Jump to content

Talk:Islamic marital jurisprudence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion

[edit]

Is there really no better picture out there of a woman signing a marriage certificate then one in which said marriage certificate is being signed on a PIZZA BOX???

As someone who simply seeks to learn more, I would appreciate it if someone would provide a brief description about remarriage (after being widowed or divorced). I am trying to learn more about that, and there is little information about there. Thanks. --Mimlandry

Something needs to be done about the neutrality on this page, it's visibly biased and needs a rewrite that allows for multiple interpretations. The Gender Roles section was clearly written by a feminist, which I have no problem against, except that a single-perspective view is useless when trying to write a term paper. --Pilaman

Shouldn't there be something on polygamy here? Guttlekraw 10:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Polygamy#Islam has some information about that... however, that is typically a minor facet of Islamic marriage (highly publicized though).. what we need is more focus on the walima and nikkah... but, yes, polygamy, and what is required to practice it, does have a place. gren 11:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sure, I'm not suggesting we make a big deal of it, it just seems odd not to mention it at all. Guttlekraw 11:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is just an article in an untravelled corner... so not many of the knowledgeable Islam-related editors visit it, but some day... gren 12:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why not, it is the Islamic "view of marriage." A view of marraige that includes polygamy is certainly relevant. Certainly a discussion of Mormon marriage will entail their history of polygamy? Additionaly, discussions on how divorce can occur is also affects their view of marriage. The text should stand. Anonymous 64.154.26.251 0845 2 Jun 05
Polygamy can certainly be mentioned. I am not investing the time in making this a complete article but I do realize there is plenty of room to expand. The things you have added, however, are highly POV points glossing over context and, as you will notice on Muhammad's marriages it mentions 12 wives which is the number commonly given, I am not sure where 15 to 25 came from. So, yes, you may add information about polygamy... I am not trying to hide it. But I do recommend you get your information correct before adding it. As for talaq that is a very limited issue which might be mentioned in a brief aside, it by no means is something believed by most Muslims. So, please, if you are going to edit this page do so in a correct and neutral manner. gren 15:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My information is correct. Regarding marriage, Muslim man can have up to four wives at a time, based on Sura 4:3. As for Mohammed, a divine prophecy, Sura 33:50, allowed him to have more: Muslim scholar Ali Dashti listed the wives of Mohammed:

1. Khadija bint Khuwailid - died first
2. Sawda/Sauda bint Zam’a
3. 'Aisha/Aesha/’A’ishah - 8 to 9 yrs old, second wife
4. Omm/’Umm Salama
5. Hafsa/Hafsah
6. Zaynab/Zainab of Jahsh
7. Jowayriya/Juwairiyya bint Harith
8. Omm Habiba
9. Safiya/Safiyya bint Huyai/Huyayy bint Akhtab
10. Maymuna/Maimuna of Hareth
11. Fatima/Fatema/Fatimah (briefly)
12. Hend/Hind
13. Asma of Saba
14. Zaynab of Khozayma
15. Habla
16. Asma of Noman / bint al-Nu’man
¾ slaves / concubines ¾
17. Mary the Christian/Copt
18. Rayhana/Raihana/Rayhanah bint Zayd/Zaid
¾ uncertain relationship -
19. Omm Sharik
20. Maymuna/Maimuna
21. Zaynab/Zainab 3rd
22. Khawla

These pages are supposed to be NPOV, not whitewash certain aspects that may seem politically incorrect today. Anonymous 64.154.26.251 0845 2 Jun 05

I think two wives is politically incorrect today but since most sources I have seen list 12 you probably need to cite your source (from which book, etc.) and talk about who Ali Dashti is and why his view is worth expressing. Also, you can't just state a man can have four wives as divine right... there are stipulations regarding how to treat them, etc. As for the "I divorce you" three times scenario you must look into who accepts that... you can find sources to support many things... but, that does not make them good or representative encyclopedic sources. gren 14:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Striver

[edit]

Be careful... Nikkah has an article and this is more broad... this is the overall concept. Nikkah is a specific aspect, the formalization, but this should include overview of ceremony and culture moreso. Also, muta should not be above Nikkah, Nikkah is accepted by all Muta is far less important. and, why isn't muta a subset of nikkah but the others are? Just remmber that we have the sub-articles and this is an overview. O_o gren 03:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i do agree, this sould be a overall overview, so i just added the most importand aspekt breifly witout explaining why the rules exist or the supposed motivation of them, the spezialied article can do that, as well as cultural aspects and general Muslim views of the topic. I think im done with Nikah Mut'ah, im in the middle of talaq (Nikah), Nikah and Nikah Misyar ned cleanup.


The reason for not puting Nikah Mut'ah as a subset of Nikah is since:

1: Both Nikah and Nikah Mut'ah are sanctioned in the Quran and are two separate marriage forms revealed by Allah, swt. However, the other three versions are bid'ah. Good or bad, i wont tell, but they are bid'ah.

2: They are derived from Nikah. Nik'ah Misyar have all the qualitys of Nikah, and adds two more rules. However, Nikah and Nikah Mut'ah are not subsets of eachoter, none of them have all the qualities of the other, they are diffrent from eachother. But all the three subseted have all the qualities of Nikah.

So, due to that, its not accurate to make Nikah Mut'ah a subset to Nikah.


I did not put Mut'ah Nikah above motivation that it is more recoqnized or prominent, its not. I put it above to give context to the other forms. But if you dont agree, if you value it the other way and want the more prominent Nikah to be above, i wont object, it ok for me. I also did put it above to make it look better. In my very personal opinion does this:

Nikah Mut'ah
Nikah
Nikah Misyar
Nikah Halala
Nikah urfi
Talaq

look beter than this:


Nikah
Nikah Misyar
Nikah Halala
Nikah urfi
Nikah Mut'ah
Talaq

In the second version, you dont get to read the three sub-versions of Nikah after having read reading Nikah Mut'ah.

But as i said, i dont have any strong argument, i can settle with the second version.


Did i miss anything or make a misstake in my arguments?

Ma salam!

--Striver 04:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Striver has asked about the inclusion of something. I think that refers to me and to the distinction I made between the sexes of the two parties. I am not sure though. The question is what does he want proof of? That divorce is a right for men and only for women in very limited areas? Well for instance, http://www.jamaat.org/islam/divorce.html, has a fairly short explanation of divorce based, I think, on Dr. Yusuf Al Qaradawi's books. This lists the grounds on which a woman can ask a court to grant her a divorce. They are, roughly, long absence, long imprisonment, impotence, refusal to support a wife. But of course men can divorce women any time they like for any reason. There is a slight difference there that ought to be in this article. I also liked http://www.al-islam.org/laws/ which has a longer section on divorce. Lao Wai 14:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


And incidentally, in case it was about the secret practice of polygamy in the West, it is certainly alleged. Here http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1320100,00.html for example. There is no good Islamic reason I can see why this is wrong. Lao Wai 14:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hm..

[edit]

regarding Lao Wai edit. I dont realy like that addition.

First, i think it can be formulated better.

Second, i rather see it in the main article.

third, half of that belongs to the "marriage acordig to Quran and Sunnah".

Fourth, source it.

ill give you a few houres to respond, then ill make the changes myself.

--Striver 12:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

Striver (everyone). I added the NPOV tag because this article puts a lot of overemphasis on Muta and other forms of marriage... and, until I changed it muta was listed above normal nikah. As I understand it the other forms of Sunni marriage, as Striver calls them, are extremely rare and in fact are mostly never mentioned in typical Sunni literature. Even for the shia (which are a complete minority to Sunni) Muta is not that common... Therefore just from that this whole article is skewed.... Now, I can't speak for "rules" of Shia or the other types of Sunni marriages but the view of Nikah can vary. I know that Pakistani practice has been influenced by Hindus and is much more festive than a classical Islamic marriage. I also thought Islamic Marriage Contract was Nikah... in any case... there might be some good information here but Nikah is over generalizing and the rest are too emphasized... they have their own pages... where they can have as much emphasis as they want... but in the scheme of Islamic marriage, they are far less important. gren グレン 17:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with Nikah being above Nikah Mut'ah, i actually view this new order as superior to mine.
As for emphasize, i dont see how they can be presented with less details without missrepresenting them, however, i welcome you to give it a shoot. My oppinion is that it will best be solved by stating that Nikah is by far the most used marriage form among Sunnis. However, they do need to be presented, no matter how little or much they are used or mentioned.
As far as Nikah Mut'ah goes, it is not that unusual among Shias given the flexibility of the marriage, ie the it can be used for so manny diffrent goals. However, you are correct that Nikah is the predominant form of marriage even among shias. But do note that manny shias first engage in a Nikah Mut'ah with the intention of transforming it to a Nikah, much like a western form of engagment.
As for views of marriage, it can be elaborated in the appropiate article.
Islamic Marriage Contract is not a form of marriage, rather it is the contract that initiates one of the mentioned forms of marriage.
About emphasize, it should be stated wich form has the emphasize by informing it on text, not by ommiting ínformation or over presenting to much information.
Thank for your contribution! --Striver 20:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No responce? Should i put down the pov tag? --Striver 08:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pov tag going down. --Striver 12:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Striver, you addressed nothing and then want the tag down? Someone fixed your grammar and that is the only change since my complaints. Nikah is far and away the most important to Shia and Sunni, Mut'a is much much less important and only Shia. The Sunni types are regional from what you have written and not backed up by very much. Nikah Halala... is, it a new form of marriage? Most things (not so much) have led me to believe that it is not separate from Nikah but just allowing something that others do not under Nikah. gren グレン 02:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did address you, in the line that starts... o well, whadever. I agree to your downsizing of the articles, but i will reword some things that are not correct. Nikah Mut'ah is acceptet as revealed in vers 4:24 by both Sahi Muslim, Tabari and Ibn Kathir, so there is no doubt that the most authoritarian Sunni Collections, Historian and exegice agree to it. And the three types are so you said yourself variations of Nikah, with added rules. Nikah Mutah is not a subversion of Nikah, rather it is its own distinct type of Marriage. --Striver 08:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---minister---

There is obviously much discussion and even more confusion regarding polygamy in Islamic communities. And my clarifications have come through intense research and study with internationally recognized Islamic scholars and lecturers. Though I would first like to say, though I have a deep and heart felt respect for true Islam, I am not Muslim.

The tradition of taking multiple wives in the Islamic community came about during times of war and were practiced solely as a means of preserving the community and specifically wives of men who had been killed during war. During these ancient times, becoming a widow for most women was like receiving a death sentence without a place in the community and a husband to provide shelter, food and protection. I cannot emphasize enough (as it was clearly emphasized to me during many lecture) that this practice only occurred during these times. In addition, only men who had the means, wealth and position in the community ever practiced this tradition. And further and most important was that the taking of a second or any further wife was ONLY done so with the permission of the first wife.

As can be clearly seen by these many factors, the practice of Islamic polygamy in our modern age should be almost completely non-existent. Modern women are in no way placed mortal danger should they survive the death of their spouse. Nor would most modern women agree to sharing their husband with another wife (or anyone for that matter).

As a point of interest, the spirit of this kind of practice of polygamy, is not exclusive to Islamic communities. Here in North America, several Native American tribes practiced the same custom of taking one or more wives and for the same reasons of preserving community. This occurred again during times of war between tribes and was the only way to preserve the women who had lost their husbands on the battlefield or when a disproportionate number of men had been killed and prospective wives lacked the opportunity to marry. A parody of this practice, though intended for entertainment, was given in the Dustin Hoffman movie, "Little Big Man."

---end minister---


Irishpunktom

[edit]

Irishpunktom removed the Quran refernces without justification. Please explain. I do not agree with your edits and do not understand your motivation. --Striver 20:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Justifications... firstly it innaccurately says that Muta is talked about before Nikah... which it isn't anymore. you misspelled verse... you don't give a nearly satisfactory explanation of how the two types are sanctioned. Talks of abrogation are very complex and you wash right over them there. You try to portray Muta as being as important as Nikah which it isn't... I'm reverting as well. gren グレン 01:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, are you claiming that it is not sanctioned by the Quran? If i understand it correctly, sunnis agree that the Quran sanction it, but belive that Sunnah abrogated it. Correct? --Striver 11:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deal with it in the sub section. Stating there are two types of Marraige in Islam is sufficent. Further explaination of the Shia view can be expressed later, in that sub. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Rename

[edit]

Lets rename this to Islamic marritial jurisprudence, so it rhymes with the other articles in Islamic jurisprudence.

Obviously, this article is now about more than a simple "view", rather it incorporates precise juridical terms and practices. --Striver 01:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC) --Striver 01:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has objected in a month, ill rename it. --Striver 08:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


afd

[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Married life in the Qur'an and the Sunnah --Striver 17:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Gender roles:Paragraph

[edit]

Does this paragraph really need to be in the article?

While there are guidelines regarding the roles of men and women in Islamic society, today these roles are defined as much by the culture and geographical location of the follower. In more conservative societies such as Saudi Arabia, women may not drive a vehicle, despite the historical precedent of women riding animals and running businesses. Khadija, the first wife of Muhammad, was also his employer and 15 years his senior. In some Islamic societies women wear a 'chador' or 'hijab' (veil), which may cover the whole body or head; in yet others, they may dress modestly and not wear revealing clothes, but there is no compulsion to wear a veil. They may work and travel, entertain guests, be comfortable in mixed company and play sports at public venues. These differences in life all over the world indicate that while Islam has laid out guidelines for Muslim women to follow, local customs play a role in how women dress.

The information is fine, but this is not the appropriate place to include it in. The article is about marriage, not about the role of the female in Islam. That's why there is a main article link there, for readers that are interested to learn more about that and only a brief summary to be mentioned in the article. The paragraph needs to be removed since does not provide input about the subject of Marriage in Islam and focuses too much on the examples of how women are treated in other countries. The info that's included is not relevant to marital life or law in Islam. Stoa 01:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concurrance and additions

[edit]

I would have to agree that gender roles are cultural rather than fixed in Islam. In fact, early jurisprudence did not agree with the claim that wives are expected to be homemakers and childrearers. Fiqh did not require women to do housework nor raise their children. They could demand household help to perform those tasks. The required service for a wife to perform was strictly sexual, remaining exclusively available to the husband.

Also, regarding polygamy, there are limitations and conditions that do not make it a right for men, rather a responsibility to women who need protection and affiliation due to the loss of a guardian. It is in no way a blanket allowance in Islam; to have it be that is not to promote justice or fairness, both a requirment in marriage between free men and women.

Lastly, it should be noted that while there is an explicit allowance in the Quran for Muslim men to marry among the ahl al kitab, there is no prohibition against Muslim women doing the same among men of the ahl al kitab. A fundamental principle of Islamic law is that what is disallowed is determined by God, what sharia is silent about is a blessing to us. Thus, any prohibition is cultural, not supported by sharia nor Sunnah, completely derived from ijtihad and 'ila, which are not binding on all places and times. The prohibitions in ayat 2:221 and 60:10 apply equally to women and men; unless on believes that 5:5 is an abrogation of both that creates a change of Allah's mind to allow special treatment for men, there is nothing other than visions of women as weak and traitorous to the faith that justifies a prohibition against Muslimas marrying ahl al kitab men. To exclude this information is a PC nod to patriarchal cultural influences in Islamic thought. (FOA)

Move

[edit]

I am against the move to Islamic marital jurisprudence from Islamic view of marriage. Marriage in Islam is more than jurisprudence. That is one aspect of Islam. Culture, theology, philosophy, can all have impact on Muslim views of marriage. Fiqh is only one aspect. So, this could be a spinoff if we ever need to get to that point. gren グレン 06:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you say it, i agree. Lets rename it to "view". --Striver 14:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. -Emiellaiendiay 20:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions without citations?

[edit]

This article seems to consist of highly opinionated thought with no support from the supposed subject matter. It contradicts (with bad grammar) itself where it initially touts "both sexes are considered equal in value" then goes into "Again, in conservative societies, women are sometimes barred from education by the male members of their families." First where did the initial mention occur, begetting the "again" and second how does one's barring of another from something constitute "equality"? I am no expert on Islam though I have read the Bible and it seems to me that this religion was an offshoot of the original patriarchs of the Bible. Note the term Patriarchs. Though politically incorrect the nature of the world of which religion is an observation supports hierarchy. Hierarchy occurred in government, religion, and family until a short time ago and I invite you to reflect upon the state of affairs since that hierarchy has slowly degraded.

Sources

[edit]

Dowry vs. dower

[edit]

People, the English word for property given by the husband to the wife at the time of the wedding is dower. "Dowry" is property that the wife brings to the marriage. Why does this page call mahr dowry when it is clearly dower? Goldfritha 21:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim women and non-muslim men

[edit]

Someone needs to sort out the situation regarding Islamic law on muslim women marrying non-muslim men. The page has two directly contradictory statements on the issue within a few paragraphs of one another. The first states that although such marriages are frowned upon and discouraged, there is nothing in the sunnah or Quran that forbid it. However, a few paragraphs later, the page states that it is totally forbidden. Can someone pleae establish what the truth is (with links to reliable sources) and then make the neccessary changes. 82.3.151.219 01:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage in Islam - Prohibition against Muslimas marrying ahl al kitab men

[edit]

Despite the agrement of the early jurists, who were learned men of their time, the notion that the Quran prohibits interfaith marriage to Muslim women is in dispute as a matter unsettled by examination of the Quran and Sunnah, and primarily based upon the pre-Islamic tradition of women as property and the Arab concept of male authority over women. The Quran is silent about women marrying Christians and Jews, and the Sunnah doesn't prohibit it. A permission for men in 5:5 does not create a denial for women, nor do prohibitions that apply to both men and women (2:221 and 60:10) get abrogated easily.

The pre-Islamic tradition of slaves as property is the source in Islamic jurisprudence, and should not be relied upon when attributing a prohibition to God. It is best to be faithful to God's Word and use Him as the source, or at least be able to supply secondary sources that do not rely on contradictions and abrogation to create a limitation upon Muslim women. No offense meant, but the article, as stands, uses the typical, authoritative male voice, following tradition. Yet, tradition does not equal Islam. Perhaps it is best to present the tradition as a cultural interpretation rather than a command from Allah. - Salaam,

With all due respect, I am making a challenge to all who hold that there is no validity to the claim that the Quran and Sunnah did not prohibit Muslim women from marriage with ahl al kitab men, and that fiqh rulings on the subject are not cultural. Post the prohibition from the Sunnah, the tradition of the Prophet and the Quran to support that view. I am not denying that there has been held to be a prohibition, and Wikipedia is not the place to post partisan pov. It is intended to provide an HONEST look at positions that have been presented as Islamic which are little more than cultural adaptations not binding on all Muslims.

I was instructed to be bold, and that I am being.

"God" is not considered a reliable source. MrDemeanour (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Woman and Non-Muslim Man

[edit]

A revision that I made to the section about marriage that, before editing, stated that Muslim women are forbidden from marriage with men other than Muslim men has been cited as contradicting an about.islam.com article. I'm not sure how about.islam became the measure of what is Islamic, but I'll play along. This is the article, with emphasis added by me:

Interfaith Marriage in Islam

The Qur'an lays out clear guidelines for marriage. One of the main traits you should look for in a potential spouse is a similarity in religious outlook. For the sake of compatibility, and the upbringing of future children, it is most recommended for a Muslim to marry another Muslim. However, in some circumstances it is permissible for a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim.

Muslim Man and Non-Muslim Woman

In general, Muslim men are not permitted to marry non-Muslim women. "Do not marry unbelieving women until they believe. A slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, even though she allures you.... Unbelievers beckon you to the Fire. But Allah beckons by His Grace to the garden of bliss and forgiveness. And He makes His signs clear to mankind, that they may receive admonition" (Qur'an 2:221).

An exception is made for Muslim men to marry chaste or pious Jewish and Christian women, who are referred to as "People of the Book." This comes from the understanding that Jews and Christians share similar religious outlooks - a belief in One God, following the commandments of Allah, a belief in revealed scripture (Books), etc. "This day are all things good and pure made lawful to you.... Lawful to you in marriage are not only chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time, when you give them their due dowers, and desire chastity not lewdness. If any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost" (Qur'an 5:5).

The children of such a union are always to be raised in the faith of Islam. This should be discussed thoroughly by the couple before they decide to marry.

Muslim Woman and Non-Muslim Man

Under no conditions is a Muslim woman permitted to marry anyone but a Muslim man. The same verse cited above (2:221) mentions, "Nor marry your girls to unbelievers until they believe. A man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever...." No exception is given for women to marry Jews and Christians, so the law stands that she may only marry a believing (Muslim) man. As head of the household, the husband provides leadership for the family. A Muslim woman does not follow the leadership of someone who does not share her faith and values.


My comments:

Despite the claims of this article, which contradicts itself, there is no basis for creating a prohibition against Muslim women marrying men of the Book in the Quran nor in the Sunnah. First of all, an "exception" for men in the Quran would mean that the Quran has been abrogated from its original Message since the advent of Islam in the time of Adam, the first Prophet of Islam. Abrogation is a highly debatable position to take when dealing with the Holy Book.

Second, a basic principle of Islamic jurisprudence is the asl al-deen: The halal is that which Allah has made lawful in His Book and haram is that which He has forbidden, and that concerning which He is silent He has permitted as a favour to you.* Since ayah 2:221, as referred to by the article, prohibits marriage to 'idolaters' for both Muslim men and Muslim women, one need provide further support for the supposition that Christians and Jews (ahl al kitab) are 'idolaters', ie, committing shirk, requiring an exception for any Muslim to marry among them.

Since the Quran states repeatedly that no 'idolaters' will be rewarded for their rejection of faith and failure to submit to His Will, one way we can determine if ahl al kitab are included among them is to research who are those that Allah says can possibly be included.

[2.62] Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

[5.69] Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

So, clearly, the group "ahl al kitab" is not among those who are lost.

An excerpt from the article states:

An exception is made for Muslim men to marry chaste or pious Jewish and Christian women, who are referred to as "People of the Book." This comes from the understanding that Jews and Christians share similar religious outlooks - a belief in One God, following the commandments of Allah, a belief in revealed scripture (Books), etc. "This day are all things good and pure made lawful to you.... Lawful to you in marriage are not only chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time, when you give them their due dowers, and desire chastity not lewdness. If any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost" (Qur'an 5:5).

There is a contradiction inherent in the statement that Jews and Christians share similar religious outlooks - a belief in One God, following the commandments of Allah, a belief in revealed scripture (Books), etc., so Muslim men can marry their women, but Muslim women can't marry their men using the same ayah that prohibits both men and women from marriage with 'idolaters'. No debatable, man-made abrogation is required.

5:5 is referred to as the ayah that created the "exception" for men.

This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).

However, since no exception is needed, does the explicit permission granted here constitute a prohibition for women? The general rule is that as the majority of law giving in the Quran is directed to men, they is also extended to women. For example, I know from hadith that many of the foods of the ahl al kitab are permissible to me, a woman, if I say 'Bismillah' over it before I eat. This permission is embeded in an ayah that we are told limits interfaith marriage to men, yet doesn't limit eating the food of the ahl al kitab to men.

There is no prohibition in the Quran nor the Sunnah against Muslim women marrying ahl al kitab men. That comes from fiqh law, and can, thus, be considered to be mukruh rather than impermissible. Fiqh law also considers marriage between Muslim men and non-Muslim women living in the west to be mukruh, but that is rarely cited, creating the impression that the same source , fiqh, can be taken so seriously that it can create sinful acts for women that Allah did not, or be completely ignored when ruling against a privilege for men.

I have examples of the above and regarding challenges to the tradtion, which is based on Arab patriarchy and the concept that women follow the lead of men, which is not Quranic, but tribal. The assertion in the article that "As head of the household, the husband provides leadership for the family. A Muslim woman does not follow the leadership of someone who does not share her faith and values." is very telling of this tradition. In Islam, women follow the leadership of God, not man. The requirments for doing so are the same for both:

[33.35] For Muslim men and women,- for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in Charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in God's praise,- for them has God prepared forgiveness and great reward.

Challenges to the law

Fatwa by Dr. Abou El Fadl: On Christian Men marrying Muslim Women

Source: http://www.scholarofthehouse.com/oninma.html

As-Salaam-Alaikum:

I don't mean to bother you but this is disturbing my mind and I need an educated explanation.

I was at a Muslim Sister's Fashion Show (predominately African American sisters) when during casual conversation a young sister (mid 20s) stated that her husband is Christian. This as you can image created quite a stir. She was immediately verbally attacked. She tried to defend herself by saying that he did not prohibit her from practicing Islam and he has agreed that the children will be Muslim. She was advised to divorce him.

I don't know if they were married and she converted or if she was already Muslim when they married. She was under such a heavy attack that I could not get that question in. However this issue is one that I need to understand because I can't adequately explain why there is a prohibition for the Muslim female in marrying from the people of the book and there is no prohibition for the Muslim male. More often than not I hear all non Muslims classified as kufar.

The only explanation I can provide is that the Quran specifies that the male can marry a Christian or Jewish woman. Since he is the head of the household the expectation is that he will respect her rights and the children will take his religion. Really in actuality from what I've seen this is not the case. The woman has so much pressure put on her to abandon her beliefs that she eventually gives in or gets out of the marriage.

I have been asked does the Quran specifically prohibit the Muslim woman from marrying a Christian or Jewish male. My understanding is the only specific prohibition is for polytheist. Am I wrong?

This is a big issue for African Americans especially because of the rate of conversion. There are instances where the husband converts and the wife does not. This is not seen as a problem. However there are instances where the wife converts and the husband does not. It doesn't matter whether they have been together 2 years or 20 years, the advice the sister receives is to divorce him.

. . .

[Name withheld for privacy]

Al-salamu 'alaykum sister:

First I should apologize for the long time it has taken me to respond to your message. As you might have heard, I have been rather ill. But on a happier note, recently we were blessed with a wonderful baby boy.

But I should confess that there is another reason for the delay. This is a difficult issue to deal with. I did receive a large number of inquiries about this same issue, and I have tended to avoid responding to them because I am not exactly very excited about handling this weighty and serious problem.

Surprising to me, all schools of thought prohibited a Muslim woman from marrying a man who is a kitabi (among the people of the book). I am not aware of a single dissenting opinion on this, which is rather unusual for Islamic jurisprudence because Muslim jurists often disagreed on many issues, but this is not one of them.

All jurists agreed that a Muslim man or woman may not marry a mushrik [one who associates partners with God--there is a complex and multi-layered discourse on who is to be considered a mushrik, but we will leave this for a separate discussion]. However, because of al-Ma'ida verse 5, there is an exception in the case of a Muslim man marrying a kitabiyya. There is no express prohibition in the Qur'an or elsewhere about a Muslim woman marrying a kitabi. However, the jurists argued that since express permission was given to men, by implication women must be prohibited from doing the same. The argument goes: If men needed to be given express permission to marry a kitabiyya, women needed to be given express permission as well, but since they were not given any such permission then they must be barred from marrying a kitabi.

The justification for this rule was two-fold: 1) Technically, children are given the religion of their father, and so legally speaking, the offspring of a union between a Muslim male and a kitabiyya would still be Muslim; 2)It was argued that Muslim men are Islamically prohibited from forcing their wives to become Muslim. Religious coercion is prohibited in Islam. However, in Christianity and Judaism a similar prohibition against coercion does not exist. According to their own religious law, Muslim jurists argued, Christian men may force their Muslim wives to convert to their (the husbands') religion. Put differently, it was argued, Islam recognizes Christianity and Judaism as valid religions, but Judaism and Christianity do not recognize the validity of Islam as a religion. Since it was assumed that the man is the stronger party in a marriage, it was argued that Christian and Jewish men will be able to compel their Muslim wives to abandon Islam. (If a Muslim man would do the same, he would be violating Islamic law and committing a grave sin).

Importantly, the Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafi'i jurists held that it is reprehensible (makruh) for Muslim men to marry a kitabiyya if they live in non-Muslim countries. They argued that in non-Muslim countries, mothers will be able to influence the children the most. Therefore, there is a high likelihood that the children will not grow up to be good Muslims unless both parents are Muslim. Some jurists even went as far as saying that Muslim men are prohibited from marrying a kitabiyya if they live in non-Muslim countries.

This is the law as it exists or the legal legacy as we inherited it. In all honesty, personally, I am not convinced that the evidence prohibiting Muslim women from marrying a kitabi is very strong. Muslim jurists took a very strong position on this matter--many of them going as far as saying if a Muslim woman marries a kitabi she is as good as an apostate. I think, and God knows best, that this position is not reasonable and the evidence supporting it is not very strong. However, I must confess that in my humble opinion, I strongly sympathize with the jurists that argued that in non-Muslim countries it is reprehensible (makruh) for a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim. God knows best--I have reached this position after observing that the children of these Muslim/non-Muslim marriages in most cases do not grow up with a strong sense of their Islamic identity. It seems to me that in countries like the U.S. it is best for the children if they grow up with a Muslim father and mother. I am not comfortable telling a Muslim woman marrying a kitabi that she is committing a grave sin and that she must terminate her marriage immediately. I do tell such a woman that she should know that by being married to a kitabi that she is acting against the weight of the consensus; I tell her what the evidence is; and then I tell her my own ijtihad on the matter (that it is makruh for both men and women in non-Muslim countries). After telling her all of this, I add that she must always remember that only God knows best; that she should reflect on the matter as hard as she can; then she should pray and plead for guidance from God; and then ultimately she must do what her conscience dictates.

I hope this response helps answer your question. I pray to God to guide us both to what He pleases and wants, and that He helps the sister you wrote me about to find peace and tranquility with whatever decision she makes. God is the best guide and mentor--may He forgive our sins and bless us with His Compassion and Mercy.

With my sincere regards,

Shaykh Khaled Abou El Fadl

Imam Khaleel Mohammed's fatwa regarding inter-faith marriage for Muslim women

"The verse that is traditionally used by imams to prohibit an inter-religious marriage is Qur'an 5:5, which states: 'This day, all innately good things are lawful for you... Lawful to you are the chaste women from among those who have been given the Book before you...' Traditional imams contend that since women are mentioned, and men are not, then it must be understood that the marriage of Muslim women with non-Muslim men is forbidden.

This, however, is problematic. For the Qur'an is addressed, because of the custom of the time, to men. It is for this reason that the Qur'an says, for example, "And when you divorce your wives..." or "During the nights of fasting [Ramadan] you may have sex with your wives..." What do I mean by the custom of the time? In the tribal context, the woman, once married, accepted the husband as master. He, in turn, accepted the religion of his tribal chief.

Given that reality, a whole host of issues arose for Muslim scholars -- issues that made them oppose inter-religious marriages for women. One issue was, whereas Muslims honor the non-Muslim prophets, followers of the other two monotheistic religions do not honor Muhammad, and that would put the Muslim woman in the terrible position of having her prophet disrespected. Another issue was that most Christians see Jesus as God, and for a Muslim to attribute divinity to a human in unthinkable. Then, too, there was the problem of the children from such a marriage, who would presumably be brought up in the religion of the male spouse.

But remember that all of these 'issues' assume the woman must take the faith of her non-Muslim husband, and that is clearly not the case in your relationship. You live in a different time and a different place.

To be sure, most Muslims would argue that the Qur'an is true for all time and all places. If we go by that logic, then we must acknowledge that the Qur'an is still sympathetic to your dream of marrying a Christian man. Even though he is a Christian, the Qur'an does not hold that against him. For while mentioning that there are Christians who take Jesus as God, Islam's main document calls this 'kufr' (disbelief/ingratitude) rather than 'shirk' (polytheism). It's a significant distinction because, in another verse, the Qur'an also states that Christians who do good deeds have the right to enter heaven. Christian creedal beliefs are the same for both male and female followers of Christianity, so how can the Qur'an allow marriage to the Christian woman but not to the Christian man?

The evidence indicates that the main hang-up is the problem I emphasized above -- that the religion of the male spouse becomes dominant (as also evidenced in the Book of Ruth in the Hebrew Bible). In our day, since Qur'anic Islam (as opposed to the Islam of the male jurists) must acknowledge the radical notion that women are equals of men, that women have legal rights, and that those rights include placing conditions on the marriage (what you and I would term a 'pre-nuptial agreement'), then an inter-faith marriage can take place on condition that neither spouse will be forcibly converted to the other's religion. As long as that condition is respected, you and she have my blessing.

On the question of children, certainly there will be some religious confusion. But as a Muslim scholar, I can tell you that the Qur'an advocates the use of the heart and mind in forming opinions. If both parents are faithful to their interpretations of the Creator's will, then the children will make informed decisions when they come of age.

...

Dr. Khaleel Mohammed studied Sharia at Muhammad bin Saud University in Riyadh (Sunni) and the Zeinabiyya in Damascus (Shia). He holds a Ph.D. in Islamic law from McGill University.

Asharq Al-Awsat Interviews Sudanese Islamist leader Dr. Hassan Turabi

24/04/2006 By Imam Mohamed Imam

London, Asharq Al-Awsat- The following is the full text of the controversial interview that Asharq al-Awsat conducted with Sudanese Islamist leader Dr. Hassan Turabi, which resulted in him being branded an apostate by Sudan's Muslim scholars:

Q) Fatwas that you have issued, regarding the permissibility of marriage between a Muslim woman and a man of the Christian or Jewish persuasion, have been the subject of much controversy. Do you mean that married women who converted to Islam can remain married to a non-Muslim husband, or that a Muslim woman can marry a non-Muslim man?

A) First, we have to look at the context of this matter particularly from the framework of Ijtihad when it comes to the general issues of women in Islam. The modern and contemporary Islamic discourse on women lags far behind the authentic Islamic rules and principles as contemporary Muslims do not think deeply about these principles when it comes to the marriage of their daughters.

The fatwa was a response to issues in the Muslim community in the United States. There was an incident in which an American woman went to one of the Islamic centers to convert; however, she wanted to remain married to her non-Muslim husband after she converted. The center's officials told her that if she was sincere in her desire to become a Muslim that she would begin divorce procedures, despite the huge costs and even if this meant that she would lose custody of her children. They did not consider that this was too much to ask from someone who was still taking their first steps towards Islam. Such an attitude in fact causes many women to be reluctant to convert.

Of course, before issuing the edict, I had to undertake a lot of research concerning Islamic law, particularly by reading books on Islamic jurisprudence that were written at certain historical intervals. All the past fatwas that prohibited the marriage of Muslim women to non-Muslim men were issued during periods in which political disputes between Muslims and non-Muslims were taking place. On the other hand, I could not find a single word that prohibited such marriage in either the Quran or the Sunnah.

In the particular case of the woman who wanted to convert in the United States, my opinion was that she should have remained married to the non-Muslim man. She may have been the reason that her non-Muslim husband converted. Perhaps even other families of female American converts would have followed the same path. Many people were perplexed by what I said and attacked me for it. Some even decided that I was now an infidel! They depicted the whole issue as if it was a matter of honor. However, if you look at it objectively, the conversion and Islamic conduct of the wife may have positively influenced the husband, an influence that the Muslims of the West need.

We should let the Muslim minorities, who live amongst the 'People of the Book' in the west, evaluate this issue and decide what is appropriate for them, as they are the first group affected. They would conclude that they should allow their daughters to marry Jews and Christians because perhaps these marriages will bring the husbands to Islam or else the women may remain a Muslim. In the West, the individual freedoms are generally wider and the Western Muslims to decide when it comes to this issue especially.

Q) So are you saying that women who converted to Islam can remain married to their non-Muslim husbands, but that a Muslim woman marrying a non-Muslim man is forbidden?

A) No, I had spoken previously about this type of marriage and I believe that marriage between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man is valid since nothing in the Quran or Sunnah dictates otherwise. The decision should also be based on the individuality of each case therefore; I cannot say this type of marriage is prohibited based on the accumulated teachings of past scholars.

These teachings for example tell us that Ijmaa (consensus) is the consensus of jurists at any given age but the Quran says is different. The same accumulated sayings of scholars also recommended that we should obey the ruler even if he seized power by force. The Quran does not approve of this. We should always refer to the origins that are Quran and Sunnah.

Source: http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=3&id=4678

I have not yet learned how to add citations or to do some of the fancy things available here, but I will learn. I would appreciate it if the cultural aspects that have been incorporated in Islam and which constitute ethno-Arab traditional interpretations can be discerned without the dependence on websites as the arbitors. As Dr. Turabi said, we should always refer to the origins that are Quran and Sunnah, and no prohibition against intefaith marriage for Muslimas can be found there.

I can add more historical context, if requested.

Humbly submitted FOA 20:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Reported in Al-Hakim, classified as sahih (sound)


FOA 20:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


Changes to text re marriage to assign a partisan point of view

[edit]

Karl Meier has revised text about Muslim marriage to maintain that Muslim women are prohibited by ISLAM from marriage with non-Muslim men. However, references has been added to the text he deletes showing that there is opposition to the rule citing that there is nothing in the Quran and the Sunnah to restrict such unions.

Why is Karl Meier and a few others INTENT on presenting only one point of view on a site that should be neutral? There is no verse in the Quran that specifically prohibits women from marriage with ahl al kitan men, that is a fact. 5:5, the ayah that permits men to do so does not constitute a prohibition for women, and it is known that there are scholars with ijaza who believe the fiqh position is insupportable.

That is is so is not to be allowed to be presented on Wikipedia? By whose authority?! FOA 20:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Assalamu alaikum

I have a question to ask...

Can a maternal uncle marry her niece and is it jayaz in Islam and can you please let me know if there is any fatwa issued or there is any thing mentioned in Quran that we can marry our niece..

Merge with Nikah

[edit]

They appear to cover the same material. Nikah concepts would fit easily in the introduction of this article.--Tigeroo 07:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


live in non-Muslim countries

[edit]

The section on marriage with other faiths mentions "non-Muslim countries". So what is a non-Muslim country, exactly? Is India a Muslim country? Also, I didn't know that there's a fatwa regarding this. Are fatwas just ordinances or are they more martial laws? The article may mention that there is a fatwa in this matter. Nshuks7 (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

Theres too many islamic marriage related articles:

There also seems to be a double article for divorce:


35 articles on islamic marriage is obviously excessive. Its time to choose which should be merged/redirected and which should be kept. I expect a couple to get redirected/merged. I already opened a discussion at islam-project in March but that went nowhere [1] Pass a Method talk 23:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to explain why and into which article. If you mean merging all of them into one then I'm not sure it is a good idea as it would make it a bit too large. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of a topic merger. I do not watch this page normally. I am back to be uneducated in the matter and would only repeat (copy) my answers from the place where you originated this topic.
When backing a car, my son-in-law is famous for saying "Keep coming until you hear metal!" In this case, I would simply go ahead until you hear screams! Probably one set at a time. Tell which ones exactly you intend to merge. Then, after a couple of days, do it!
The main thing is that Wikipedia is not trying teach its readers Arabic. It's okay to use "Islamic marriage" (or whatever) for the article title, then give it the Islamic name after in the first line of the article. We must stop using non-English words for titles, unless there is absolutely no equivalent whatever in English, which is unlikely. This may help consolidation. Note that the article "Marriage" would need a corresponding link to "Islamic marriage" if there isn't one already. This is just an example which may not be needed at all!
Note that in Catholic marriage, "jurisprudence" is included in the article. "Islamic marital jurisprudence" seems to overreach as a single topic.
Thanks for doing this. Student7 (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the invite PassaMethod. 16 articles are really excessive, and more than that, they can be terribly confusing for the readers. While discussing any religious form of marriage, we should ideally have the main article, an article on Divorce, and articles on any popular or important terms or issues. Accordingly, I would propose the following collation:
So, that would still reduce the article count by 10 at least. Of course, this is just a proposed division, but if someone has a better method, we can use it too. Presently, it is all too cluttered up. Shaad lko (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A merge looks sensible. Both Student7 (go ahead and do it) and Shaad lko (topics to merge) look to be correct (assuming that doesn't end up with too many articles). Disclaimer: I know little about this; I don't even know what Nikah 'urfi is, for example. But I'd prefer it if en articles had en titles, where possible William M. Connolley (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nikah urfi is the marriage without an official signed contract Shaad lko (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a complicated subject is this. We can not deal with topics related to Islam, as we do with Christianity and some religions of the far east (Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto...). The thing is a bit different for Judaism (see: Category:Jewish marital law). In very-very few words, in the 19th century the Ottoman Empire started the so called "Westernization of Islam" (or of the Islamic state/empire). This Westernizing process produced in the 20th century the Sharia and then the Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh). So, there are political and juridical aspects in the rules of Islamic law and its interpretations (Shia and Sunni at least). This is not only a matter of religion, but also of jurisprudence, of common law applied differently in various Islamic countries/states.

The following is my (very humble) opinion (article by article):

  1. Islamic marital jurisprudence: it deserves its own article.
  2. Islam regarding intentions to marry: I'm not sure about this one. It does not appear to be a juriducal term... probably, it should be merged with Islamic marital jurisprudence. There are similar article for Judaism in: Jewish prenuptial agreement and Ketubah. As a stand-alone article, it needs to be expanded (if there is enough material to do so).
  3. Islamic marriage contract: IMHO it deserves its own article, which needs to be expanded.
  4. Rights and obligations of spouses in Islam: The article still needs a lot of work, but it seems to deserve a separate article of its own.
  5. Nikah deserves its own article, but it's a Start-Class article. I think it is necessary to copy parts from Nikah Misyar, Nikah 'urfi and Nikah mut‘ah (if NOT merged).
    1. Nikah Misyar (15,033 bytes) is a different type of marriage and the article isn't so bad to be merged with Nikah. Copy parts of it to Nikah instead, and expand it.
    2. Nikah 'urfi Same as the above, it's a different type of marriage, good enough to be a stand-alone article, please copy parts of it to Nikah (if appropriate) and expand it.
    3. Nikah mut‘ah Again, same as the above two.
  6. Khula and Khul' are the subjects of a merge discussion. I think that these two pages, Khula and Khul', should be merged
  7. Talaq does not need discussion. Do not merge.
    1. Nikah Halala This article confuses me. It's ununderstandable and (eventually) there is a lot to do there. I'm not sure but it's more part of triple talaq than talaq. If there is an Arabic term for describing it in one word, then keep it as a separate article.
  8. Islamic marital practices is a C-class article. Do not merge.
  9. Interfaith marriage in Islam sub-article of Interfaith marriage (as per Interfaith marriage in Judaism and Interfaith marriage and Christianity). In May 2009 was proposed to merge this page to Islamic marital jurisprudence. I've just removed the {{Merge}} template from [ that page]. The result of the discussion was: no discussion. Do not merge and EXPAND!
  10. Beena marriage and historically notable form of marriage, but it's a stub.... It really needs to be expanded.
  11. Polygyny in Islam this has been discussed before. It's a sub-article of Polygyny, and it seems to be similar to Polygamy in Christianity.

Note: There is also a similar discussion on Talk:Islamic_marital_practices#Merge (started by PassaMethod on 12 March 2011), which lists about the same articles listed here (but there was no discussion). Thanks to PassaMethod for bringing this to our attention. I hope that we will work together to achieve the best.

... And, happy editing! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think merge is one of the ways to start putting this in shape. Some of the articles read like personal narratives and would require a good amount of copy-editing too. Regarding the titles, for common nouns we should use en titles (for eg.- Nikah and Talaq can be redirects to Islamic marriage and Divorce in Islam, even though strictly speaking they refer in Arabic only to marriage and divorce (Islamic or unislamic)), while for technical terms (like Muta) we may need that as the title.
@Pjoef - I think Sharia and Fiqh were always there from the early days of Islam - the Ottoman empire did start revising/reintrepreting them to make them more in tune with modern realities. Shaad lko (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the invite. I haven't edited for some days as I've been busy with real life.

Got to go.--Peaceworld 18:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outline above sounds doable. Please translate the words "Nikah", accompanying words and Mahr, Talaq, etc. to a word, or group of words that are understood in English. While English is not an exclusionary language, we must not introduce words in the encyclopedia that are not already in the English vocabulary. And there are several of those. It may not translate "easily" but that is not the point. The point is having a name in English. The article can let readers know in the first sentence that it is called something else in Arabic. It is not important that there were already articles on these. Now is the time to correct that problem so they will actually be read. Student7 (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I believe there shouldn't be standalone Hadith articles as per this guideline. Those 10 articles are only quoting Hadith for or against marital practices, and should be absorbed in the Mutah article. Shaad lko (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


PassMethod, as other editors suggested that you need to be more specific about what to merge/move. Now that you have a good idea of what other editors think, why don't start making individual proposals?--Peaceworld 12:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My first proposal is to redirect Nikah to Marriage in Islam and then improve the content on that article- currently, the latter is getting redirected to Islamic marital practices. The reason is that marital practices can differ by region (while Nikah can be used to give a broader perspective of how Islam as a faith views marriage). Secondly, Nikah means marriage in Arabic, and I am quite sure the lead sentence on that article is incorrect - it says Nikah means a marital contract - which is not true at all. Nikah is the act of marriage or the institution of marriage. Islamic marriage contract already has its own article, which could be a sub-article of Nikah. Shaad lko (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i think all the articles with the same topic should be merged. i.e. there are three articles with "Talaq" in the title - merge all. Also all the hadiths about nikah mutah - merge all with the main artcile Nikah mut‘ah.
Lets do the above first and the rest later. Pass a Method talk 03:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the "talaq" title to "Divorce (Islamic)." There were a lot of other Arabic/Islamic links in that article that I did not change. Too much at once. But they need changing as well. There are some words that are English mainstream, e.g. Shi'a and Sunni and their derivatives. Clearly, these should not be changed. There were not too many others that were mainstream English though. Student7 (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've moved Nikah to Marriage in Islam - let's work there on improving the article. Shaad lko (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Talaq

[edit]

I will merge the Talaq articles together since they are mostly about the same subject. If there are any objections, please voice your opinion below. Pass a Method talk 13:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Kaldari (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Islamic marriage

[edit]

I will merge all the stub articles and non-notable articles into this article. If there are any objections, please voice your opinion below. Pass a Method talk 14:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nikah mutah

[edit]

I have merged all the nikah mutah articles together because it is practised by a small amount of people, hence deserves only 1 article, not 10. If there are any objections, please voice your opinion below. Pass a Method talk 15:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikah mut'ah is a Shiite practice, forbidden to more than 90% of all Muslims. Should stay in its own article. Unflavoured (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the hadings should be changed? the restrictions heading seems inappropriate. Pass a Method talk 00:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arranged and forced marriages

[edit]

The articles states:

  • "This concept however is highly controversial because Hadith indicates that even a virgin requires her permission to be married off and fathers cannot force their daughters into wedlock[ Al Bukhari:6455]. Also citable here is the example of the hadith narrated by Burayda Ibn Al Hasib where a woman wanted to know from the prophet Muhammad if the marriage forced upon her by her father to her cousin could be nullified or revoked. The prophet replied in the affirmative. But the woman said she was happy with her marriage but only wanted for girls to know what a father can and cannot do to his daughter [Ibn Majah:1874;verified as Sahih by Al Buwaysiri]."

This is just not true. The cited hadith does not refer to forced marriages and not even to marriage at all. It reads: "Narrated `Aisha: The family of Muhammad did not eat two meals on one day, but one of the two was of dates.‏" In Arabic: "عَنْ عَائِشَةَ ـ رضى الله عنها ـ قَالَتْ مَا أَكَلَ آلُ مُحَمَّدٍ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَكْلَتَيْنِ فِي يَوْمٍ، إِلاَّ إِحْدَاهُمَا تَمْرٌ‏.‏"

Reference  : Sahih al-Bukhari 6455 In-book reference  : Book 81, Hadith 44 USC-MSA web (English) reference  : Vol. 8, Book 76, Hadith 462 http://sunnah.com/bukhari/81 -- Metron (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]



"Arranged and forced" marriages? A bit like speaking about "fornication and rape", isn't it? Who comes up with this orwellian stuff? 79.112.125.131 (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Islamic marital jurisprudence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Islamic marital jurisprudence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_marital_jurisprudence&oldid=1207629779"