Talk:Islam

For some sects...

Slooppouts34,

• Per WP:LEAD, The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.
• Per MOS:INTRO, The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article...
• Per WP:FRNG, To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea.

The notability and significance of people who reject Sunnah is negligible and the minority viewpoint is covered in the body of the article appropriately with a single sentence. The lead should give proper weight and exclude fringe ideas. Can you self revert yourself until consensus can be demonstrated that such a sentence should be included in the lead? --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 04:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "for some sects" should not be included; there are certainly people calling themselves Muslims who will not agree with Sunnah, as there are those who will disagree with just about any definition of Muslim you could try to write, but the number of people is going to be very, very, very small. Islam itself is a summary-style article; the lead is only a brief summary of the article so "for some sects" is IMO a waste of words where things need to be concise. It also violates WP:UNDUE by the implication that large numbers of Muslims reject Sunnah. — Bilorv ^(talk)_(contribs) 16:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The Quranists are a big enough sect to be notable. You simply just can't have false staements on the lead of the article. If balancing weight is the issue, then balance it by saying that "majority" do follow hadith. But the bottom line is: you can't put inaccurate statement.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Fauzan's policy references (above) do not support his position. The quotes from WP:LEAD and MOS:INTRO would be reasons not to have a whole sentence on the Quranists in the lead (for instance) but they do not justify incorrectly stating that all Muslims folow hadith. Also WP:FRINGE is not relevant because that is about fringe scholarly views. It is not a fringe scholarly view that Quaranists exist. That is undisputed. My only challenge on Slooppouts34's edit (here) is that simply saying "a majority" suggests that the Quaranists are a larger number than they are, and would prefer something like "vast majority" as more reflective of the position - and have added that qualification. DeCausa (talk) 08:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If that was the case, then all the articles would be have been awash with "most of" or "majority of" in every sentence. Now, any person walking on the street can claim to be a "Muslim", and his way "correct", yet we are not going to include so fringe an idea in the lead, at least. There is always going to be disagreement between people regarding who is a "Muslim", in such a case Wikipedia should parallel the most widespread view, Wikipedia is not a place to establish the truthfulness of any statement. The bottom line is WP:N. Read the first post again. Do the (mainstream) Muslims regard Quranists as Muslim? Are Quranists notable enough? Provide references to WP:RS, do not make unsupported claims.

Regarding consensus, you have to establish consensus to change the lead since there is objection. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 09:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong on two counts. Firstly, in Wikipedia we do not determine who are Muslims by "mainstream" Muslim opinions. It is long-established on numerous articles that it is by self-declaration. For example, the Ahmadiyya are referred to as muslims despite frequent objections of those editing from a mainstream muslim POV. Secondly, many articles do have the "most of" qualification. For example, the second sentence of Muhammad states "Muhammad is almost universally considered by Muslims as the last prophet sent by God to mankind", the "almost" to take account of Ahmadiyya. With regard to policy, as I sated above, you are using the quotes incorrectly. DeCausa (talk) 09:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The lead of Evolution doesn't say Evolution is the (possibly non-existent) change in the inherited phenotypic traits (characteristics) of biological populations over successive generations, which is claimed to occur by scientists (but not all scientists) and disputed by many creationists, and some people other than creationists, although some creationists "believe in" evolution. You can generalise things to concisely represent the vast majority. Something may be notable for its own topic — intelligent design is incredibly notable — but not notable enough to be mentioned in the lead of the main-topic article ("creationism", "intelligent design" etc. do not appear in the lead of evolution). Quranists may deserve their own article, but not be big enough to be discussed in Islam.

Having said that, I know nothing about Quranists: what percentage of Muslims are Quranists / reject hadith? I also don't object to adding "vast majority" (which is currently what's written) or another short phrase that makes it clear that the number of Muslims that follow hadith is far greater than the number who don't. — Bilorv ^(talk)_(contribs) 10:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a false analogy with Evolution. A better comparison is the current , lead in Chistianity: "Most Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God...". Anyway, since you don't object to "vast majority" we are in agreement! DeCausa (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm ok with "vast majority" in the sentence. However, I would like to note that Sunni,Shia and other sects have very different hadiths. (http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/2741/why-do-the-shia-have-different-hadiths)

--Slooppouts34 (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Quran and Sunnah are not the only sources of Islamic teaching. Spiritual leaders or "Imams" have also played a significant role in the history of Islam especially Shia Islam and Sufi Islam. I think we should add this to the lead section as well. (Their teachings are no on par with the Quran though). And also, Quran is considered "revelation from God" not "verbatim word of God".Kiatdd (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Just passing by this talk page, I would like to say that most Muslims believe the Quran is the verbatim word of God. Mbcap (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

the doctrine is called "wahy" which precisely means revelation (see page wahy), it is a well-known doctrine in Islamic theology.Kiatdd (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I have just reverted Slooppouts34's edit. That is too much weight given to an extremely tiny subgroup. Please discuss why you wish to have it included because you have provided no tangible policy based reasons. A search on google scholar, books and news showed this many results for "quranism or quranist";

• Google scholar --- 65 results and google scholar thought I typed it wrong (this reflects on how inconsequential they are) @ http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=quranism+or+quranist&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

         As opposed to 1,940,000 results for search term "islam" @ http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=islam&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

• Google books ----- 388 results @ https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=google+scholar&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=979&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=9gmqVKv2O8mQ7Aab4oDoDg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#tbm=bks&q=quranism+or+quranist

         As opposed to 16,800,000 results for search term "islam" @ https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=google&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=979&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=SgqqVJGzPOnY7AaVgIHgDg&ved=0CAwQ_AUoAQ#tbm=bks&q=islam

• Google news ------ 54 results @ https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=google+scholar&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=979&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=9gmqVKv2O8mQ7Aab4oDoDg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg#tbm=nws&q=quranism+or+quranist

         As opposed to 18,500,000 results for Islam

Search results on scholar, books and news as percentage of total for "quranism or quranist" (I know this is OR but I am putting it here to show how extremely microscopic this fringe view is:

• Google scholar --- 0.002%
• Google books ----- 0.001%
• Google news ------ 0.0003%

The comparison to the christianity page is not suitable for this discussion as nontrinitarians constitute a significant minority which itself consists of numerous different denominations. This is undue weight and also extremely fringe view that is too microscopic to consider. Editors should be reminded WP:FRINGE states; "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is.". By making this edit which I have reverted Slooppouts34, you have given extreme weight to quranist opinion relative to its prominence in reliable sources. Mbcap (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

DeCausa, reiterate and revert. Thanks--Slooppouts34 (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I welcome any policy based objections, otherwise the article stays the way it is. Mbcap (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You've completely misunderstood policy and WP:FRINGE on this. That is all about conflicting scholarly (and not so scholarly) theories on a subject: there was no moon landing, the CIA did 9/11, the earth is flat. This is different. This is describing a religious belief and reporting the facts on what is believed. The only way WP:FRINGE would play here is if scholars disputed whether Quranists exist. WP:FRINGE, in an article about a religion, should concern fringe sources/theories about the religion rather than fringe sects of that religion. Grateful for other inputs. I'v opened a thread at the Fringe noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Islam DeCausa (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Slooppouts34: what are you trying to say? Are you saying that a faction of Muslims do not follow Muhammad? we need more clarification here! Kiatdd (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you DeCausa for pointing that out. Yes, WP:FRINGE deos not apply here as it is not a scientific issue but a religious one. Even still due to the absolute insignificance of this group and the very little that is available in the way of sources, would mean it would not merit consideration for the lead per WP:UNDUE. Mbcap (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree they are no way significant enough to be referred to in the lead. The point here is different, however. It is factually incorrect for the lead to say, in effect, all Muslims follow hadith/Sunnah. It's just wrong. It needs to be qualified in some way: just as the lead to Muhammad says that muslims "almost universally" regard him to be the last prophet. It needs the equivalent of "almost all". DeCausa (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I see what you are saying but it still does not make a difference, because even mentioning, "that almost all muslims follow hadith" would give undue weight to quranists. Mbcap (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if there is one Muslim who identifies himself/herself as Quranist, then stating that "all Muslims follow hadith" becomes false. There are millions of Quranists, and they are heavy suppressed by extremists everywhere (e.g https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/islamofallah/4F86FUk8nhs) just as the case for Ahmadiyya, Bahá'í Faith and many other sects in Islam. I've no problem with supression though, if you believe that should be the case on Wikipedia also--Slooppouts34 (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Slooppouts34 what you just attempted on the article page constituted vandalism. The introduction was destroyed and I immediately reverted. Please bear in mind that if you repeat this again, you will receive a level 3 warning. If you would like to make any changes to the lead please raise them here first with your sources. Mbcap (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2015

Teaspoon67 (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC) http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/home/ is the new correct link for http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/home/ located in the external lnks section

Done Cannolis (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

where is islamic terrorisim

i believe section for islamic terrorism and/or jihad must be added. kazekagetr 15:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there is already a section on Jihad in the article. JZCL 17:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Muslem

Please change MOSLEM to MUSLIM in the first line — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.94.18 (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 12:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Family Life

Under Family Life section, isn't sex with unconsenting female captives, really rape? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.107.150 (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes of course. Thepigdog (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Slavery and genocide

I would like to add the following links

• Islam and slavery
• Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
• Armenian Genocide
• Assyrian genocide
• Persecution of Yazidis by ISIL

Thepigdog (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Where? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Slavery in Islam

After I've read this article about Islam that was posted in Wikipedia. I have to bring up this statement that was part of the article.

"According to Islam, it is lawful for male masters to have sexual relations with female captives and slaves,[112] regardless of whether the slave woman gives her consent".[113]

There is no evidence stating that male masters are allowed let alone 'lawful' to have sexual relations with female captives and slaves regardless of whether the slave woman gives her consent. in Quran, Hadiths or Sunnah. That act is considered fornication or rape and it is heinous and sinful to have sex other than your wife. Unless you have find evidence that is stated in Quran, then by all means, I can't argue with facts.

What stated above is untrue and will mislead readers who are looking for information about Islam. Please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.185.215 (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

In the quotes above you can see "[112]" and "[113]". Displayed in the article like this: , these are references supporting the statements made. Unless you have reliable sources which say otherwise (and your personal analysis of the Quran doesn't count), the statements support what the sources say and should remain within the article. Not all Muslims agree on... well, just about anything, but Wikipedia reflects what is stated in sources, even if you personally disagree. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c) 09:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources do not establish significance or weight. I mean which reliable source includes details about slavery in a short summary about "Family Life" in Islam? I'm not aware of any other than this article. Additionally, one of the sources was being misrepresented (Islamqa.com), as it clearly explains at the end that there are "valid reasons" for a slave women to refuse her master's requests. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Then, why not add more detail from Islamqa.info/. That site has quite a lot of detail on what you can and cannot do with your slave girls; for example: "The wife has no right to object to her husband owning female slaves or to his having intercourse with them."[1]-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Women in Islam has its own article, so try not to go into too much detail, but a bit more than just the single sentence there would be fine. I would say that coming under the heading of "Family life" does not make it original research, but have little opinion on whether the contested text should be included or not. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c) 19:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding more details would veer into historical and disputed information (not really suitable for a general section on Family life). Nowadays, Muslim countries forbid slavery. Also, the distinct form of slavery allowed in Islam is temporary, limited to wartime and the presence of POWs. It is off topic for normal everyday Family life. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 20:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It is? Do you have reliable sources for that? Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not on an editor's opinions.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hazrat Ali had 17 slave girls and Hazrat Umar also had many.

Islam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married.

A slave woman with whom a man has intercourse is known as a sariyyah (concubine) from the word sirr, which means marriage.

This is indicated by the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and this was done by the Prophets. Ibraaheem (peace be upon him) took Haajar as a concubine and she bore him Ismaa’eel (may peace be upon them all).

Our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) also did that, as did the Sahaabah, the righteous and the scholars. The scholars are unanimously agreed on that and it is not permissible for anyone to regard it as haraam or to forbid it. Whoever regards that as haraam is a sinner who is going against the consensus of the scholars.

Maria al-Qibtiyya was one of the concubines/sex slaves of Islamic prophet Muhammad.

List of Muhammad's Wives and Concubines: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Muhammads_Wives_and_Concubines

Also see "Islamic State issues guidelines for sex slavery": http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-issues-guidelines-for-sex-slavery/

--Slooppouts34 (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a wartime practice because its sources were limited to POWs and those born while both their parents are POWs. Here is a quote from a reliable source: "The classical shari'a reduced the means by which one could be lawfully enslaved to just two: birth from two lawfully enslaved parents or capture as a prisoner in a lawful jihad. All other forms of enslavement were abolished."(The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought, 2012, p.514). Moreover, most slaves were POWs as "those born into slavery formed a relatively small proportion of the slave population" (Transformation in Slavery, Lovejoy, 2011, p.16)[2]. It was also non-permanent: "Thus the slave in Muslim society was not condemned to live permanently in servitude; he had a chance of obtaining liberty in his life time in an age when the rule was more rigid outside the World of Islam." (Khadduri, War and Peace in Islam, 2010, p.132)[3]. More recent sources suggest that not freeing a slave after the war is over should be considered a later development: "The Qur'an seems to establish a rule that at the time of the revelation only captives taken in a just war could be enslaved. [...] The Qur'an recommends actually freeing the captives after the war is over."(p. 45 onwards, Black Morocco: A History of Slavery, Race, and Islam, Chouki El Hamel, 2012)[4]. Clearly slavery in Islam (at least for the abiding Muslim) is inextricably linked with POWs and war practices.

But I don't see [Toddy1]'s reply on how the Islamqa.com source is being misrepresented? It clearly states that a female slave could have a "valid excuse" for rejecting her master's requests (see last paragraph). Also, your recent addition is not accurate, and suffers from the same problem of citing one-sided or poor quality sources. In fact, a wife can stipulate in her marriage contract that her husband does not marry anyone else: "Granting the wife the right to stipulate that her husband not marry additional wives or take a concubine was a source of great power for the woman. It differed from the historical practice of the husband granting his wife the option of requesting a divorce in such a case, a practice known as tamlik ..." (Wahhabi Islam, Natan J. Delong-Bas, 2004)[5]. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 16:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A few comments:

• IsIslamQA.info a WP:RS? That seems doubtful to me.
• I don't see any grounds for saying this topic should not be under the heading "Family life".
• Nothing Wiqi55 has said justifies removing the topic altogether - only grounds (perhaps) for amending the text. If the sources say there are circmstances when the wife or the concubine can object (I haven't checked) then that should be incorporated - not simply remove the whole thing.
• I fail to see that slavery is only a "wartime practice" is a reason to remove it either. Firstly, there are enough wars around not to make it irrelevant - see Toddy1's addition for instance. Modern slavery is widespread including in Muslim countries, whatever the law of a country formally says. Secondly, it's not just POWs but also those born into slavery to whom this applies. There's a reasonably well-sourced summary here

DeCausa (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be more suitable under "Jihad" or "Warfare". Probably "Family life during wartime". It is not a common practice in Islam today. Those born into slavery were a small proportion only, and usually become free whenever their parents (POWs) become free. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 00:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

"Copyvio of <http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/015-slavery.htm> removed by 117.203.124.93 (talk)" --Slooppouts34 (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking at this page on my watchlist, it is clear that the section on concubines and slavery is being argued over. One editor removes a section, only for another to revert. Please discuss the issue first on the talk page and once consensus is reached then edit the page accordingly. Slooppouts34 you do raise good points but you have to reference reliable sources. Last time I checked wikislam was not a reliable source. I also do not think we should remove the section all together as this issue has been discussed by classical scholars. DeCausa has raised some sensible questions just above this post which once explored may help all those concerned here to move forward. A balance could be reached here and I am going off of what DeCausa has said, that the relevant section could be amended to better reflect reliable sources. I just had an edit conflict when posting this and I see Slooppouts34 that you have quoted a plethora of sources. These constitute primary sources and on wikipedia we try to use secondary sources. Mbcap (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Slooppouts34: that's a weird point of view!, the sources available to me say that Islam (the Islam understood by Muhammad) admonishes slavery. Muhammad freed slaves by various means, he was not rich, a rich person named "abu bakr" ransomed them. Apparently after Muhammad, some people, or Muslims, or whatever you’d like to call them, returned to practicing slavery until slavery was abolished in the 19th century. There was an army of slaves in ottoman army, they were called mamluks.Kiatdd (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, stating that information under #Family Life and linking the two together is definitely OR. Encyclopædia Britannica does not make any mention on slavery in its section on family life. The article is good as it stands. If correct, it may be addressed adequately in the article on slavery, giving proper weight. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 16:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kiatdd: you are quite wrong. See Islamic views on slavery and Muhammad's views on slavery. The Qu'ran and the Sunnah regulated the institution of slavery, but neither prohibited it. DeCausa (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Fauzan: Wikipedia is not paper: we can and do go into much more detail than the Encyclopedia Britannica. However, if you still maintain including the information under "Family Life" is original research, then do you have an alternative title (assuming, just for a second, that the information is going to be included)? As a separate point can Islamic views on slavery be linked under the "See also" hatnote if the slavery text is added back? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c) 17:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

That website is in no way a WP:RS for Islam. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a problem of sources i think. In modern family life slavery has no place, first of all because is illegal in every country of the world. And again, and most important, Islam main page needs to be as representative as possible: is slavery preminent in the islamic families? If yes, show some sources, evidence, etc and we can discuss the fact; if not, slavery topics don't have the reason to be placed in “family life” section. It's simple as that. Even the Bible rule issues about slavery, but nowdays christian and hebrew family don't take slaves in their homes, nor they are allowed to do that by local or international laws. CallAng222 (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Bilorv, The link I provided was to the online Encyclopædia Britannica artice, which is around 30 pages (355 kB). Their section on Family life spans five paragraphs, quite longer than our articles 2 (or 3). If the topic is related, it is expected that the Britannica article mentions it. This was only an example; I am unable to find RS which link the two areas. If the information is anyway going to be included, it can be linked directly in the text rather than using a hatnote. As for another title, I don't have any hybrid in my mind, but again, we need something solid to base such a section on. In the meantime, Islamic views on slavery can be added to #See also. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 18:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, found this, and only this. I am unable to ascertain now whether this is a widespread viewpoint or a fringe one, as this is the only source that talks about it in such a manner. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 18:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? It's covered in many sources including this and the IslamQ&A.Info source already in the article. DeCausa (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is another. DeCausa (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

But the sources are irrelevant as to whether it should be in this section or another section. The organisation of an article does not need to be sourced. That is just editorial judgment. If it were otherwise then we would have to follow the organisational treatment of other encyclopedias. That is patently not the case. There are only two questions that need answering: 1. Do we have reliable sources supporting the proposition that Islam allows a man to have sex with his female slave. The answer is clearly yes, and in fact there is no reliable source that refutes that. 2. Is it related to family life? I can't believe anyone can question that. It relates to who within a man's household he may have sex with. To put it beyond doubt, the source I cited above explicitly says that the slave is considered a member of the family. DeCausa (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa:, actually the npov policy does mention the need to balance our take on a subject based on reliable sources, see WP:BALASPS. Moreover, while Islam allows men and women to own slaves, the only context where this is permissible is wartime, specifically Jihad (just war or holy war - as I quoted above). A short summary on family life is too general for such a specific context. It would also confuse people to use the word "slave" without explaining that Islam actually abolished most forms of slavery, including the most notorious natural slavery. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 21:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

BALASPS is a different point: the question is whether it should be under "Family life". The claim is that there is a need for RS to link it to family life which is not a BALASPS issue. As far as BALASPS is concerned this is a matter of Islamic jurisprudence which is often discussed in RS eg as i've cited above. It is a current topic of debate as to whether Islamic State's treatment of women prisoners is permissable under Sharia. Furthermore it is incorrect to say it is "only" permissible in wartime. It may be only permissible to enslave people in wartime, but they may remain slaves after the end of any war and their descendants may remain slaves in perpetuity. Finally, there is no need to qualify ghe word slave. A slave is still a slave even if she is only one ategory if slave. DeCausa (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BALASPS is exactly the point. If other sources do not mention slavery in a brief description of family life then this is a good indication that we're giving it more weight then necessary, and may end up confusing readers. Also, slaves in Muslim society do not usually remain slaves in perpetuity, as the RS I quoted above explains: "Thus the slave in Muslim society was not condemned to live permanently in servitude; he had a chance of obtaining liberty in his life time ...". Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

According to Islam, a slave remains slave, and her new born children remain slaves unless her master, or her new master who bought her/them let her/them go free.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You need to support your claims by reliable sources, as I did. There were plenty of situations were obligatory manumission happened. And those born into slavery were a "small proportion" anyway. See the quotes above. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 23:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Muslims are told to live in the way of Muhammad by Sunnah and hadith. Muhammad was a slave owner and trader. Muhammad captured slaves in battle. Muhammad had sex with his slaves (One such example is Maria al-Qibtiyya ). Muhammad instructed his men to do the same as he did regarding female slaves. List of Muhammad's Wives and Concubines: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Muhammads_Wives_and_Concubines The Quran and hadith have many verses that make sure that Muslim men know they can keep female sex slaves: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/015-slavery.htm --Slooppouts34 (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, this is not a reliable source and anyone who thinks so is pushing an Islamophobic agenda or is not competent enough to properly judge sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

And you second source is an open wiki. Have you read WP:RS at all? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The website has the verses with number, so it can easily be looked up in the Quran itself. The Website is not WP:RS and I'm not telling to cite it or pay attention to it's interpretations. The verses in Quran are quite clear regarding female sex slaves, & Muhammad's actual deeds (hadiths) are even more. The second source is also not an WP:RS and I know that very well. The second source is another open Wiki with cited sources in itself. --Slooppouts34 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

C'mon, it's ridiculous. What is: Family Life (100yrs ago version)? There is no place in the world where slavery is still legal, so the discussion itself makes no sense. only emphasizing a vision really, really fondamentalistic and minoritary could fit with edit like this. Next stept what will be? We will go in the jewish and christian page writing what jews and christian coul do with slaves? C'mon guys seriously. CallAng222 (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There are places in the world where slavery is still legal. Many of them are poor countries, many Muslim countries and also some rich Arab countries among others. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (claimed as terrorists by most) captured territories and they allow slavery. See: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-issues-guidelines-for-sex-slavery/--Slooppouts34 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

And this article is about Islam as it is, not how you would prefer it to be.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

No, this article is about a fondamentalist and outdated view of the religion. Like writing in Judaism page that a hebrew have the right to sold his daughterOr in christianity that a christian has the right to beat his slaveIts accetable only following an islamophobic agenda that ignores the fact that muslim families (as for Christians and Hebrews) around the world are not the result of slavery, and that slavery itself is illegal in every country of the world, despite isis, lord liberation army and the mafia. CallAng222 (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has thousands of pages dedicated to history; something being "outdated" is not necessarily relevant. Look at the lengthy history section in this very article that no-one seems to be complaining about. Saying that Judaism/Christianity is similar is irrelevant — "they don't do this in that other article" is not a valid argument and in fact, WP does have pages titled Christian views on slavery and Jewish views on slavery. Also, something being illegal is not equivalent to it not existing: I wouldn't imagine anyone here would nominate Illegal drug trade for deletion. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c) 22:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

-I have nothing against Islam. I'm a Muslim myself. Portraying Islam in a way that is not factual is both an insult to Islam itself, and also against rules of Wikipedia. Islamic terrorist groups (some labeled as terrorists by all nations while others are by some nations) such as Boko Haram, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Hamas, Hezbollah, Taliban, Jaish ul-Adl, Al-Qaeda, al-Nusra Front ..... and the list goes on, do hold a lot of territories.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

-Bilorv you said:"Also, something being illegal is not equivalent to it not existing". I agree, but this is something that must be proved. As I said: is slavery preminent in islamic families? If yes, show some sources, evidence, etc and we can discuss the matter. Otherwise we must stick to the facts.CallAng222 (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

-Muslim families vary greatly from country to country, and from family to family! For example, most Muslim families in Turkey vary greatly from the ones in Saudi Arabia. This article is about Islam as explained by Quran and Sunnah/Hadith (Muhammad' ways of life).--Slooppouts34 (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

-Yes but but on one thing they are all the same: they can not have slaves. Then your statements are not only placed beyond space and time, but also illegal in muslim countries, despite what Q&A web page can say. A speech like yours placed in the "family life" context so it is misleading and false. CallAng222 (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

-You would be suprised to know in how many Muslim countries slavery still exists. But that has nothing to do here. what you don't understand is that this article is about what is Islam's stance regarding slavery. It's not about what most Muslims choose to do. Most Muslims choose to disregard Islamic banking laws, hijab and many things--Slooppouts34 (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Slooppouts34: If Shaykh al-Munajjid (Islamic q&a website) thinks that it is okay to have a slave he should...By Islam I suppose we mean the Islam understood and presented by Muhammad, after all he started off everything...let British broadcasting company glorify Shaykh's viewpoints. I have cited two sources,please review books by Tamara Sonn, Reza Aslan, Karen Armstrong, Angelika Neuwirth, Hussein Nasr, etc, etc and please review the comments by NeilN, Wiqqi, CallAng, Bilorv, DeCausa everyone here is trying to collaborate, you make it very difficult to work on this article.Kiatdd (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

We must be very cautious when we are dealing with online preachers like Shaykh al-Munajjid that are close to extremistic positions. Even if their's point of views are minoritary in muslim world - when not directly illegal, like the slavery thing - they use the web for theirs solitary preaching. This Shaykh in particular expressed appeals to loyalty to Isis, a terrorist organization. So, again, he express extremist point of views that are illegal not only in muslim world, but in every country of the world, and his close to terrorist organization. We must be very cautions about emphasing theirs point of views, because is extremistic, outside the modern muslim world, related to terrorist organization, and illegale in some cases.CallAng222 (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, Al-Jazeera with many staff joining from the BBC, declares the cyberShaykh as "one of most respected scholars". Look at his wikipedia page.Kiatdd (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Break

1. Is it verifiable? The Q&A site and BBC say it is, but Kiatdd has sources which say otherwise.
2. Is it related to Family life? Probably yes per DeCausa's sources. However, this may or may not be a mainstream viewpoint. It is however, definitely related to and can be included under Slavery.
3. Is it due weight to present this here? Probably no. Most of sources (like the online Britannica entry I linked about) do not discuss it with family life. It is better to present it under slavery, as Bilorv hinted above.
4. Is it relevant to this era? Might not be, but I think we ought to give weight to it as per RS. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

-The questions were thoroughly answered! move the online preacher's opinion to his own page.Kiatdd (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

-I think that even the "It is lawful for male masters..." part should be removed too, because slavery is illegal in modern muslim world, condemned - in every form, sexual or not - by relevant islamic authority; so, in fact, it is not permissible, as it is not lawful for a hebrew to sold his daughter or for a christian to inflict severe beatings to his slaves.CallAng222 (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Muslims are told to live in the ways of Muhammad, which are Sunnah and Hadith. Muhammad was a slave owner and trader, Muhammad captured slaves in battle and Muhammad had sex with his slaves (such as Maria al-Qibtiyya, Rayhana bint Zayd ibn Amr, Al-Jariya, Tukana al-Quraziya ....). Most Muslims choose to disregard Islamic banking laws, hijab and many things. We have to portray Islam as it was portrayed/narrated by Muhammad (PBUH).--Slooppouts34 (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Even the Quranists who disregard Sunnah and Hadith know that male masters can have sex with female slaves, as it's written even in the Quran verses, such as Quran (33:50), Quran (23:5-6), Quran (4:24), Quran (8:69), Quran (24:32), Quran (2:178), Quran (16:75).--Slooppouts34 (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

An online extremist preacher that is ideologically related to tettorist organization represents only himself and his ideas; if Slooppouts34 want to follow his teachings, as he sais, literally with respect to slavery and human rights, then he has a serius problem and could even be dangerous. Modern day Islam is not related to slavery:

Address of Mohamed Ahmed El-Tayeb, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar

CEREMONY FOR THE SIGNING OF THE JOINT DECLARATION OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS AGAINST SLAVERY http://www.globalfreedomnetwork.org/grandimam2014/

Islam is not a monolithic entity placed outside space and time. Laws and jurisprudence have changed with time, and schools of thought; only an extremist and very stupid view of religion could try to turn back time - and not surprisingly seek the path of terrorism and violence. But Wikipeda can not follow their ideology and place it over modern day laws in muslim world. It would be a crime against human rights and humanity himsef. We should not help the spread of their ideas that are bloodying the world. CallAng222 (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Dustylappss, it would be helpful if you could show that most mainstream sources choose to include it under family life rather than slavery. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 04:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Having sex can produce babies, who would be part of family. A sentence or two about it on the main page are warranted. For the same reason why we are keeping the information about marriage on the main page and not moving it over to Women in Islam article.--Dustylappss (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Dustylappss, that is your own personal assessment about the topic. The information about marriage is on the main page since it is directly related to Islam, and is in accordance with reliable sources. The information about lawfulness of male masters is related to slavery as per sources, and per WP:SYNTH belongs to slavery, not to family life.

Again, you have not cited sources to support your viewpoint. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 06:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

i agree with Fauzan. CallAng222 (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Fauzan, this is what DeCausa told you when you asked him the same exact question above: "Are you serious? It's covered in many sources including this and the IslamQ&A.Info source already in the article. Here is another. Is it related to family life? I can't believe anyone can question that. It relates to who within a man's household he may have sex with. To put it beyond doubt, the source I cited above explicitly says that the slave is considered a member of the family." I totally agree with DeCausa.--Dustylappss (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Slavery is illegal in modern muslim world, then the whole argument does not make much sense. All religions have rules about slavery, but being something of the past, it is spoken in the historical sections related to this ancient practice now fallen into disuse.CallAng222 (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Slavery is illegal in modern good muslim world. Bad muslims like Pakistanis commited enslaving of Bengalis in Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971 and still enslave bengalis in Pakistan (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2858775/Paying-debts-brick-brick-Pakistani-modern-day-slaves-trapped-lifetime-hardship.html), Boko Haram in Nigeria sells school girls into slavery (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/05/08/girls-held-by-boko-haram-face-auction-life-as-sex-slaves-if-rescue-fails/), Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant commits enslaving in Iraq, Syria and levant(http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30573385). Saddam enslaved Kuwaitis during gulf war, and there are many Islamic countries where slavery is still widespread. In Islamic Republic of Mauritania, there's slavery openly even today (http://thinkafricapress.com/mauritania/alive-and-well-mauritania-slavery-and-its-stubborn-vestiges) and there are countless Arab countries where slavery continues and will continue. What we can do here on this article is: seperate good secualr muslims such as Bangladeshis, Turkish, Malaysians, Indian muslims, from the bad ones such as Pakistanis, Arabs and most other muslims--Thankcocoa (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS: cherry-picking and omiting all the bad parts from Quran and Hadith, and reflect Islam in the best way possible here.--Thankcocoa (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Dustylappss, DeCausa did point out sources, but mainstream sources do not cover discuss slavery under family life. That point is covered under slavery. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 14:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Fauzan, your personal analysis of what is considered a mainstream source doesn't count. There are reliable sources that explicitly states that slaves are part of family, as pointed out by Dustylappss and DeCausa. Now some sources may choose to even not cover the fact that Muslim men can marry up to four wives, and even more if the wives happen to die.You cannot do cherrypicking here to make Islam look more Westernized.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That slaves are part of modern family life must be tried; even because one of the sources clearly states the fact that slaves and concubine we're part of the family in premodern times - agreeing with the mainstream sources. If this is not proven, that part will be removed and placed in the historical context to which it belongs.CallAng222 (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the Quran, Sunnah and Hadiths allows sex slaves, it's part of Islam regardless of whether it was practiced in the past or present. And as proven above, it is highly prevalent in Islam in modern times. Although it's common sense that if a master has a child with a slave, that child is considered a part of the master's family, there are also reliable sources that explicitly states that slaves are part of the family. We just cannot censor the Quran, Sunnah and Hadith. Because if we do, then we are not representing Islam here fully.--Dustylappss (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• The BBC source, which you cited in support of the statement that slavery is part of currently accepted Muslim practice, says the following: "[S]lavery is effectively illegal in modern Islam. Muslim countries also use secular law to prohibit slavery. News stories do continue to report occasional instances of slavery in a few Muslim countries, but these are usually denied by the authorities concerned." Seems to me that this contradicts the point it is being cited for. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Even the second link they provided (this explain the fact that slaves and concubine were part of islamic family life in premodern times. CallAng222 (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The BBC source clearly says "Islamic sharia law accepted (and accepts) sex slavery" It's not practiced widely just like marring four wives is not practiced widely.http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml#h2 --Dustylappss (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya

Ahmadis are Muslims. Pakistan is the only state to have officially declared the Ahmadis to be non-Muslims as they do not regard the Prophet Muhammad to be the final prophet.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I don't understand the problem. Ahmadiyya is listed in the article as a denomination of Islam, under Islam#Other denominations. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c) 09:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Your edits were reverted. Have you looked at WP:UNDUE? Ahmadiyya, while a branch of Islam, should not be mentioned all over the article - this gives the impression that they are more significant than they are. Any details which are not important enough to be mentioned in Islam (see WP:SUMMARY) should be listed at Ahmadiyya, as details about Pakistan currently are. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c) 09:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya are a sect with at least 30 million followers, and they do not regard the Prophet Muhammad to be the final prophet. As such, the lead of the article should not say that all Muslims regard Prophet Muhammad to be the final prophet as that would be incorrect.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

DeCausa (talk), please comment.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2015

Article states that currently, no government follows Islamic law, as all deal in "usury or government bonds". What is wrong with government bonds? Article seems to equate them with usury ("no risk"). 5.51.49.70 (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

See Usury#Islam. Islam forbids charging interest, as did Christianity at the time (and for quite a while after). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Normal Islam and guns

I've heard that normal Muslims aren't allowed to own guns according to their teachings, but I can't find it in this article. Shouldn't it be in there?--98.217.232.155 (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Where have you heard this? I imagine many (most?) Muslims will object to guns, but Wikipedia only accepts information backed up by reliable sources, so everything said in its articles can be proved to be true. Additionally, Wikipedia has a lot of pages (about 7000) relating to Islam — this article has nowhere near enough room to contain all the information on the subject. If there are Islamic rules and teachings about guns, they might be included in another, more specific article on Wikipedia. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c) 18:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Guns didn't exist during Muhammad's time. So definitely not found in Hadith/Sunnah or Quran.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

False Statement

Please fix this line: " Muhammad (c. 570–8 June 632 CE), considered by most of them to be the last prophet of God. An adherent of Islam is called a Muslim."

The Qu'ran openly states that Muhammad is the final & last prophet of God. "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Apostle of God, and the Seal of the Prophets: and God has full knowledge of all things. (Qu'ran, 33:40)" Therefore, all Muslims must consider him to be the last prophet, otherwise, they're not Muslims by definitions and their beliefs would contradict the Qu'ran. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.91.171.246 (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya are a Muslim sect with millions of followers, and they do not regard the prophet Muhammad to be the final prophet. They believe Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the last prophet--Slooppouts34 (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyone could self-identify themselves as "Muslims" and believe in whatever, however, it does not mean anything as the Qu'ran itself and being the central text of Islam, clearly states that Muhammad is the final & the seal of the prophets. Reading the above line may give someone with no prior knowledge of Islam an ambiguous message. At least, it should be clearly mentioned that the Qu'ran considers Muhammad to be the final prophet of God, regardless of whatever group believes in. (23.91.171.246 (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC))

As Christians will be familiar with, differences over the interpretation of holy texts does not invalidate your membership to the general religious group. You may disagree with them, but they are still Muslims. Wikipedia is not a place to settle internal religious conflicts. 184.175.41.10 (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2015

Under the "family life" section, relations with captives/slaves are only allowed after marriage. Jkslfkjsdklj32o (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You'll need to provide a source for that. DeCausa (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Islam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married --Slooppouts34 (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Slavery and "Family Life" -- request for comments

Should the "Family life" subsection of this article include the statement "It is lawful for male masters to have sexual relations with wartime female captives and slaves.", or should that information be given elsewhere in Wikipedia, such as in Islamic views on slavery?

*Islam is defined by Quran, and also by the teachings, normative example and way of life of Muhammad which are Sunnah and Hadith. Muhammad was a slave owner and trader, Muhammad captured slaves in battle and Muhammad (like many other Islam's prophets[6]) had sex with his slaves (such as Maria al-Qibtiyya, Rayhana bint Zayd ibn Amr, Al-Jariya, Tukana al-Quraziya and many others [7]). Both Quran (verses such as Quran (33:50), Quran (23:5-6), Quran (4:24), Quran (8:69), Quran (24:32), Quran (2:178), Quran (16:75)) and hadith[8] allow male masters to have sex with female slaves. Islamic sharia law accepted (and accepts) sex slavery [9] In modern times, most Muslims choose to disregard Islamic banking laws, hijab, praying 5 times a day, having 4 wives, and many things. And though it's common sense that if you have children with slaves, they are part of your family. There are many reliable sources such as this: [10], that explicitly state that sex slaves are considered part of family according to Islam. 1 or 2 sentences about it are warranted in the "Family life" subsection of this main article. We ought represent Islam as it is. Slavery is widespread in present time in Muslim world, as evidenced by the acts of ISIL[11], BOKO Haram[12], Taliban[13], Pakistan[14] and many others. In Islamic Republic of Mauritania, there's slavery openly even today [15]. Prominent Saudi religious authority recently called for slavery to be re-legalized there as it's explicitly permitted in the Quran[16]. Egypt, Indonesia, Sudan and Yemen are some other Muslim countries where slavery still exists today[17]--Dustylappss (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Mohamed Ahmed El-Tayeb, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar CEREMONY FOR THE SIGNING OF THE JOINT DECLARATION OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS AGAINST SLAVERY http://www.globalfreedomnetwork.org/grandimam2014/
• Professor Bernard Freamon teaches courses on modern-day slavery and human trafficking at Seton Hall University School of Law in New Jersey and also specializes in Islamic Legal History:...Rather, the verses(of the Qur'an ndr) contemplate the advent of a slavery-free society through the vehicle of emancipation. ISIS says Islam justifies slavery - what does Islamic law say?
• Muslim leaders and Scholars worldwide in their Open Letter to Baghdadi (regarding slavery and other things), point 12: The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.Open Letter to Al-Baghdadi.
• Most traditional sources do not include slavery in normal family life of Muslims.
• Slavery is illegal in every mouslim country.

(small summary, sorry NawlinWiki :-D ) CallAng222 (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• The principal point of a Request for Comment is to seek input from editors other than the six or seven who were involved in the discussion above. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I would want to see what reliable secondary sources say first. If Fox News says something about Boko Haram, I wouldn't extrapolate that to Islam more generally. Distinguishing fanatical Islam from mainstream Islam may be a way to get some of material in with appropriate weight. Dicklyon (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you would want to consider countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Turkey, all of who are incredibly progressive Islamic countries as opposed to just considering Muslim 'extremists'. To use these points on slavery and sex slavery in the context of Islam as a whole is WP:FRINGE, while if want to make some small corner and point out that this is in existence amongst modern Islamist extremist, who justify these beliefs through parts of the Quran, then perhaps it could work. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Responding to this request for comment. I don't agree with putting it into this article. I think it's WP:FRINGE at best. Especially since you're naming ISIL, Boko Haram, other fanatical groups as your sources. Those are not Islam, those are actually all assaults on Islam. You are forwarding their radical / oxymoron style Islam. I think CallAng222 provided clearer sources, and isn't focusing on terrorist or other sources that are committing genocide against their own people. If you actually read about Muhammad, you see that he preached against slavery, and worked towards abolishing it. Arabia was a very different place back then. Are we going to say female circumcision is an Islamic practice too? Because that was also, along with slavery, something Muhammad preached against and tried to put a stop to. It is not Islam.--SexyKick 23:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad had some 30 wives and plenty of sex slaves. Islam looks be very bad if it's defined by his way of life which are Sunnah & Hadith. So please remove Sunnah & Hadith from the first paragraph of this article.--LalaResne (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad's military career was painfully very similar to ISIL. He beheaded his opponents just like ISIL. For example see Battle of Badr. Furthermore more than 50% of the Muslim world is led by extremists. I sugest what Prasangika37 suggested, that we mention that Islamic laws allows sex slavery [18][19] and that sex slaves are considered part of family [20]. But it's rare in incredibly progressive Islamic countries as Prasangika37 pointed out.--LalaResne (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

LalaResne should be ignored. No contributions to anything. Account seems to be created by someone just to badmouth Islam. I am a muslim and I agree that criticism is everyone's right but this kind of comments are pretty underhand and borderline trolling. myths about 30 wives, beheadings in Badr and all that. Pretty bad try at hijacking the decision. On the topic under discussion I would like to say that Islamic "slavery" should not be mentioned in Family life as such. We should create a separate section for it and explain the concept using the page already created for slavery. This will allow some perspective. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Can I ask if this article is about Islam as written about in the canonical texts and teachings of the faith or is the article about the "ideal" version of Islam. This would help us to decide which way to go. If the article is about most people's ideal version of Islam then I agree this section has no place in the article. However, if the article is about the former reason, then yes it will have to be included. Islam's canonical texts sanction the act of intercourse with whatever one's right hand possesses. This was put into practice by the early Muslims up until the dissolution of the Ottoman empire. Sexy your point regarding Female circumcision hold some truth. There is definitely a strong voice against it at the moment in the west and some Muslim majority countries. However, it has to be said that female circumcision is a strong part of Islam. Muhammad never discouraged its use but on the contrary either made it obligatory or recommended, depending on which school of Islamic Jurisprudence you follow. Majority of the worlds Muslims are Sunnis. They take their learning from either one of four schools of Islamic jurisprudence, them being; Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki and Shafii. The Hanafi and Shafii school deem female circumcision as obligatory, whereas the Hanafi and Maliki school views it as recommended. Of course if the article is about people's ideal version of Islam, then there is a point to be made regarding the discounting of these views. Mbcap (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat, refrain from making personal attacks. Being a Muslim, I know that most Muslims are taught from a very young age to never question their religion, and be blindfolded bigots. That said, in battle of Badr, two captives – Nadr bin Harith and ‘Uqbah ibn Abū Mu‘ayṭ were beheaded by Ali (the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad) on Muhammad's order.[21]

Now some of Muhammad's sex partners!:

Some Muhammad's Wives:

• 1. Khadija
• 2. Sawda
• 3. Aesha
• 4. Omm Salama
• 5. Halsa
• 6. Zaynab (of Jahsh)
• 7. Jowayriyi
• 8. Omm Habiba
• 9. Safiya
• 10. Maymuna (of Hareth)
• 11. Fatema
• 12. Hend
• 13. Asma (of Saba)
• 14. Zaynab (of Khozayma)
• 15. Habla
• 16. Asma (of Noman)

Some of Muhammad's concubines/slaves:

• Mary (the Christian)
• Rayhana

Muhammad's 4 devoted followers who who "gave" themselves to satisfy Muhammad's sexual desires.

• Omm Sharik
• Maymuna
• Zaynab (a third one)
• Khawla

Zaynab of Jahsh was originally Muhammad's adopted son Zaid's wife. The fact that Muhammad took her for himself has been problematic to many people, Muslims included. (God does not break His Own Word and He never changes His mind. Now read Sura 33:36-38).

Aesha was only eight or nine years old when Muhammad took her to his bed. According to Hadith, she was still playing with her dolls. This facet of Muhammad's sexual appetite is particularly distressing to Westerners.--LalaResne (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

LalaResne is again trying level best to hijack this discussion. I have made no "personal" attack. I merely pointed out the trend in your edits and account info which is there for all to see. You however have made the so called personal attack, but even then I don't mind. The discussion is about slavery and what kind of content should be created here. your tirade has NO VALUE and your input is ZERO to the issue. All you are trying to do is hijack this discussion. I would like to call you a troll but I will do that after three or more of your unsound disturbances. Please read the very first line of talk page. It says that is not a forum to debate the issue. This is a talk page to generate content. And as your edits show that you are only trolling and giving no input(even negative input or criticism is good as it allows editors to form an opinion) I am pretty sure you are ignorable when it comes to making a decision. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat, I don't want to dignify your desperate comment by replying to it. Mbcap, I agree with you.--LalaResne (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

LalaResne does seem to have a serious axe to grind and agenda, making it a little hard to even listen to. At the very least any mention of this stuff should be maybe 1 sentence at best. 'There was a precedent of slavery within aspects of the Quran, but is not represented in Islamic culture as a whole'. We don't want to draw a false equivalency here between Islam and slavery, or even worse Islam and sex-slavery. Its fringe stuff. We don't spend paragraphs talking about the one-off comments in Deuteronomy about stoning women and so on in an article about Christianity. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Prasangika37 All I'm try to say is what I said in my first comment: Islam looks be very bad if it's defined by the way of life of Muhammad, which are Sunnah & Hadith. So remove Sunnah & Hadith from the first paragraph of this article and problem is solved. Quran's verses such as this clearly states that man can have sex with wives and sex slaves. As Mbcap pointed out, sex slavery used to be a part of Islamic Culture until Ottoman Empire. Sex with female slaves is allowed in the canonical texts and teachings of Islam [22] It's nolonger part of Islamic culture because slavery is banned almost everywhere in the world.--LalaResne (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

To imply that to practice Islam means that one either supports or is associated with sex-slavery is WP:FRINGE though and its generally just bad scholarship. If you looked at common encylcopedia articles on Islam, the 'family' in Islam, and books on the subject, would we find that sex-slavery was a main thing talked about?? Perhaps what you can do is find a good, reliable source on the subject and provide a small quote from there? Prasangika37 (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Prasangika37 "Outside of the institutions of marriage and concubinage, however, the Qur'an views all other sexual relationships as illicit." [23] lol.--LalaResne (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess, last comment I'm going to make here on the RFC because, while I assumed good faith with LalaResne at first, I agree with FreeAtLastChitChat that he's really just trolling and here to propagate. This is what I read about FGM. The evidence is truly that FGM and Slavery were pagan Arab practices, that Muhammad made strides and efforts against. Muslims do not take slaves, Muslims do not consider women to be slaves, and ISIL is not Islam. They are murdering a significant, unknown number of Muslims, and committing genocide. Islamic scholars and Imam's are condemning their actions. ISIS and Al Qaeda Are FAKE Muslims, Obama's speech, and the destroying of Sufi's and this on Shiites should be read. Any face of Islam that stands against them is the most important priority for them. Anyone who believes in God instead of them = bad. But LalaResne, I think we can just play some Super Smash Bros on the Nintendo Wii U and, if I win, you can put down the stick and back away from the horse. ;p SexyKick 15:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Both male and female circumcision/genital mutilation are nowhere to be found in Quran or hadith and therefore are not part of Islam. Sex slavery is clearly allowed in many verses such as Quran verse 23:5-6 in the Quran itself! Hadiths are the deeds of Muhammad (PBUH) and therefore have sexual slavery. Muhammad had many sex slaves, such as Maria al-Qibtiyya, Rayhana bint Zayd, Al-Jariya, Tukana al-Quraziya ... Muhammad did execute his opponents & traitors by beheading[24], that's why it's in Islamic Sharia laws and this practice continues to date in many parts of the Muslim world such Saudi Arabia which justifies beheading by Islamic law (See Capital punishment in Saudi Arabia). Slavery is banned in most parts of the Muslim world today, and therefore you are expected to marry the sex slaves before having sex with them. In every Islamic country, there is at least one extremist group and therefore they make up a large chunk of the Muslim world (See List of designated terrorist organizations). Muhammad (PBUH) did free many male slaves after they converted to Islam, many of those slaves remained slaves of Muhammad willingly afterwards and went to battles with Muhammad.--LalaResne (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

LalaResne you are seen as a user with agenda so you won't get much weight during the decision. feel free to quote as much of your POV agenda as you want. I am quite sure that this discussion will serve as a pointer if you try to insert your POV into other Islam related topics from now on. Thank you for making your intentions clear btw. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Dailymail, wikiislam are not even fair sources. Fundarise (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Sexual slavery is in the Quran, and hence is part of Islam. Until a new prohet alters those parts of the Quran because of new messages of God (Allah), or claims that Muhammad made mistakes/typos in writing down the Quran. Salmaan Taseer, governor of Punjab, was assassinated by his own security guard Mumtaz Qadri, who disagreed with Taseer's opposition to Pakistan's blasphemy law. The killer claimed afterwards “I am a slave of the Prophet and the punishment for one who commits blasphemy is death.” While he was being taken to court, thousands of people, including lawyers in large numbers, showered bags full of rose petals on him and raised slogans in his favour.[25] I think we should ignore hadith (deeds of prophet Muhammad) and not use it to justify sexual slavery in Islam, because who really is Islam's last prophet is highly disputed. Millions believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the last prophet of Islam, and his Ahmadiyya sect is the fastest growing sect of Islam yet --Cleatword (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There has never been consensus on these entries in Family life, as we can see from here 19:36, 4 October 2014‎ Helpwoks starting from this insertion then there has always been an edit war. Some of the users that pushed those entries are now banned for being multiple accounts or POV pushers. CallAng222 (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC) I have deleted the content about slavery from family life and created a new section about slavery, the content has been taken from wikipedia article about slaveryFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Slooppouts34, your reason for this revert is unclear. The discussion first, does not have any consensus, and second, is not related to where the information hould be kept, it is related to whether the information should be kept. I will move to the proper section, if you do not have any valid objection. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 07:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad last law bearing prophet of God or last prophet of God?

User FreeatlastChitchat changed Muhammad's status and replaced "considered last Prophet by most" with "last law bearing prophet" [26]. Now it seems as if all Muslims consider Muhammad to be "last law bearing prophet" only, but that's not true, vast majority of Muslims consider Muhammad to be the last prophet and don't consider Ahmadiyya to be Muslims. They are not even allowed to perform Hajj by Saudi law.--LalaResne (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Good example of personal animosity, bigotry and cheap shots lol.I take you to task in the discussion above and you try to question my edits. Good work boy. Anyways. I changed the wording because all muslims consider the Holy Prophet peace and blessings of Allah be upon him to be the last law bearing Prophet, there are no naysayers in this; some may consider him more than that but no one considers him less, but saying last prophet will create edit disputes and long talkpage debates. As my goal is to take Islam back to Featured status I want the article to be stable and without daily wars. therefore I changed this.(my edit summary shows this also if you bother to read it). You are free to dispute this change if you want. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I figured that only Ahmadiyya consider Muhammad (PBUH) to be "last law bearing prophet," and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be the last prophet.--LalaResne (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You figured wrong. This is wikipedia , an encyclopedia, so you should not "figure" something and then start a debate. Try to read about something before just coming on with your personal views, especially given your recent contribution to discussion. ALL muslims consider the Holy Prophet peace and blessings of Allah be upon him to be the last law bearing Prophet. Ahmadiyyah included. Also you are wrong on the second count too. Ahmadiyya do not consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be the last prophet, they consider him to be a deputy prophet to the Holy Prophet peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm always supporting my claims with reliables sources. You are mostly using personal analysis, bias and personal attacks throughout. Ghulam Ahmad is regarded by mainstream Muslims as a heretic, for claiming to be a non-law-bearing (or deputy) prophet after Muhammad, whom mainstream Muslims believe to be the final prophet sent to guide mankind.[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8711026.stm] ISIL, BokoHaram, Alqaeda etc are considered rogue Muslims by many. But Ahmadiyyah are not considered Muslims by the vast majority of mainstream Muslims, and therefore are not allowed to do the Hajj pilgrimage.--LalaResne (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Good try at hijacking the discussion. YOU created this section, YOU created the title of this section. now LOOK at the title of the section which YOU created and tell me how in the name of all that if holy does your most recent comment add anything to it. If you want to talk about the inclusion of Ahmadiyya then feel free to make a new section or add to one that is already created. This section, which YOU created is about the rank of the Holy Prophet peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. I already made my reasons clear, negate them or agree with them if you want and then tell me what are your reasons for doing so. DO NOT hijack the discussion. tbh why are you even trying to troll? You tried to cheapshot, I caught you, go back to your life? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Majority of reliable sources state that Muhammad is considered the last prophet by Muslims. The current sentence will be rectified with immediate haste. Please discuss here, together with your list of reliable sources as to why it should be changed. Mbcap (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Muslims believe that Islam is the complete and universal version of a primordial faith that was revealed many times before through prophets including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses (Judaism), and Jesus (Christianity). However Judaism, Christianity and Islam are very different. God (Allah) reserves the right to change his decision and send as many prophets as he wants. Ghulam Ahmad is the last well-known prophet of Islam yet, and there may be more to come. Maybe there were more prophets before and after Ghulam Ahmad as this one, but they were slaughtered by Muslims.--Cleatword (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Wife beating

Recent changes have been about wife beating. Please discuss here to reach a consensus. The points to be discussed seem to be neutral text and sourcing, if someone thinks other things should be discussed for example inclusion of section, they can join too. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Get consensus here before removing what already there, when there objection for removing. Just like you can't remove the Ahmadiyya religion from here without consensus even though they are not Muslims.--LalaResne (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

LalaResne. If you delete information that you regard as redundant, you have to remove the citations for that information. You cannot just leave the citations as if they back up other statements.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with your edit. I left a citation that says the same thing that Quran as well as several hadiths condone wife beating when required, and that many Muslim women acknowledge it and have no problems with it.--LalaResne (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

As usual, this page is used to carry out an agenda.

Jihad Hashim Brown — the head of research at Tabah Foundation, which specializes in the interpretation of Islamic law ..... But he argued that in Islamic law it is “absolutely unlawful” to abuse a wife, injure her, or insult her dignity.

Shaykh Faraz Rabbani issued the following fatwa:

“No, there is absolutely no place in Islam for abuse of one’s spouse–whether physical, spoken, or emotional. All abuse is haram.”

Muslim-scholars-on-spousal-abuse: in-islamic-law-it-is-absolutely-unlawful-to-abuse-a-wife-injure-her-or-insult-her-dignity

Also other scholars like Imam Khalid Latif, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, Imam Zaid Shakir, made the same statesment. CallAng222 (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed the statements because, taking into account the sensitivity of the page,

we must try to offer a complete and real picture of the situation, not an ideological one. CallAng222 (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You have cited a blog as "evidence" for your claim. A blog is not a reliable source. See WP:RS.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Why did you reinserted the slavery thing? No consensus was ever reached, as evidenced by the discussion. Also the blog contains links to the interventions of scholars - video conferences to be precise. CallAng222 (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Muslim clerics in Canada issued a fatwa on Saturday against honour killings, domestic violence and hatred of women.

“These crimes are major sins in Islam, punishable by the court of law and almighty Allah,” said Prof. Imam Syed Soharwardy, representing 34 clerics affiliated with the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/02/04/shafia_murders_fatwa_issued_against_honour_killings_domestic_violence_hatred_of_women.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by CallAng222 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources like those cited in the article, not blogs and video links from blogs.

The article from The Star is a good source if we are discussing honour killing. Am I right in thinking that you want the section on family life to mention honour killings? If so, we will of course want to mention how very common honour killings are.

I am shocked and astonished that you removed the mention of sex with slaves. The discussion you alluded to resulted in that section being heavily trimmed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I have removed wife beating as we are still discussing that. LalaResne follows anti Islamic agenda as witnessed by his/her previous statements so I will just ignore his/her opinion. As to Toddy1 (talk) I will respond to you as follows.

Wife beating is highly controversial. you cannot just say that it is in Islam and be done with it. Just quoting the Quran and Hadith is Original research. you know it, i know it, everyone knows it. You need to provide interpretation. And as regards interpretation there are many which either support or condone. Then the ones which condone give certain conditions. An example of such controversial and POV agenda pushing edit will be adding "incest" as a basic tenet of Judaism because it is mentioned in the book of Genesis that incest occurred and was considered OK. So either create content which is neutral or let it remain as it is. I will be looking into this in coming weeks as soon as I get some free time. And without meaning any disrespect you say that you do not understand English then how can you take part in this debate about nuances of a holy scripture and meanings? this last statement is just a simple question you do not have to answer it. As regards honour killings. Why do you want to mention that in family life? are they part of scripture? or do you have reliable sources which are neutral, saying that this is Islamic practice.

Please reach a consensus here before adding any content as I will be deleting it. Feel free to use dispute resolution if you feel that you are being wronged. Good day. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

What "domestic violence" means?:"acts of violence or abuse against a person living in one's household, especially a member of one's immediate family." So the article is perfectly placed in the context of the discussion, as demonstrated by the dictionary.

Real Men Don't Hit WomenUniversity of Pennsylvania; Khalid Latif, Executive Director and Chaplain for the Islamic Center at NYU and Chaplain for the NYPD.

Muslim Men Against Domestic Abuse (MMADA) interview with Imam Zaid Shakir on the problem of domestic abuse.

Regarding slavery, it 'a fact that the discussion has not reached any consensus.CallAng222 (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I find it amusing that some people try to change original Islam to make it look good. Either follow Islam as it was given by Mohammad or leave it if you think it's vile. Disciplining wife is in both Quran and hadiths. See http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Wife_Beating_in_Islam#Wife-Beating_in_the_Hadiths for reference. It's open Wiki so just use it as reference (don't cite it in here) and see the reliable citations within it. Just want to make note that there are similar vile things in Christianity and Judaism also. And as shown by source most Muslim women acknowledge and accept it--LalaResne (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with FreeatlastChitchat. Primary sources used this way is original research which can not be accepted on Wikipedia. Do not add any POV statement without citing reliable secondary sources or without reaching a consensus. It will make us avoid the edit-war. Khestwol (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

If FreeatlastChitchat and Khestwol had bothered to read the text they deleted, they would have seen that it cited reliable secondary sources. Furthermore, what was said about the rights of a man to discipline his wife and children approximates in my opinion to Christian and Jewish European norms:

• If a man hits his wife or child, he must not bruise them or cut them.
• Fathers may beat small children, but not adult children.
• Whether a husband is allowed to hit his wife's face is disputed.

Please do not post links to Youtube and blogs; Wikipedia policy is that they are not reliable sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Stoning is not in the Quran, but it's in the Christian Bible! Quran and Hadiths allow light disciplining of wives when needed without cutting or even bruising! This means stoning is prohibited!--Dustylappss (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This is just taking too long, and may lead to an edit war. Let us all take a chill pill and just discuss the sources first then the content. I hereby invite Dustylappss, Toddy1 and LalaResne to present the sources which they think are reliable , neutral and cover the issue. We shall just discuss the sources one by one and when a source is considered good we will take content from that source. This will be better then just saying that this source is good, that source is bad. From the previous comments here I can see that no one bothers to comment on the sources, just gives his/her view about them. So please present the sources and lets see if they are good. I already gave my objections on two main sources if you can counter those please include the counter argument in your comment.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat, you can't just delete existing relevant information that are supported multiple reliable sources, especially when there's objection by several editors. To do so, you have to first get consensus here. Otherwise, people would delete all of Wikipedia, and would discuss on talkpages over their disagreements!--Dustylappss (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The sources are not reliable. That is why we are discussing them here. Present the sources and lets get started with the discussion. instead of fighting with mere words and phrases. I have merely moved the content about slavery to anew section, not removed it. you can read it in the article lolFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

All of the sources are either more or equally reliable to the "Star" source that you are using to replace the material with irrelevant information. Yes stoning, honor-killing is prohibited because cutting or even bruising is not allowed as already stated by the reliable sources! With regard to slavery, we kept only whats relevant, in the family section. What you are doing is vandalizing the family section by removing relevant information with regard to family.--Dustylappss (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

which sources are you talking about. Please bring them here. PRESENT the sources and lets see if their reliability can be provedFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia:Neutrality of Sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, you will see that there is no requirement for reliable sources to be neutral. The requirementis that articles should be written from a neutral POV. The advice in policy is not to remove reliably sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

who says biased sources cannot be used. But when the ENTIRE content is taken from biased sources it created biased content and therefore the article cannot be written with neutral POV. You and other three have used sources which are biased to create biased content. domestic violence needs to be worked out here before being added. what source and what content would you like to put up? I for one would like to put both "for" and against sources with explanation that the "for" is fringe.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with FreeatlastChitchat. I do not understand why these contributions need to be pushed, despite the complaints made by some users. Taking into account that this is a page-sensitive, and that many topics are only mentioned here (and then be deepened on special pages), at present it seems to me that this behavior wants to impose a single interpretation, rather than enrich the page with valid content - and this behavior is going on from some time now. So, for example, why this disputed argoument must be trated in the main page Islam, whith only a single interpretation, when we have the "Women in Islam" page? CallAng222 (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the hadith cited now in the main page, Aisha also reported that: Imam Ahmad recorded that `A'ishah said, "The Messenger of Allah never struck a servant of his with his hand, nor did he ever hit a woman. He never hit anything with his hand, except for when he was fighting Jihad in the cause of Allah. And he was never given the option between two things except that the most beloved of the two to him was the easiest of them, as long as it did not involve sin. If it did involve sin, then he stayed farther away from sin than any of the people. He would not avenge himself concerning anything that was done to him, except if the limits of Allah were transgressed. Then, in that case he would avenge for the sake of Allah.This is confirmed by Jonh Esposito book...the hadith (Prophetic traditions) note Muhammad’s respect for and protection of women. Muhammad said, ‘The best of you is he who is best to his wife.’ Muhammad’s wife Aisha narrated that Muhammad never hit any servant or woman and never physically struck anyone with his own hand. Neither the Quran nor the hadith record Muhammad as ever mistreating or losing temper with any of his wives, even when he was unhappy or dissatisfied.. The original interpretation made by who added the hadith it's misleading, and Tariq Mahmood Hashmi explain here why. CallAng222 (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the verses of the Quran, please read Abdelmumin Aya () that refutes that interpretatio in this article http://www.webislam.com/articles/70551-on_the_unlawfulness_of_wife_beating.html. Taking into account the complexity of the topic, it makes no sense - is indeed an act of bad faith - to impose a single vision of the page Islam. I suggest to address the issue in depth in the appropriate page - Women in Islam. CallAng222 (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:CallAng222. Please could you explain which parts of the paragraph you deleted are original research, and why you consider it so. Your edit summary said that it was original research.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, have you read the book you are citing? Pages 115-116 go very well with part of the paragraph you deleted - it says:

Quran 4:34 list three methods to be used in resolving marital disputes:... The third and final method is to strike or hit... only a single strike is permissible... this verse was intended as a restriction on existing practice". (p115-116)

"In the major hadith collections - Muslim, Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Abu Daul, Nasai, and Ibn Majah - hadith about striking all emphasise that striking should be done in such a way as not to cause pain or harm." (p116)

Compare this with part of the paragraph you deleted:

The Quran (verse 4:34)^{[Quran 4:34]} allows a husband to beat his wives if they are disobedient to him. However, he is not allowed to cut or bruise her. He is allowed to beat young children; but not adult children. Whether a man is allowed to hit his wife's face is disputed. This can cause problems when Muslim wives want to live westernised lifestyles.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Toddy1 The user who made entries took the elements - some questionable, others just wrong - and used them to create a partial description of the topic.For example:The Quran (verse 4:34)[Quran 4:34] allows a husband to beat his wives if they are disobedient to him.[5] However, he is not allowed to cut or bruise her.[6]. This is false, because a)the second point seems to refer to the Koran, but instead is the verdict of a UAE court.b)The traduction used for Quran 4:34 is disputable: The Quranic text reads:

“Ar-riÿâl qawwâmûn ‘alâ an-nisâa’ bimâ faddal Allah ba’adahum ‘alâ ba’ad wa bimâ anfaqû min amwâlihim fa-s-sâlihât qânitât hâfidzât lilgaib bimâ hafidza Allah wa l-latî tajâfûna nushûçahunna fa’dzûhunna wa ihÿurûhunna fî l-madâÿi’ wa idribûhunna fa-in at’nakum fa-lâ tabgû ‘alaihunna sabîlâ inna Allah kâna ‘aliyyâ kabîra”.

As to what concerns us, an acceptable translation would be:

"But those wives from whom you fear arrogance, and nasty conduct, admonish them (first), (next) leave them alone in beds (and last), convince them of the need for change".

Translations that are unacceptable are:

"But those wives from whom you fear arrogance - first advise them; then if they persist, forsake them in bed; and finally, strike them".

This is what Abdelmumin Aya explainCallAng222 (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The Times of India article says that the UAE Federal Supreme Court "noted that Islamic codes allow for ``discipline if no marks are left. It added that children who have reached ``adulthood -- approximately puberty -- cannot be struck." i.e. Times of India article is a reliable secondary source reporting on commentary on Islamic codes by the UAE Federal Supreme Court.

Part of the "comments" you pasted were copied from an article on WebIslam, On the unlawfulness of wife beating, by Abdelmumin Aya (a.k.a. Vicente Haya), translated by Daniel F. Rivera. The author is an expert on Japanese poetry - see his CV. He claims to have a medium level of competence in Arabic.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in their interpretation. But the wording of the sentence seems to attribute those considerations to the Koran, which is not true

Arabic speakers like Abdullah Saeed made the same statesment.CallAng222 (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The Abdullah Saeed, whose book you cited is Professor Abdullah Saeed of the University of Melbourne. He is an advocate of what he calls "reform of Islamic thought". The section you found on Italian Amazon is from page 133 of The Qur'an: An Introduction, pub 2008. I have just read pages 131 to 133 - they are part of a discussion of how words and phrases in the Quran are interpreted - I would recommend that anyone seriously interested should read these pages carefully themselves (you can find them by a search on Amazon.com). The conclusion I draw is that to represent the book properly, one needs to read the entire chapter of the book carefully. Saeed is talking about different modernist/feminist interpretations; they are clearly not mainstream.

It seems to me that this issue is covered by Wikipedia policy WP:VALID. The mainstream view appears to be that scripture permits a man to strike his wife - though not hard enough to bruise or cut her. But there is a minority viewpoint that that interpretation of the Quran is wrong. It is wrong to create a false equivalence.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:13, revised 19:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

We could write "...although a minority of Islamic scholars contests this translation". CallAng222 (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue is interpretation, not translation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Then how about "...although a minority of scholars offer a different interpretation of the verses"?CallAng222 (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Slooppouts34, please explain your removal of cited information, and cite secondary sources to support your claim. A primary source like hadith can be interpreted in incorrect ways. The studying-islam.org source you cited states that it was a hit. The relevant hadith has different translations, and thi website translates it "...He gave me a nudge on the chest which I felt...". So, for that claim, we need a more solid source. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 07:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not cite http://www.studying-islam.org/ as it's not reliable, someone else put it to mention that the hadith in question is disputed. I kept it anyways because I think it should be noted that the hadith is disputed. A link to original hadith is there, but if you actually looked, everything is supported by secondary sources. Wife-beating is mentioned in Quran at least twice, and in several hadiths, Muhammad approved wife-beating in several hadiths (see this http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Wife_Beating_in_Islam#Wife-Beating_in_the_Hadiths for reference but don't cite it as it's another Wiki). If you have information with reliable sources that is to the contrary, then cite that also, and state both sides. Just don't only cite one side or take sides. That way you will also not annoy Allah!--Slooppouts34 (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Slooppouts34, This is probably the last time I am going to tell you not to cite wikiislam.net. It is a POV pushing website wth zero reliabilty. I have cited Gender Equity in Islam: Basic Principles, by Jamal Badawi pp61-63, to support the statement that the prophet ﷺ never beat anyone. Plesae come with reliable secondary sources which state the incident mentioned in Sahih Muslim 4:2127 involved some kind of beating, otherwise that thing does not belong in the Family life section at all. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 04:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If you ever pay any attention, every time it's me who is telling you not to cite wikiislam.net here because it's an open Wiki just like this one. I told you to only look that up as you are either clearly quite novice with regard to Islam or you have an agenda to make Islam look more westernized. Wikiislam.net has some reference just like this one to back up what it says and you can do some research there. There are many, in fact most reliable secondary sources which state the incident mentioned in Sahih Muslim 4:2127 involved some kind of beating. Jamal Badawi is a POV pusher, but as I said I am open to having both views, so that Wikipedia readers know both sides, and then draw their own conclusion.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Break

Inappropriate Sources

• Dr.Zakir Naik, Voilence against Women in Islam. This page is page for user comments. It is not a reliable source because the content is user-generated.
  (I should add that from the point of view of personal study, this is an excellent web-page. But it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources.)
• WebIslam On the unlawfulness of wife beating, by Abdelmumin Aya (a.k.a. Vicente Haya), translated by Daniel F. Rivera. The author is an expert on Japanese poetry, who claims to have a medium level of competence in Arabic.(see his CV). Senor Haya's writings are not a reliable source for the correct interpretation of Arabic sentences.

Citations to these two sources should be deleted.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate Sources

• The Qur'an: An Introduction, by Abdullah Saeed, pub 2008, p131-3 is a good source. However the link to Italian Amazon does not allow the reader to see the context of the remarks. The URL link should be removed.
• Gender Equity in Islam: Basic Principles, by Jamal Badawi, pub 1995, p61 is a good source.

Gender Equity in Islam: Basic Principles page 61 includes both the point that he is not allowed to cut or bruise her when he beats her, and that it is disputed whether he can strike her face. These two points are also made in the newspaper citations that certain users have tried to delete. I suggest that a citation to Gender Equity in Islam: Basic Principles could be added to the article as follows:

The Quran^{[Quran 4:34]} allows a husband to beat his wife (lightly) if she is disobedient to him, though he is not allowed to cut or bruise her, He is allowed to beat young children; but not adult children; and it is disputed whether he is allowed to hit his wife's face. A minority of Islamic scholars contest this interpretation.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Abdelmumin Aya, he teached also compared religions, history of islamic thinking, islamology and Methodology of the Religious Sciences. Not all western academics in the islamic field speaks arabic, nor all arabs are coranic exegetes; i think that his allegations must be considered, as are considered those of the western academics in general - or we have some reliable sources stating his inadequacy?

The Qur'an: An Introduction actually is linked to https://books.google.it, but i don't know why you cant see the book. Sometimes happens when too peolple watch the same page. Horewer the book is also in every google - com, uk, etc.

Regarding your suggestion, i have some questions:

why you have removed all the contextualization? A saudi judge rule in his contry, and the same goes for the UAE court. Other clerics made different allegations regarding domestic abuse, like the President of the Australian National Imams Council 1.

The Saaed books refers explicity to Q4:34, so why not write it?CallAng222 (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that you are searching for sources that "prove" your beliefs on Google, but not reading the whole of the source - just cherry picking the bits you like.

Jamal A Badawi's book makes similar statements as the newspaper articles. But it is good to have the newspaper articles too, because they help show that what Badawi says is a mainstream view. If you had understood the newspaper articles correctly, you would have understood that. Putting in negating "contextualizations" was unhelpful. The UAE court was talking about Islamic codes - these apply to all Muslims. The statement by Sohaila Zenelabideen Hammad disputing that a man has a right to hit his wife's face also applies to all Islam, not just Saudi Arabia.

The Saaed book is being cited - but great care is required with it. Neither of us have read pages before page 131, which also discuss different interpretations of the verse from the Quran.

If you read the comment about Vicente Haya (a.k.a. Abdelmumin Aya) above you will understand why he is unreliable for a statement that mainstream translations of the Quran have got it wrong. His CV admits that his Arabic is limited. In any case, there is better citation from someone whose book discusses people who really do know what they are doing that backs the statement you want to see backed up.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The existence of different interpretation of the Q4:34 verses is a matter widely discussed inside and outside muslim world; the sentences we added seems perfect to me: we are not saying that the different interpretation is correct - just that exist; we saying also that is minoritary. Neither we are saying in what this interpretation differs. We could add more ref if you want, but (i don't mean to be rude) to me this seems a not so important matter.

No, it's a matter of interpretation. In Saudi and UAE court and judge make theirs; outside others clerics made others interpretation. For example:

Sunni Islam's highest authority has approved a woman's right to fight back if her husband uses violence against her1

"A woman can respond to physical violence inflicted on her by a man with counter- violence as a self-defense measure," Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah.2

Do you have some reliable sources backing your affermation regardind this academic unreliability, both in general or regarding the specific article? He teached compared religions, history of islamic thinking, islamology and Methodology of the Religious Sciences; studied in Algeria... maybe he knows what hes doing better than us... just saying :DCallAng222 (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I propose the following wording, expanding on Toddy1 with more information from Jamal's book and relevant sources in between. Regarding Sahih Muslim 4:2127, the translation differs in sources, "caused me pain" has been replaced by "which I felt", so I think that it is best omitted. Also I think sources from experts could replace the existing news reports, if found. The paragraph should be kept short. We might as well do away with the part about hitting the face, as it adds unnecessary detail.

The Quran allows a husband to hit his wife (lightly) if she is disobedient to him, though he is not allowed to cut or bruise her. Early jurists have interpreted this as a symbolic use of miswak, and as a last retort after exhortation. Even this measure has been discouraged in several ahadith, and the prophet never resorted to that measure. A husband is allowed to beat young children; but not adult children; and it is disputed whether he is allowed to hit his wife's face. A minority of Islamic scholars contest this interpretation.

On a side note, CallAng222, physical violence (IMO), is altogether different than wife beating as it is defined in Islam, what the source you have cited pertain to the case when the man has transgressed the limits. It should be clearly mentioned in some way or the other. That's my 2¢ on it:

A wife has the legitimate right to defend herself if the husband retorts to physical violence

The distinction between hitting with a miswak and full scale physical violence needs to be clear. Best, --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 17:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Fauzan, while of course i am awaiting for other users contribution, to me the words of both shiite and sunni authotiry seems pretty clear.

"Everyone has the right to defend themselves, whether they are a man or a woman ... because all human beings are equal before God"; while the shia ayatollah said that

"A statement from Fadlallah's office said he opposed a man using any sort of violence against a woman, even in the form of insults and harsh words." I dont see in these statesment a permit to beating of any tipe. Also the Shayck and the Grand Ayatollah are far more important that the saudi judge and the uae court.CallAng222 (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The advantage of having citations from both books by professors and newspaper reports is that the newspaper reports help show what is mainstream. (Just because someone is a professor does not mean that they tell the truth, or that their books reflect mainstream thought.) Wikipedia policy on verifiability is relevant here.

Regarding whether Muhammad ever hit his wife, the best we can say is that sources differ on this. So I agree that it should either be omitted or put in a footnote explaining both sides.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding whether Muhammad ﷺ ever hit his wife, I can't find sources other than blogs and fringe websites that claim he actually hit A'isha, this source presents a different translation that he "nudged", as I pointed out earlier. This does make a difference of sources, but another hadeeth, reported by the same A'isha goes "...Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) never beat anyone with his hand, neither a woman nor a servant...", so this should make the issue clear, and this has been reflected in Jamal's book. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad executed people by beheading[27], approved wife-beating in several hadiths [28] and wife-beating is mentioned in Quran at least twice (verse 4:34 and verse 38:44 among others).--Slooppouts34 (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"New" slavery section

FreeatlastChitchat created a "new" slavery section, which was copied and pasted from the Islamic views on slavery article. I think there is merit in having a paragraph or two, but rewritten, condensed, and pointing out relevance to the present day.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)