --68.149.110.63 (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Lack of female point of view

This article is male centric and does not give a female point of view. It does not speak much of oppression of women and the inferiority in men. It doesn't talk about the security of Muslim women, nor does it talk about the polygamy practices that are supposed to be followed only by men. It says nothing about weighing a man's word as twice that of a woman's in court etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prathik Rajendran M (talk • contribs) 08:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Muslim scholars as reference

In my opinion, this article shouldn't refer to muslim scholars' interpretation of Quran or Hadith if there's a direct verse available. Scholars don't represent the whole religion as well. 86.50.66.241 (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is horrible; I fail to see how it recieved a passing grade in quality. This article is under culture and society in Islam, thus it should discuss real world findings on women in Islam. This article reads as how they interpret the quran with real world stuff sprinkled on. The best thing to do would be seporate the article into two articles, one on Women in Islam society and the other on women according to the quran. --68.9.206.216 (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Doesn't wikipedia prefer secondary sources to primary WP:NOR? Most of the interpretations of the Qua'ran are going to be from Islamic scholars but if you find competing or contradictory sources that appear reliable you should add them. And 2. isn't the article titled "Women in Islam". Islam is a Religion, so the article should be focused on the religious portrayal of women and their role and rights in the religious corpus and doctrines as they have evolved over time. I don't think the article should be focused on demography, it should focus on ideology; there are already pages devoted to more practical topics like Women in Islamic Politics, Gender Separation in Islam, etc. which are the best places for detail on Women in Islamic Society. --68.149.110.63 (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Abuse, misogyny, mutilation, few choices, dominated by males

This very pro-Islam article reads like a tourist brochure. How come it does not mention that a woman receives half of her brothers inheritance. How about the young girls being stoned for trying to go to school? The "cut her nose off" treatment for a wife attempting to flee abuse? The fact that it is ok to punish your wife in Islamic cultures?

How about the fact that it is impossible to rape your wife because a husband may force sex on her any time he wishes?

Woman in some parts of the world have risen up and become organized to demand equal rights, but this is difficult in sharia cultures due to the risk of death.

I propose to add a part on the institution of sex-slaves in the Koran and the Hadith.MuratOnWiki (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

References (Quoran)

Women who are guilty of lewdness ... confine them to the houses until death take them.--4:15

Males are to inherit twice that of females. 4:11

A woman is worth one-half a man. 2:282

Have sex with your women whenever and as often as you like. 2:223

"Unto the male is the equivalent share of two females." 4:176

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.27.252 (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 

It is clear that somebody without much knowledge of the practical role of women in Islam, and particulalry islamic countries, having read this article would assume they have achieved the same level of gender equality as women in the Western world! This is so biased and completelty ignores the actual state of women in islam. Accordingly, this article must be condemned as being unfit for wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.42.9.1 (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC) I completely second it. This article looks like a tourist brochure about how women have achieved "equal" status to men. If we talk about the recent case in which a 14 year old girl was beaten to death because she was raped by a man and had thus committed "adultery", I cannot describe the level of importance Islam gives to woman. Woman in general are third class citizens in Muslim countries -without any exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.128.198 (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

   Guys Guys! this is about women in islam not how muslim women are treated in "muslim" countries! Malekobaid (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not hijab!

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

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

To say any concept of covering head is hijab is a ridiculous statement. Rajasthani women, overwhelming majority of whom are Hindus, wear dupatta and there is no proof that the women shown are Muslims. --Emperor Genius (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No, but any woman that covers her head out of Islamic modesty, would be considered to practice hijab. And of course, there are some Rajasthani women who are Muslims. Your point about there being "no proof", however, is valid.Bless sins (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Get it sorted

I think more clarification is needed in this article. Islam means many things to many different people. To some it means the right to rape and deny justice to women, to others it means for men and women to be equal before the one-ness of god. Atrocities against women committed in the name of Islam are rife today, as similar atrocities against women were committed in the name of Christianity years ago. Islam and the Qu'ran, like other religions, is a framework in which a dominant group can find 'evidence' to support their frankly ridiculous views about women being less than men. Textual evidence in the Qu'ran is conflicting, and can be used to support either view. This is the case with the old testament too; common to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The vagueness and conflicting nature of biblical texts means that they are used to support completely opposed viewpoints by different people. Case in point; Leviticus 18:22 is frequently referenced by proponents of these three religions as 'evidence' that god does not permit homosexuality. However they completely ignore Leviticus 11:10-12 which prohibits the eating of shellfish, shrimp etc. (seriously look it up). Islam doesn't conclusively 'say' anything about women. This problem needs to be understood in sociological terms. If the same cultures were in place in Islamic countries, but the religion was Judaism, then Judaism would not be viewed as the problem. Islam is not an attitude to women, it is used to attack women. The reality is that these women need help, and despite women-positive quotes from the Qu'ran, no excuses can be made for the horrific suffering they undergo daily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.241.126 (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Terms.

Women who are guilty of lewdness ... confine them to the houses until death take them.--4:15

Males are to inherit twice that of females. 4:11

A woman is worth one-half a man. 2:282

Have sex with your women whenever and as often as you like. 2:223

"Unto the male is the equivalent share of two females." 4:176

^^^ this is what muslims call equality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.109.173 (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Great start for the article, but please watch the language used. More than once "Arab Women" was used. Not all Arab's are Muslim, and not all Muslim's are Arab. (Ppg183 (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

The above are not direct quotes of the translations in the Quran. They are interpritations of the words so please look them up for your self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.249.155 (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Rape of Christian women

I would be interested about the jurisprudence and sociology on the rape of so-called infidel women, who are often christian women living in minority situations in Pakistan, Iraq or even in the UK, which has many majority muslim areas. The issue of rape of non-muslim women for refusing to wear the hijab is very often a source of tension with other religions and states, and this is currently a very acute problem in christian-islam and western-islam relations. ADM (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This rape you are talking about is completely not allowed in Islam. The people who are doing these things aren't doing it on an act of faith. Islam doesn't condone this.

I would like to challenge the authors use of infidel meaning Christian. An Infidel is someone who does not believe in God be i called Allah or God. Islam believes in the three great religions and anyone of those religions are not infidels. An infidel could be someone of Hindu beliefs for example, for the do not believe in what the 3 great religions refer to as God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.249.155 (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Infidel can be used as a term for a person belonging to a monotheistic or Abrahamic religion, just a few minutes ago I read on wikipedia that Crusaders were not referred to in the Muslim world as Crusaders or Christians, but as Infidels or Franks. The Islamic perspective you're coming from is a very liberal one, and not necessarily representative of how non-Muslims are viewed and referred to in the wider Muslim world. However if you still have a problem with the author's use of the word 'infidel', might I suggest the use of the word 'Kafir' - a word that specifically means non-Muslim, although it does have perjoritive connotations (but this shouldn't be a problem as 'infidel' shares those connotations). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.146.245 (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In contrast such an idea that - of other Abrahamic religions being considered believers and not infidels - is completely and not at all liberal. After all, within the Quran, the term 'believing people' is a reference to Christians, Muslim and Jew since they all believe to some extent in a prophet of God. Indeed Jews and Christians are also given tidings of Heaven, if they believe. Concerning them the Quran states that:

Some of them are believers, but many of them are disobedient. (Ch.3:V.111)

I would also like to add that Muslim belief holds that Hell is simply a place where one goes to pay for ones sins. Thus Hell is temporary and all men and women end up in Heaven and technically believers. So non-Muslims are given full rights due to the fact that we are all still God's servants but the previous writers claim that this is liberal thinking is wrong.

Perhaps the following article would help clear any doubts you may have upon the nature of Islam's relationship with other religions:

Religions from an Islamic perspective

--91.104.98.161 (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The text is plainly wrong

The first line is "The status of women in Islam is that they are equal to men before God" and attributed to this website http://www.themodernreligion.com/women/w_status_gen_ques.htm. This website(http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/010-women-worth-less.htm) shows that Quran treats women inferiorly than men. The second and third lines are from a "the Ethiopian Muslim Museum". I am going to delete the first paragraph of this article -probably written by some Islam adherent and I hope that it will stay deleted until real quotes are included in the article.

I believe the [1] link you've added, would violate WP:NOR Faro0485 (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The text sums up Wikipedia. Wrong and baseless. Wrong citations. Wrong references. Wrong text

Wow. It is wonderful to know that women in Islam is equal to men. Well maybe they are equal. Who knows. Maybe except when they are counted less than a man in the Quran or have to prove they have been raped by "witnesses" or have no right even to drive(see Saudi Arabia) or thrown acid on their faces if seen with Men or go to school or hide their faces in the hizab or allow their husbands to marry more than once or being killed in honor killings usually involving rapes. Sorry lazy to look up references. I have seen the things that I have described with my eyes. Please use Google for references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.79.40.134 (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"have to prove they have been raped by "witnesses" " Not just any witnesses but those who saw the "act of threading the needle" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.27.86 (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Objectvity Fail

This article needs some serious, serious work. It is supposed to present the facts, without bias, and in this it fails miserably. I am no expert on Islam (thus I am not editing this myself), but I know that there are some serious injustices to women that are supported, even commanded, by Islam. The author also obviously has some serious issues against other religions, stating unfair and inaccurate things about other religions besides Islam. This is a problem, and this article needs some serious fixing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.50.2 (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Very very true. This is more of a propaganda piece than an encyclopedia article. 88.112.62.225 (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed on all articles about Islam, it is mostly sugar coating for Islam, and political correctness on Christianity and Judaism.Tallicfan20 (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am so sorry to have to agree with the statements above. Although the whole article is very well documented in theory, it does not, at any point, reveal the real practices, the real status, the real treatment that is given to women in the islamic states. I have traveled many times and for long periods of time in islamic states as Iran or Saudi Arabia, and the reality is far from the "sugared" version presented here. I'm an atheist by upbringing, so i observed the situation of muslim women not from the christian but from the human rights point of view. So if anyone dares to make the necesary addnotations, perhaps a muslim woman who can tell the story of the real islamic law, please do this in the name of the magnificant example of objectivity, profesionalism and human solidarity that is Wikipedia. Thank you.

the arctile is right, the injustices, the wrong-doings to women in islamic countries is grounded in culture, not in religion. the most islamic cultures men have political power and intend to keep it resulting into not awarding women the rights they have, because of culture, not because of islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.199.28 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

       The culture of such states are the religions. Religion is so ingrained in their culture, that they are one in the same  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.150.178 (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC) 

This article needs to be adjusted - I think the POV of the author is a little too evident for this entry to be considered objective. A lot of items were glossed over and one view is dominantly presented throughout all passages. In order to be fair (this project is under the feminist tag btw) to women quite a few changes must be made.CivEngAlyssa (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well, religions are themselves grounded in culture. So it's only natural that islam is the strongest or most extreme in the area where it originated.204.44.0.4 (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Saudi Arabia

It may be the bias of the article, but it doesnt really seem to touch on the lack of womens rights in Saudi Arabia for more then one sentence, like how in public they remain distant from other males in stores and such among a list of other things. It may be my personal opinon but for a article about Woman in Islam it seems to be a signifcant place of note that requires more of a presence in this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SNUBBIRTH13 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one seeing a giant space below early historical background? If not, someone needs to fix it because it looks terrible! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.51.211 (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is one long piece of apologist propaganda, that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Repeated claims that "things were worse for women before Islam" are common on Islamic web sites, but are not supported by facts. This article talks about how Islam gave women property rights, while ignoring the fact that Muhammed's first wife Kadija was a wealthy merchantess who hired him as a servant, before Islam existed. So clearly women were fully capable of owning property and businesses before he came along. Later, a hadith recounts his murder of a woman who was the leader of a non-Muslim tribe; his men conquered the tribe, and tied the woman to camels and drove them apart, to rip her to pieces, while Muhammed stated that no woman should be allowed to rule. So, clearly, there were female tribal leaders in the "world without Islam". Saying over and over again that it wasn't so, without any historical proof to back it up -- and with Muhammed's own wife disproving the argument -- is disengenous, and unworthy of Wikipedia. (though I do find it interesting that in a few places Islam is credited for Kadija's property ownership, when in fact that obviously predated Muhammed.)

The whitewash in the sexual crime section was incredible, it claimed that four witnesses were needed to prove zina, which is just not true. I fixed that. I could not find a citation for a recent survey I read, so I could not add it, but apparently in Indonesian women's prisons, *80% of the women are serving time for the crime of having been raped*...because rape can't be proven, but complaining about rape is proof of zina. The injustice is mind-boggling. Yet this article not only overlooked the problem, but actually misrepresented the facts, claiming you need four witnesses to prove zina as well. That's just patently untrue. The writer must have missed the story out of Saudi Arabia last week, where a Phillipina maid who was raped and beaten by her employer tried to flee the country, but when they found out she was pregnant, they threw her in jail. Being raped is a crime in Islamic countries.

This is really a terrible article, bias-wise, one of the worst I have ever seen on this site. The degree to which it twists facts to mislead the reader is execrable. It would be better not to have it here at all, than to have this much misinformation presented. The whole thing exists to whitewash Islam, and it doesn't even do that well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.172.218 (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about what Islam says about women (or what Muslims SCHOLARS believe Islam says about woman) NOT how Muslims treat their women. Actually most Mulims nowadays are not even considered religious and most practices done by Muslims are considered un-islamic or sins. However, those who practice them link these practices to Islam. Reason: ignorance and confusion of culter and religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.228.66 (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

women rights

does Islam cal for voilation towards women?
why are women treated as animals in the name of Islam?

I may not know much about Islam but I do not think that the true Islam calls for this voilent treatment towards women. Why by taliban girls education is bieng condemned? We girls are also human biengs and we have been gifted with life by ALLAH then why still in the 21st century we girls suffer for even basic needs of life in the name of relegion?? I would be very thankful if anyone would be able to answer my questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.44.41 (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC) slam has presented an unusual theory of carnal gratification, which is most beguiling, blissful and buffeting. It holds that sexual urge does not perish with death because the man is Muslim, he will be resurrected and given a place in paradise where he will enjoy the choicest sex day and night. Again, sensual pleasures are reserved for man only, and houris i.e. the most beautiful virgins, who inhabit paradise, are totally submissive to their male master. This view represents the Islamic sexual psychology for being consistent with the Prophetic stand point of "Dominance-urge versus Feminine Charm" because here woman surrenders herself completely to man along with her physical, emotional and artful beguilements. Thus, pleasing man, becomes her only pleasure.

If the reader can remember that Adam (the Biblical genitor of humankind) defied God to gain the favour of his woman (Eve), it is not difficult to understand that a virile man shall live and die for Islam, which promises the choicest sex-after-death in the form of paradise, dwelt in by the most beautiful damsels and the prettiest boys. Here is a short description of paradise, which Islam presents proudly and solemnly:

"This is the similitude of Paradise, which the Godfearing have been promised: Therein are rivers of water unstaling, rivers of milk unchanging in flavour, and rivers of wine - a delight to the drinkers, rivers too, of honey purified; and therein for them is every fruit " (Muhammad XLVII: 15)

Here the "similitude" does not mean a "metaphorical description" as the Muslim scholars pretend, but a true statement of paradise. The following quotations from the Koran will leave the reader in no doubt to this effect:

" for them (the Muslims) is reserved a definite provision, fruit and a great honour in the Gardens of Bliss reclining upon couches arranged face to face, a cup from a fountain being passed round to them, white, a pleasure to the drinkers ..... and with them wide-eyed maidens flexing their glances as if they were slightly concealed pearls." ( The Rangers 40: 45 )

Whereas Chinese have preferred flat-chested women, the Arabs are fond of rising bosoms. So, in keeping with the Arab taste, the Koran declares:

"Surely for the God-fearing awaits a place of security, gardens and vineyards and maidens with swelling bosoms." ( The Tidings 30 )

The attraction of paradise is made more impelling when wine is made a part of paradisiac living:

"Surely the pious shall be in bliss, upon couches gazing: You find in their faces the shining bliss as they are offered to drink of wine sealed, whose seal is musk and whose mixture is Tasnim, a fountain at which to drink those brought nigh." ( The Stinters 20: 25 )

For better illustration of the point under discussion, I may refer to Hadith Tirmzi, volume two (p 35-40) which gives details of houris, the ever-young virgins of paradise:

1. A houri is a most beautiful young woman with a transparent body. The marrow of her bones is visible like the interior lines of pearls and rubies. She looks like a red wine in a white glass.

2. She is of white colour, and free from the routine physical disabilities of an ordinary woman such as menstruation, menopause, urinal and offal discharge, child-bearing, and the related pollution.

3. She is a woman characterized by modesty and flexing glances; she never looks at any man except her husband, and feels grateful for being the wife of her husband.

4. A houri is a young woman, free from odium and animosity. Besides, she knows the meaning of love and has the ability to put it into practice.

5. A houri is an immortal woman, who does not age. She speaks softly and does not raise voice at her man; she is always reconciled with him. Having been brought up in luxury, she is a luxury herself.

6. A houri is a girl of tender age, having large upright breasts. Houris dwell in palaces of splendid surroundings.

Now, add to this description of houris, what Mishkat, volume three says on pages 83-97:

7. If a houri looks down from her abode in heaven onto the earth, the whole distance shall be filled with light and fragrance

8. A houri's face is more radiant than a mirror, and one can see one's image in her cheek. The marrow of her shins is visible to the eyes.

9. Every man who enters paradise shall be given seventy-two houris; no matter at what age he had died, when he enters paradise, he will become a thirty-year-old, and he will not age any further.

10. Tirmzi, volume 2 states on page 138:

A man in paradise shall be given virility equal to that of one hundred men!

It should be noted that men who are so potent, shall not be inclined to anything except love-making. This is the reason that, according to Islam, sexual gratification is the ultimate goal of life, and thus, the behaviour of Muslims becomes sexually oriented.

Also remember that Islam does not forget the fact that hetrosexuality is not the complete source of carnal gratification because some people have different tastes. So, it adds a stunning dimension to the paradisiac pleasures. The Koran says:

" God has……. provided them radiancy and delight and recompensed them for their (Muslim's) patience With a Garden, and silk; therein they shall see neither sun nor bitter cold; near them shall be its shades, and its clusters hung meekly down, and there shall be passed around them vessels of silver, and large drinking cups of crystal, crystal of silver measure very exactly. And therein they shall be given to drink a cup whose ingredient is ginger; therein a spring whose name is Salsabil Immortal youths shall go about them; When thou seest them, thou supposest them dispersed pearls, When you see them you see the divine happiness and a great kingdom. Upon them shall be clothing of silk and brocade; they are embellished with bracelets of silver, and their Lord shall give them to drink a pure draught. (Man 76: 10-25)

This coaxing description of the unageing lads is also found in Mount LII: 20:

"While they hand therein a cup one to another Wherein is no idle talk, no cause of sin, and there go around youths, their own, as if they were concealed pearls."

It is quite clear that besides the most beautiful virgins, there are also boys in paradise, who

1. are as pretty as pearls, 2. are ever-young because they do not age, 3. wear clothes of silk, and 4. are embellished with silver bracelets.

What is the purpose of these unusually attractive boys, who dwell in paradise, which is constructed in such a way that every brick of gold is followed by a brick of silver; instead of mud or cement, saffron is used to hold them together; even its pebbles are diamonds and rubies. He who enters paradise, shall be free from grief; he will live there for ever, remain eternally young and will never die.

The presence of intoxicating youths in such a luxurious environment must have some unusual purpose though the Muslim scholars claim that they are ordinary servants, who render their services to the lucky Muslims.

But what kind of services? An ordinary does not have to be ever-young, pretty-like-pearls, used to drinking wine (i.e. pure draught) and habitually wearing silken dresses and silver bracelets?

These boys cannot be ordinary servants. What are they? If I come straight to the point, the Muslims will charge me with blasphemy and call me an "Insultor of the Prophet" but I am nothing of the kind. I hold the Prophet in high regard and think of him as a great national hero, who bestowed an unusually high dignity on the Arabs. In fact, I wish he was born in India to raise its stature compatible with the natural bounties that this land possessses.

I may, therefore, give a short sketch of the sexual fascination that "boys" have displayed throughout history:

Homosexuality, also known as sexual inversion, means sexual attraction of a person to one of the same sex i.e. man to man and woman to woman. The latter is called lesbianism for its association with the Aegean island of Lesbos.

This deliberation is, however, concerned with male homosexuality only. Those who practice it, think of it as a delight but its opponents find it disgusting. The writer is neither its practitioner nor its advocate, yet it is a real issue because it has influenced the course of history, and therefore, requires a frank discussion whether one likes it or not. This is why the modern legal thinking holds it as no crime if the act takes place in private between consenting adults.

Is it a genetic condition or an acquired habit? Though one cannot give an exclusive opinion on the subject, one can refer to certain facts, leaving the final conclusion to the reader:

The huge systematic surveys of homosexuality that A. C. Kinsey conducted in 1948 and 1953 showed that 37 per cent of U.S. males had indulged in this activity. Again, the American anthropologist, C. S. Ford, and psychologist, F. A. Bench, studied primitive societies during 1951. In 76 communities, it was found that 64 per cent accepted it as a normal practice.

Homosexuality has been observed in certain animals such as apes; cows in heat are known to mount other cows, and so are cats, dogs, rabbits, lions and horses.

Amongst humans, it is more prevalent, and is especially noticeable in societies where sex-segregation is observed. The boys are stimulated by the boys and resort to this practice for sexual gratification. This may not be desirable owing to its effects on mental and physical development of boys before reaching adolescence. On the other hand, girls' passions are unduly suppressed to make them pious, pure and perfect. They are taught and subjected to a discipline of high morality. Thus value of virginity is raised sky-high, and men want to marry virgins only, even though they may have lost their own chastity during the early stage of their life. It may tame the sexual outlook of women but it certainly distorts the emotional view of boys, leading to the growth of a male-dominant society, which develops such vices as dowry and legal disparities regarding inheritance and matrimonial rights of the spouses.

A law of Physics states that dissimilar poles attract and similar poles repel. This rule applies, not only to inanimate objects but also humans, and its operation starts right from babyhood. Male infants are inclined towards their mothers, and females to their fathers for this reason, and not owing to any unresolved sexual emotions. Of course, both genders are born with a sexual blue print but it takes many years to mature; until this happens carnal drive does not count for anything, and requires no resolution. If this were not true, seeing babes copulate would be a common spectacle. However, exceptions are always there: some children may mature earlier and possess varying degrees of sexual intensity.

Regarding homosexuality, one may say that the said law of Physics breaks down, and as a result, the similars begin to attract.

The paradox is resolved when we realise that virility is a part of the dominance-urge: more virile a person, the greater the desire to have a harem or indulge in promiscuity: lek behaviour, which impels animals to possess numerous females for proving their dominance, establishes this fact firmly. Physically, man is no different from other primates: his urge of dominance is even greater: men like Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler, who would slaughter a million men just to look superior, support this point of view.

One may add that homosexuality, an age-old experience, is an epiphenomenon, which has always existed besides hetrosexuality. It defies the physical law of the opposites, yet it is governed by the enormity of sexual drive the same way as the brute might of atomic force equally applies to the negative and positive charges irrespective of their dissimilarity.

Sexual desires is one of compelling drives of man; he may commit any crime or sin to satisfy it: the Biblical story, which shows that Adam rebelled against God to please Eve, seeks to illustrate this point. Man's greatest drive is what I have termed as dominance-urge; sexual drive, being a part of it, is likely to transgress the normal patterns of behaviour for its gratification.

However, there is one difference between man's and animal's behaviour; he wants to justify his action on moral or spiritual ground, no matter how fake, fictitious or fraudulent it may be. He uses both religion (God) and reason for this purpose to relieve his conscience from the burden of guilt. A persistent desire to satisfy conscience shows that humanity is destined to achieve moral perfection, and the day is approaching when all political and economic barriers, which stand in its way, shall be broken down.

Man's story for giving homosexuality religious sanctity is really interesting. Though Greece is not the origin of sexual inversion, it is certainly the Greek ingenuity, which lent it the spiritual grace:

According to a Greek legend, Ganymede, the son of Tros, King of Troy, was so beautiful that Zeus, the king of gods, became enamoured of him. Disguised as an eagle, he swooped down on this young lad affectionately, and carried him off to be his cup bearer i.e., to serve the God intoxicating drinks.

The Greek legend has been frank and honest about the interpretation of this incident. It is not like the Muslim scholars, who pretend that G(h)ilman i.e., the ever-young, bride-like boys of paradise are there to serve drinks to the faithful, and nothing else. On the contrary, the Greeks believed that Zeus, the Chief God, had a homosexual passion for Ganymede. In Rome, he (Ganymede) appears as Catamitus i.e., Catamite, which means a young lad kept for sexual purposes. In pursuance of the Greek tradition, this practice became so rife amongst the Romans that some historians believe it to be the cause of their moral ruination, which eventually led to the decline of their political grandeur.

"Homosexuality seems to have been popularised by Socrates, the great Greek philosopher." Plato speaks of Socrates and Alcibiades as lovers, and describes the philosopher "in chase of the fair youth."

Writing further about Socrates, Will Durant adds, "he was not above giving advice to homosexuals and hetairai on how to attract lovers."

Repeating opinion about the greatness of Socrates, Will Durant says: "Or as Plato put it, with moving simplicity, 'he was truly the wisest, and justest, and best of all the men whom I have ever known."'

From the above, it is clear that homosexuality was not looked down upon in Greece, otherwise, Plato would not have showered such praise on Socrates, who had a homosexual relationship with Alcibiades.

Will Durant is a highly respected historian of the 20th century. His statement is confirmed by an account in the "International Library of Famous Literature, Volume 2 (P. 693): He (Alcibiades) was brought up in the house of Pericles, and lived on terms of intimacy with Socrates."

Socrates was not only a great philosopher but also a soldier of high stature. "At Potidaea he saved both the life and the arms of the young Alcibiades, and gave up in the youth's favour his claim to the prize of velour."

Pederasty, which denotes sexual relationship between an older man and a young lad, seems to have been initiated by Socrates, who also happened to be a mystic. Though mystical principles practiced throughout the world are of Vedic origin, mysticism entered Persia through Greece, and then returned to India as Sufism.

As the mystical model, Socrates, had only one shabby garment, which he wore throughout the year; he was fully reconciled with his poverty, and felt rich without possessing anything at all. Bearing extreme hardships was one of his great virtues. He could drink to his heart's content without ever getting drunk. He had made himself immune to the effects of cold and heat: when his fellow-soldiers "wrapped themselves up carefully, and put fleeces under their feet (in intolerably severe weather), Socrates went out only with the same cloak on that he usually wore, and walked barefoot upon the ice. He was also known for meditation from dawn to dusk, and whenever he did it, he was fully absorbed in himself. "

When we look into these Socratic qualities, it transpires that the Islamic mysticism (tasawwaf) has been built around the Socratic model. I have no doubt that the metaphoric eulogy of wine that the Muslim Sufi saints habitually sing in their poetry, is a legacy of the Socratic drinking habit, and so is their love of boys, poverty, Stoic contentment and meditation.

Socrates was an open book but Plato, who adopted his several views, has not demonstrated his frankness in stating some of them. One of the issues has come to be known as Platonic love, which emanates from the Socratic discourses:

According to Plato, man is composed of two part -eternal and mortal: the former is termed as soul, which is divine, whereas the mortal side being passionate and vegetative, is profane, because it has been assigned to man by the inferior gods, though at the behest of the supreme deity. When these appetitive passions are pursued, release of soul from the body becomes difficult, and man suffers from a very long cycle of reincarnations.

Plato states that the release of soul is possible through knowledge only; this happens when mind is led by Eros, the Greek love-god (the Indian Kama), also known as sexual desire, which is the source of affection, leading to knowledge. However, all love is not productive because it can lead in either direction - reason or passion, vice or virtue. These divisions, he is said to have inherited from the prevailing dualistic views.

Platonic love, which is essentially homosexual, was encouraged by the excessive Greek fear of over-population. It is for this reason that there was only one household in a hundred that brought up more than one girl; most daughters at birth were exposed to die. This caused a shortage of women, accelerating the need for homosexuality.

Apart from the social influence, Plato was guided by his philosophical vision, and did not support heterosexual love, whose purpose is procreation, which leads to the imprisonment of soul in the body. He held that people indulged in this kind of love because they wanted to live through the memories of their children. But those who have creative desire for soul, shun woman. Secretof spiritual begetting is, therefore, love of man by man. In other words, love of the leads to trouble but love of the similar gender guarantees immortality. This is the way of releasing the mind (soul) from the grip of the matter (body). Yet, he did not think that love between man and man implied carnal intercourse. This is a deliberate ambiguity because it evidently contradicts the function of Eros, which concerns gratification of sexual desire.

What was, then, Platonic love all about? It was a relationship between two males - one called Erastes, the lover, and another Eromenos, the beloved. Again, this relationship was between the socially equals, and thus defied the universal law of love, which acknowledges no barrier of caste, colour or creed. It is a philosophical attempt to invent a new type of pederasty, which inflates erotic desire but forbids sexual gratification in a vain hope to transform the carnal excitement into imaginative and intellectual energy.

This view is simply absurd for being opposed to practical realities of life. However, this theory holds that as a beloved looks a model of beauty to the lover, he inspires love and reverence in the soul of latter. Initially, it is Eros, the sexual desire, which stirs the soul through the beauty of the youth (beloved); the beauty of the boy as perceived by his lover, is reflected back, arousing him (the youth), too. Thus, lover Eros (passion) evokes a counter-Eros, which is a reflection of the inspired love. Therefore, Eros both inspires and is inspired in turn. As a result, beauty of the lover and the beloved becomes a mutual reflection in each other's soul, leading them to march in tandem towards eternity. What a manipulation of erotic love it is!

This mutual relationship between the two males assumes that the lover is a teacher (as Socrates was) to the beloved, but as far as knowledge is concerned, the latter is a student. The lover as a teacher looks upward in his own right whereas the beloved looks up by reflection, thus both climb the "ladder of love," but the lover is always ahead of the beloved in search of eternity.

Socrates, the originator of the above theory (modified by Plato) was the lover of Alcibiades, who became a celebrated Athenian politician and general. As a youth, he lived on terms of intimacy with Socrates for a long time. Socrates, the great Greek philosopher was a man of many virtues, and rose to become a mentor of some immortal mystical traditions, still followed in the east. But the truth is that he was tired on a charge of corrupting young boys, and sentenced to death. His greatness is marked by his fearleshasness: he did not escape from the prison when he was provided with such an opportunity, he preferred to drink hemlock (poison) and left this world as a brave man of integrity.

Alexander, the Great, though a Macedonian, proved to be the ambassador of the Greek culture, which had been imbued with homosexuality, having an intoxicating Divine flavour. He was not only a rare military genius but also possessed some great political and administrative qualities. He fell in love with eastern manners; he wore eastern dress and had two eastern queens, but his heterosexuality was just a cover-up for the eastern politics. He was a homosexual like the Greeks, whose culture he loved and practised. Hephaestion and Bago are two of his well-known catamites. Through him, and afterwards his generals, the Greek culture known as hellenism, flourished in the Middle Eastern countries. It was given an extra ictus by the fact that Alexander claimed to be a god and was acknowledged and worshipped as such throughout his eastern dominious. The habits of god are bound to have a quick and lasting influence on the character of ordinary mortals. It penetrated the guts of the Persian poetry so deeply that it has become living eroticism in the mystical form of versification and has spread to all the Muslim countries where the Persian language has flourished. .

The Arabian peninsula was no exception. Not only the South worshipped female deities connected with the Greek tradition but hellenism also reached the North, the land of the Prophet Muhammad. We find the name of Alexander, the Great, mentioned in the Koran as Dhool Karnain:

"They will question thee (Muhammad) concerning Dhool Karnain. Say: I will recite to you a mention of him ....."

One ought to note that the name of Alexander the Great was not unheard of in the Hijaz (the Prophet's country) because people were curious to know more about him. Again, the Koran depicts Alexander, the Great, as a righteous man to whom Allah spoke and also left the making of vital decisions:

We (Allah) said, "O Dhool Karnain, either thou shalt chastise them, Or thou shalt take towards them a way of kindness " (The Cave XVIII: 85)

It is quite clear that the Koran has not condemned Alexander, the Great. Instead, he has been displayed as a righteous man, whose judgement Allah trusted and respected! Obviously, his homosexuality had no bearing on piety. This fact is supported in the already quoted Mount LII: 20, which states:

"While they (boys) hand therein (paradise) a cup One to another wherein is no idle talk, no cause of sin, and there go around youths, own, as if they were concealed pearls."

These verses describe two facts clearly:

1. All Muslim men shall have "their own" boys who are pretty like pearls, and

2. there will be "no cause of sin;" it means that so liberal shall be the laws of paradise that lasciviousness shall not count as a sin.

That this interpretation of the above Koranic verse is correct and honest, is corroborated by the facts of history. About the high society of Arabia during its heyday, Professor Philip K. Hitti wrties in his famous "History of the Arabs" (10th edition, p. 341):

"The servants were almost all slaves recruited from non-Muslim peoples and captured by force, taken prisoners in time of war or purchased in time of peace The white slaves ( Mamluk ) were mainly Greeks and Slavs, Armenaisn and Berbers. Certain slaves were eunuchs (Khisvan) attached to the service of the harem. Others termed Ghilman, who might also be eunuchs, were the recipients of special favour from their masters, wore rich and attractive uniforms and often beautified and perfumed their bodies in effeminate fashion. We read that Ghilman in the reign of al-Rashid, but it was evidently al-Amin who, following the Persian precedent, established in the Arabic world the Ghilman institution for the practice of unnatural sexual relations. A judge under al-Mamun used four hundred such youths. Poets like abu-Nuiwas did not disdain to give public expression to their perverted passions and to address amorous pieces of their composition to beardless young boys."

These historical facts conform to the highly erotic Koranic description of the paradisiac boys, who are ever-young, pretty like pearls, dressed in silk and brocades, and wear bracelets. Above all, like Ganymede they serve wine in cups of crystal. These boys are not servants as the Muslim scholars pretend because a servant can be old, ugly and poorly dressed.

The Persians (Iranians) had acquired love of homosexuality from their conquering master, Alexander the Great and his Greek soldiers. This practice was made lawful among the Arabs by the Koranic description of the beautiful boys: al-Rashid and al-Amin were prominent rulers and leaders of the Muslim world, which treated them as the Model of Behaviour. This is the reason that the Qazis (Muslim judges) who were expected to live, and dispense justice according to the principles of Islam, kept harems of boys unashamedly.

Not only history testifies to what I have stated, the Koran and hadith (the sayings and life precedents of the Prophet) allude to even greater sexual freedom, and this is done through a maze of ambiguity and self-contradictions:

Islam apparently forbids anal intercourse with women. There are several hadiths to this effect on page 89 of Mishkat' volume 2. One hadith says that the man who sodomises his woman is accursed but another says:

"Your women are your tillage. Come to your tillage from back or front but avoid the ones who suffer miqad or menstruation."

"Miqad" means anus. The mullahs have deliberately tried to misinterpret it by saying that Islam forbids anal intercourse with women. In this hadith, it implies that a man must not use the back of his woman during her monthly period, otherwise it is permitted.

Look at the following hadith on page 87 of Mishkat, volume 2.

Jabir, quoting the Prophet said: "The Jews used to say when one sodomises one's wife, the children are born with squinted eyes, but Allah sent this verse which says: "Your wives are your tillage, come to your tillage from any side you like."

For the satisfaction of readers, I may add that the verse referred to in the above quoted hadith is to be found in the Koran (The Cow, 2: 220).

This discussion explains how Islam exploits the psychological weakness of man for sex, and prescribes Jehad as the sure way of getting into paradise, the abode of the most luxurious sex. Yet it claims to be the Divine code of enforcing virtue and forbidding vice!

Sex-after-death, which is a speciality of Islam, requires an investigation into the concept of Jehad, which is fundamentally connected with carnal delights

"Women are virtually enslaved."

Who wrote that in "Female employment" end of the second paragraphy? I'm removing it. Faro0485 (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Defensive Stance

It looks like there's a lot in this article that tries to defend wrongful allegations against Islam from others (probably predominantly Western countries). A great example is this beauty:

"As such the frankly offensive minority behaviours of dubiously selected, albeit Western feted undemocratic oil-rich Middle Eastern nations, with populations less than 30 million and whose sum total populations are less than Turkey are hardly source for unbiased comparison. Thus one must make a clear distinction between cultural and religious behaviours."

Things like these should probably be cleaned up, however I'm not really in much of a place to judge what is editorial and what isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.212.107 (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think there needs to be a lot more depth of content in this entry and that means looking past the glossy parts and it has include the negative effects and human rights issues and conflicts that arise. Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran - it's going to be difficult to include status of women in a comprehensive way which is why there wouldn't be much of a point in including that in here other than brief mentions (leave the status of woman and islam in each country to their own wiki entries)CivEngAlyssa (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

section on devorce

There is a part about divorce that i think should be corrected. During and time of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and during the caliphates the divorce rate was high. just like in western countries. Women would marry many times over, even at old age, which is now unusual and culturally unacceptable in more Arab countries. I don't have anything to site specifically but Anwar Al- Awlaki states it many times in his lectures and he cites everything, he mostly uses Al-Tabari and many Sahih hadith in anything he lectures about. Maybe someone who has access to his lectures could help out.

Also, for others who don't "agree" or feel like there is serious serious errors, should take effort to fix those fallacies, instead of making allegations of their own. This is probably one of the more objective pieces I've read about Islam, most of them have a tainted western spin on them. I hope this one doesn't turn into another one of those. objectivity is KEY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omsharif (talk • contribs) 19:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Could someone elaborate on the sentence "However, under most Islamic schools of jurisprudence, the husband must agree to the divorce in order for it to be granted." Under what conditions in what schools can a Muslim woman be granted a divorce from her husband if the husband does not agree to one? Kaldari (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hadith about women being rulers

Okay people, that hadith is UNRELIABLE. How many narrations are there? It doesn't matter if it's from Sahih Bukhari, the number of people reporting it counts. So we don't need that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TelusFielder (talk • contribs) 04:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Outrageous changes

This article has been changed beyond all recognition by am interest group without any discussion on it first. I intend to remove these changes in a couple of days, unless that contributor makes changes themselves. this is meant ot be a neutral article on women in Islam, not a justification for a particular viewpoint. Emmetfahy (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Right! We need to do a better job with some of these:

Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Suffrage in Lebanon

It is untrue that in Lebanon, proof of education is required for women to vote. Nothing in the law provides for it and the constitution makes no differences between men and women in lebanon.The source in note 111 should then be advised to correct information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.226.228 (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed that statement, because I found one pretty-specific source saying the educational requirement was dropped in 1957.[2]. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

the most biased article ever written in the history of Wikipedia

just awful..really awful...I mean in some paragraphs the article is biased towards Muslims in others it is biased to the prevailing sterotypes that westerners have about women in Islam ...just awful...please fix this, neutrality is what we are aiming for here

Sex Slaves

Mohammad and his compapnions had besides their wifes Sex Slaves. In the Koran this practice is mentioned. In the hadith this is mentioned. In the Sirat this is mentioned. In Islamic history the practice of Sex Slaves was continued. This "encyclopedic" entry does not mention it. This needs to be corrected. MuratOnWiki (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually it forbids forcing slaves to have sex with you, and says if your slaves ask to be freed you have to do it. "And to those of your slaves who desire a deed of manumission, execute it for them, if ye know good in them, and give them a portion of the wealth of God which He hath given you. Force not your female slaves into sin, in order that ye may gain the casual fruitions of this world, if they wish to preserve their modesty. Yet if any one compel them, then verily to them, after their compulsion, will God be Forgiving, Merciful."

However, that's more a primary source on Islamic doctrine. If you have reliable third-party sources on the subject which support your position in the matter of those historical facts, by all means present them, or be bold and include them in the article properly. Peter Deer (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Striking women

I think it is worth mentioning that Islam allows men to strike their women in certain conditions, see: http://quran.com/4/34 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.94.217 (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Y This is already mentioned. - Peter Deer (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Opening Statement reference to Koran

How can we begin an article with a line "While men and women have different roles within Islam, the Koran makes it clear that they are equal" which then has three reference but NOT ONE to the actual Koran? Just some guys interpretation. This is ridiculous and should be removed immediately. AFACI (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

Agree. It doesn't make sense to say that it makes something clear when the very next example contradicts it. That's not clarity by any standard. So I have tweaked it. Actually, by the time I got to it, the order of the claims had been reversed -- the one about equality was mentioned first.

I'm actually inclined to remove the seemingly absurd equality claim altogether but that might be a POV violation.204.44.0.4 (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

support for my edit in family obligations

don't have time to cut and paste the arabic here, from reliance of the traveler. can someone do a good citation, either from online or from sheikh nuh's translation? http://www.nku.edu/~kenneyr/Islam/Reliance.html

"M11.11

If the husband and wife disagree (A: in court, when neither has proof (dis: k8.2) ) about whether she received her support from him, her word is accepted over his. If they disagree as to whether she allowed him full enjoyment of her person, then his word is accepted over hers unless he admits that she first made herself available to him, but claims she then refuses, in which case her word is accepted over his.

@M11.2

Whenever the husband neglects to provide his wife's support for a period of time, the amount he should have paid remains a debt he owes to her.

@M11.3

The wife is entitled to annul their marriage whenever the husband is unable to provide her with the support obligatory for a nonaffluent person to pay (def: m11.2) and provide clothing or housing for her.

If she wishes, she may choose to bear with him (O: supporting herself with her own money), and it (O: the amount the husband is unable to pay) remains a financial obligation that he owes her (O: If she does not wish to tolerate his financial incapacity, she cannot annul the marriage by herself, but must establish her husband's inability to support her before the Islamic judge, who annuls the marriage or allows her to do so, since he is the one who judges the matter (A: and if there is no judge, she has two persons (Def: o21.4) decide) ). )

@M11.14

The wife is not entitled to annul the marriage when the husband is unable to provide foods besides the staple food, support her servant, or provide the support that must be provided by an affluent person or person between affluence and nonaffluence (def: m11.2).

• 2*Chapter M12.0: Support of One's Parents and Children

@M12.1

It is obligatory for one to support the persons listed below, whether one is male or female, when one has money in excess of one's own living expenses and (n: if male,) those of one's wife (O: meaning enough for a day and night, oneself taking priority over others, followed by one's wife, who takes precedence over other family members) :

-1- one's father, father's father, and on up;

-2- one's mother, grandmothers (from either parent's side) and on up (O: it making no difference what their religion is (A: since the religion of the family members is of no consequence in any of the rulings of this section) ) :

-3- and one's children, male and female, their children, and on down.

(O: Money in excess of one's own living expenses and those of one's wife means one is obliged to sell (A: if necessary to fulfill the obligation to support the above-mentioned persons) whatever must be sold when one has to pay debts, including real estate and other property.)

But supporting the above-mentioned persons is only obligatory when:

(a) there is poverty (O: a restriction applicable to both support of one's ancestors and one's descendants, meaning that it is necessary in order for it to be obligatory to support one's ancestor that the ancestor be poor, since if he has enough money, one need not support him);

(b) an incapacity (O: to earn a living) due to chronic illness, being a child, or to mental illness. (O: This condition is only applicable to support of one's offspring, not of one's ancestors. If an (A: impoverished) ancestor (A: such as one's father) were able to earn a living from a job suitable to him, it would nevertheless be obligatory for one to support him, and he would not be called upon to gain livelihood, because of the extreme respect due to him, as opposed to one's descendant, whom one need not support if the descendant is able to earn his own living, but who rather is called upon to do so

himself.

The upshot is that the support of whoever has enough money for their own support is not obligatory upon another family member, no matter whether the former is mentally ill or sane, a child or adult, chronically ill or well; because he does not deserve charity in such a condition-while a descendant able to earn an adequate living does not deserve support from his ancestors.)

" 65.96.74.249 (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Qur'an vs Koran

The Koran is the official English language spelling, not Qur'an or Qur'an or Quran. This is an English language article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmetfahy (talk • contribs) 20:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a commonly agreed upon spelling, see this discussion and the article Qur'an --Aronoel (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well in that case the original spelling should be used as the primariy one, with other disputed spellings listed at the start. Emmetfahy (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

See WP:MOSISLAM. Qur'an is as English of a word as jihad.

Also, at least be careful not to break links. There's no such template as "Template:Koran".VR _talk 09:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Also the convention at Islam, Muhammad and Qur'an is all Qur'an not Koran.VR _talk 09:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this article, using the Koran with a Q convention, has a number of different spellings. The convention mentioned above is not as clear cut as is indicated. The use of a Q is a very recent innovation and is only causing confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmetfahy (talk • contribs) 20:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

N Not done and not likely to be done - There has been very lengthy discussion on the subject of the Koran vs. Qur'an transliteration. Qu'ran is the present preferred standard in accordance with consensus. Peter Deer (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Islamic perspective on forced marriages.

This section is written like bad essay - it is one huge block of text followed by a random series of quotations - not to mention the use of the first person. Eldamorie (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I ended up cutting the whole section to here - I'm not sure that any of this is salvageable as it seems to be a mass of OR espousing a specific perspective on a topic that is not mentioned elsewhere in the article.

What is forced marriages? The Islamic perspective on forced marriages and can a women divorce her self from forced marriage? In a forced marriage, one or both spouses do not consent to the arrangement of the marriage. A marriage which is performed duress and without the full and informed consent or free will of both parties. What is the Islamic perspective on forced marriages? Forced marriages are definitely contradictory to the teaching of Islam and the Quran. In the verses of the Quran, the highest Islamic textual mandate, states clearly, in condemning marrying or inheriting women against their will, and it also emphasis that marriage is solely based on mutual consent of a man and a woman, which makes forced marriages extremely unacceptable and un-Islamic. Allah Almighty said in the Noble Quran: "O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower [money given by the husband to the wife for the marriage contract] ye have given them, except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good. (The Noble Quran, 4:19)" In addition to verse 4:19, quoted above, which condemns marrying women against their will, other verses of the Quran make it that marriage, is to shape by mutual agreement: “When you divorce women, and they fulfil the term of their (‘Iddat), do not prevent them from marrying their husbands (of their choice), if they mutually agree on equitable terms. This instruction is for all amongst you, who believe in God and the Last Day. That is (the course Making for) most virtue and purity amongst you and God knows, and ye know not”. (Quran Chapter Bakharah, The Cow, 2:232) Can a women divorce herself, from forced marriage? It is clearly forbidden in Islam to force women into marriage. If this is happening or has already happened to any woman, then Islam allows for her to divorce herself from the man she was forced to marry. The quotes from the Quran support my statement.

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: "A virgin came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and mentioned that her father had married her against her will, so the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) allowed her to exercise her choice. (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 11, Number 2091)" The above Noble Verse 4:19 and the Sayings of our beloved Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him clearly explain that according to Islam, whether the woman is virgin or not, her permission is a MUST. Her father or older brother can not force her into marriage as the Pagan Arabs and the Jews and Christians before Islam in the Middle East used to do; see Deuteronomy 25:5 in the Bible to see how women are forced into marriage.

Eldamorie (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Gender Roles

Seems like a lot of POV here. The bit about the 'single soul' refers to the 'soul' of men, from which their 'mate' was then 'taken' - not really equality as we know it. 'Equal in the afterlife' is also a bit rich since I can't find any mention of male houris in the Koran. The last few sentences are entirely POV and unsourced; the last source is, bafflingly, to the notorious 'and beat them' verse, which obviously contradicts the whole section. Logos384 (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. Your comment constitutes more a criticism of Islamic doctrine than a constructive suggestion for improving the article. - Peter Deer (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Tone

The tone of this article is not one that presents the argument objectively but one that presents it from the perspective of an individual defending against the belief that Islam marginalizes women. In other words, this article has a defensive tone and should be outright deleted and re-done by an individual with no bias to either side.

Could this be addressed more specifically? - Peter Deer (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Needs more global information

I'm going to take a crack at fleshing this out a bit, with more information on regional differences. The article as it stands is very Arab-centric (Indonesia is barely mentioned; Moslem communities in South Asia, Europe and North America are either mentioned in passing, or not mentioned at all). There's also not much information here on differences between Islamic sects, or how women's status in Islam has differed over the course of history, connections to pre-Islamic Arab culture, and quite a few other areas that I think deserve coverage in the article.

OttawaAC (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I added some information, and ended up rearranging some sections and subsections. There was more than one section on employment, for example, and more than one section on marriage and divorce, so I merged them, and hopefully the article is a little smoother reading at the moment. I rephrased a bit here and there, but nothing was deleted. The article could still use more information about Muslim women in Asia, Europe, the United States. I'll see if I can find more to add. OttawaAC (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that, among other things, this article needs more global perspective. On the other hand, it could use a little less, and some of it should be less culturally concerned and more concerned with doctrine and dogma. Peter Deer (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The article begins with an unsubstantiated assertion

   At the beginning of this article the Quran is said to state that 'men and women are equal', and yet all three references given in support of this statement are to secondary sources. Where exactly in the Quran does it state that men and women are equal? If this assertion is not supported by a direct reference to the Quran itself how can it be allowed to stand?
   The same sentence that claims that the Quran states that men and women are equal also quotes sura 4:34, which declares the opposite: that men 'excel' women, and that 'righteous women' should be 'obedient' to their husbands.
   The last two sentences in the first paragraph should both be removed, as they present as fact what are no more than interpretations of sura 4:34, in what appears to be an attempt to soften its uncompromising message. The penultimate sentence reads 'Although the Quran does say this, the superiority of men is interpreted in terms of strength by the context - men maintain women.' What does 'interpreted in terms of strength' actually mean here? Sura 4:34 is quite clear: the primary reason why men should be the 'protectors and maintainers of women' is that Allah made men 'excel' women. (Other translations use different words to 'excel', but the meaning is the same: that men are superior to women.) This has nothing to do with 'the context' of the economic and social relations between men and women, it is, according to sura 4:34, a fact of human biology ordained by Allah.
   The last sentence of the first paragraph reads 'This verse however refers to a relationship between a husband and wife, not as a society in whole.' Once again, this is not a logical interpretation of sura 4:34. The sura does not limit itself to the 'relationship between a husband and wife', it declares the superiority of all men to all women.
   Sura 4:34 is the central text in any discussion of 'Women in Islam', and it should surely be quoted in full. To omit the last part of the sura is to give a selective reading of one of Allah's main commandments regarding women: "As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them." It should also be quoted, rather than merely referred to, in the section on 'Behaviour within marriage'. Wibblywobblybibblybobbly (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Different spellings on Koran/Quran/Qur'an

Once again, different spellings of Koran/Quran/Qur'an have appeared in this article. What is the official English spelling? Emmetfahy (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It is more appropriate to write Quran (English: /kɔːrˈɑːn/ kor-AHN ; Template:Lang-ar al-qurʾān, IPA: [qurˈʔaːn], literally meaning "the recitation"), but it is also transliterated as Qur'an or Koran. So it is up to you which spelling you prefer.For further clearance you can check Quran. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I went by what the article "Quran" used, but would not object to this or any other article being consistent in whatever spelling was chosen. I changed a dozen "Qur'an"s to Quran simply because this article currently used Quran more than Qur'an. I have absolutely no objection to switching them all to Qur'an. Revert my last edit and fix the rest. If it appears in a reference or a quote, though, it should use whatever that source used. Apteva (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Flag this article for Clean-Up.

This article needs to be flagged for further attention, like Cleaning Up. It clearly has Issues that have all been carefully outlined above.

It does not read like an encyclopedia entry, relying heavily in on insider knowledge of the Quran, and Islam.