Talk:Rape in Islamic law/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Marital rape section again

The current version of the article reads like a whitewash that gives undue weight to exceptions from the main point. Here's a quote from an out-of-universe, scholarly source on the dominant interpretation:

Marital rape is another form of domestic violence for which justifica- tion on the basis of shari’a can be found. Although rape is a punishable crime in every Muslim society, nowhere is the criminal sanction extended to rape within marriage, because sexual access is deemed elemental to the marriage contract. Under shari’a, there is no harm-and thus no crime-in acts of sex between people who are married. Thus, marital rape is literally “uncriminalizable” under dominant interpretations of shari’a. For example, Sura 2, Verse 223, provides a Qur’anic basis for men’s unabridged sexual access to their wives. This verse stipulates that “your wives are ploughing fields for you; go to your field when and as you like.” Although other Qur’anic verses and hadith instruct men not to force themselves sexually upon their wives, this tends to be undermined by the principle of female obedience (see El Alami 1992; El Alami and Hinchcliffe 1996). Indeed, a wife’s refusal to have sex with her husband can be construed as “disobedi- ence,” thereby triggering legalistic justification for beating.

(t · c) buidhe 10:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Following up the discussion from WP:RSN between Grufo, Aquillion, buidhe and an IP. A few things:

• There are various kinds of "prohibition" in Islamic law. Some things are both "haram" and "criminal" and somethings only haram but can't be prosecuted. In 2017, female clerics in Indonesia declared marital rape haram and this was widely covered by sources. This doesn't contradict Hajjar.
• Some sources do indicate that marital rape can be prosecuted. But again, this is not necessarily a contradiction because different sources indicate different laws marital rape can be prosecuted under. Professor Jonathan Brown writes that marital rape was prosecuted under the laws pertaining to harm, not laws pertaining to non-consent. An article in Arab Law Quarterly also mentions that marital rape leads to prosecutions as "act of aggression against a wife". Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah also said that the husband who does marital rape should be taken to court. The popularity of this fatwa by Dar al-Ifta is mentioned in other sources. Quraish Shihab has stated that rape within marriage should not be legally classified as rape but rather as "torture". This position is echoed by PERGAS.
• There are sources that say that marital rape was not recognized by Islamic law, but injury arising from marital rape was criminalized. If Hajjar is only talking about the act of marital rape itself, not any injuries arising from then this is not necessary a contradiction.
• Many scholars point out that the current laws in some Muslim countries are based on English law which didn't criminalize marital rape until 1991. The previous source, Lisa Hajjar and other sources all mention an active debate underway to change those laws.

All these views should be considered.VR _talk 13:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to point out some gross misrepresentation of sources in those listed above by Vice regent. For the claim: Many scholars point out that the current laws in some Muslim countries are based on English law which didn't criminalize marital rape until 1991, Vice Regent's citation is Ong, Aihwa (1999). "Muslim feminism: Citizenship in the shelter of corporatist Islam 1". Citizenship Studies. 3 (3): 355–371. doi:10.1080/13621029908420720.. However, this source says absolutely nothing of the kind. VR's Many scholars is actually Kadis claim that the anti-domestic law does not apply to Muslims, for whom 'family matters' are dealt within in Muslim courts. Thus, in response to women's protests over marital rape, religious clerics insist that, under Islam, a man has the right to marital sex under any circumstances. and does not relate to anything VR claims it does. It's impossible that VR's Many scholars is in reference to the cited paper's own authorship, since there's only one author. VR's misleading the current laws in some Muslim countries is actually the The secular law on rape in Malaysia [in 2007] alone. I agree with Buidhe that VR's arguments and perverse interpretations of academic sources to say the opposite of what they say looks like striving to whitewash or else like special pleading. Where VR uses Tønnessen, Liv (2014). "When rape becomes politics: Negotiating Islamic law reform in Sudan". Women's Studies International Forum. 44: 145–153. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2013.12.003. ISSN 0277-5395. to claim that there is an active debate underway to change those laws what the source really says in relation to Sudanese law on marital rape is that marital rape is perfectly legal and permissible, saying Women activists advocate that marital rape should be criminalized in the Criminal Act and that the requirements for female obedience and male guardianship in the family law should be abolished. Women in government argue for the continuation of qawama (male guardianship), which requires that a woman has the permission of her guardian to marry. Moreover, because the wife has to be obedient to her husband, she cannot deny him sexual intercourse. By this logic, the concept of marital rape does not exist. and While women activists are striving to eradicate the principle of qawama to allow for the criminalization of marital rape, Islamist women, even moderates, continue to defend it. These are the views that should be afforded their due weight - that in Islam in most of the world and throughout most of its existence, marital rape is considered impossible, as VR's own sources state. GPinkerton (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton please assume good faith (WP:AGF) and tone down your language. Jumping to the conclusions of "gross misrepresentation" and "perverse interpretations" is not helpful.

I said Many scholars point out that the current laws in some Muslim countries are based on English law which didn't criminalize marital rape until 1991. (I added a comma to help clarify my comment). The source says,

The secular law on rape is derived from the old English penal code which holds that there is no marital rape because wives do not have the right to withhold sex from their husbands. However, in 1991, the law was changed in England when marital rape was legally recognized as an offense.

While that source mentions Malaysia alone, other Muslim countries inherited their legal system from the English (including Pakistan and Bangladesh). I wasn't correct when I said "current", though. For example, Pakistan inherited its definition of rape from English law, but later dropped the spousal exemption, effectively criminalizing marital rape. If you're objecting to my use of "many scholars" then more sources can be found for Malaysian law inheriting English law.

I said, mention an active debate underway to change those laws [that don't criminalize marital rape].. This is in the sources too and was initially pointed out by Aquillion. Hajjar says

However, such interpretations are neither universal across Muslim societies nor universally accepted even within societies where intrafamily violence is sanctioned on the basis of shari'a. I elaborate on these differences with examples from specific countries in the final section of this article. Here, I would stress the point that interpretations of religion are social and have a history. In this regard, the problem of domestic violence in Muslim societies and struggles against it are comparable to those in other societies, because they raise common questions about the relationship among religion and culture, the state, and women's rights. Moreover, in the contemporary era, the importance of comparative analysis is boosted by the ways that local contestations over women's rights are shaped and affected by the impact of global legal initiatives under the rubric of human rights to regulate and restrict violence.

And Tonnessen says

There are conflicting claims regarding women’s legal rights under Islam on the key issues of consent and obedience. Women activists advocate that marital rape should be criminalized in the Criminal Act and that the requirements for femaleobedience and male guardianship in the family lawshould be abolished.

In addition to those, there active efforts by female clerics and activists in Indonesia to penalize marital rape (or sexual violence inside marriage in gneeral). VR _talk 01:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

None of this goes any way towards disproving that, in Islam, martial rape is generally an inapplicable concept. You were incorrect to cite a source that did not back your claims, which are in any case irrelevant, because a change in either Malaysian or Pakistani law has nothing whatever to do with Islam, whose overwhelming weight of tradition, as evidenced by all of these sources, (e.g. "Muslim societies ... where intrafamily violence is sanctioned on the basis of shari'a" backs the traditional view that rape within marriage is not wrong. English law is completely irrelevant to this discussion and you appear to be engaging in whataboutery. I stand by the "gross misrepresentation" and "perverse interpretations". It would be charitable indeed to assume the errors and omissions were simple mistakes opening up a vast gulf between VR's claims and the sources cited. Assumption of faith is easy, assessing the moral quality of that faith is more difficult. After all, this isn't the first time. GPinkerton (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Which "source that did not back your claims"? I literally posted the quotes from the sources above that back my claims. I'm not sure what "this isn't the first time" is a reference too, but if we're talking about past behavior I could certain provide examples of comments you've made in the past. Seriously, though, I'd rather discuss the topic than each other.VR _talk 01:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@VR I have laid out where you went astray above. You posted quotes from sources which do not back your claims. There doesn't appear to be anything here that supports the notion marital rape is per se impermissible in mainstream Islam. The very fact it is not punishable under Islamic-law legal systems and requires secular legislation to make it punishable in Islamic states demonstrates that Islam per se is/was not opposed to marital rape. The bare reality that some people oppose Indonesia's or Sudan's legal stance on marital rape is not evidence that the long-standing view in the religion as a whole of marital rape as permissible has changed significantly. As far as supporting your claims, the fact that a perpetrator might be collaterally liable for other injuries inflicted during the rape of his wife/wives in this or that school of thought is as immaterial as Pakistan's legal position on the matter. Hajjar's, Tønnessen 's, Serrano's, and Ong's papers all speak of Islam as not criminalizing marital rape, and of the clerics who support the status quo, and their position that "under Islam, a man has the right to marital sex under any circumstances" and "Under shari’a, there is no harm - and thus no crime - in acts of sex between people who are married". To try to dilute this mainstream position with recent and/or fringe interpretations is quite undue. GPinkerton (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Again which claims of mine are not backed up? The claim that some source believe marital rape is not permissible in Islam? I gave several sources to that effect. There a couple more that I didn't mention above. Most of those sources agree that "marital rape" is not ightisab (the crime of rape in Islamic law), but its penalizable nonetheless.

Also, under Islam, a man has the right to marital sex under any circumstances, taken at face value, is a glaring error. The right to even consensual intercourse between spouses is limited by things like menstruation, Ramadan fasting, state of ihram etc. That's basic fiqh and sources for that are aplenty.

Under shari’a, there is no harm - and thus no crime - in acts of sex between people who are married appears, at face value, to contradict sources that penalize sexual injury. One of those source acknowledges that a husband forcing his wife wasn't a crime in classical Islamic law, but points out that any injury resulting from such coercion was criminalized. And while I don't know much about this, I would guess that even though marital rape wasn't a crime in English law before 1991 it would still have been illegal for a man to injure is wife before 1991.VR _talk 04:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Here are the quotes, to make it more clear:

Marital rape in Islam law is similar to other acts of aggression against a wife where she has the right to ask for divorce and prosecutions. As such, the punishment for marital rape is not similar with the severe punishments for ordinary rape.

The world's largest gathering of female Muslim clerics in Indonesia issued a fatwa Thursday that declared marital rape haram—or forbidden—under Islamic law and urged the government to make it illegal.

Here the Shariah historically worked differently from modern laws on marital rape, which originated in the 1970s. But the effect is similar: protection. Within marriage, wrongs regarding sex were not conceived of as violations of consent. They were conceived of as harm inflicted on the wife. And in Islamic history wives could and did go to courts to complain and get judges to order husbands to desist and pay damages. So yes, non-consensual sex is wrong and forbidden in Islam. But the operating element to punish marital rape fell under the concept of harm, not non-consent.

According to Dar al-Ifta, it is illegal for a husband to forcibly engage in sex with his wife.

Pergas is inclined towards the view of majority Muslim scholars, including contemporary Muslim scholars such as Quraish Shihab, renowned scholar from Indonesia, who does not equate forced sexual intercourse without consent as marital rape. Instead, Quraish Shihab categorizes it as torture rather than rape itself...Instead of repealing marital immunity for rape, Pergas is in support of creating a new offence that criminalizes the act [of marital rape] without penalizing it as rape, such as the practice in Malaysia.

VR _talk 04:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely every one of these sources has it that marital rape is not considered rape in Islamic law. The very fact that some clerics have opined that it might nevertheless be impermissible is beside the point. Islam has existed for more than a millennium; Wikipedia is required to treat any recent minority opinions in the context of the overwhelming. I am not encouraged by your curious attacks on your own sources as containing glaring errors, especially when sources are presented which are as weak as a blog-post apology from an individual Muslim, which can hardly be considered reliable. If you'd like to engage in this kind of speculation, we can digress to how the idea the law in England and Wales changed in 1991 is itself wrong and quite misunderstands how English law works. In 1991 a judgement in the well-known R v R case ruled that the Sexual Offences Act 1956's "It is felony for a man to rape a woman" applied to a man who in 1989 had broken into his parents-in-law's house and raped his estranged wife, and that furthermore his appeal against his conviction in 1990, based on the opinion of a judge who had died in 1676 was without basis in law, and, moreover that "There is no similar statement in the works of any earlier English commentator". No "law" made any mention of the issue until the Sexual Offences Act 2003. As should now be obvious, sources unanimously concur that marital rape is not rape in Islamic law. Here are the quotes, to make it more clear:

As such, the punishment for marital rape is not similar with the severe punishments for ordinary rape.

Marital rape itself is not considered "ordinary rape" and is not punishable as such.

The world's largest gathering of female Muslim clerics in Indonesia issued a fatwa Thursday that declared marital rape haram.

The fact this happened as recently as "Thursday" suggests that a religion dreamt up in late antiquity can hardly be represented by a fatwa proceeding from an all-female conference in Indonesia.

According to Dar al-Ifta, it is illegal for a husband to forcibly engage in sex with his wife.

This is the view of the Egyptian state-religious authorities. The Egyptian legal system is not the same as Islam.

Quraish Shihab, ... does not equate forced sexual intercourse without consent as marital rape. Instead, Quraish Shihab categorizes it as torture rather than rape itself...Instead of repealing marital immunity for rape, Pergas is in support of creating a new offence that criminalizes the act [of marital rape] without penalizing it as rape, such as the practice in Malaysia.

Again, the view that marital rape is not rape is manifest; these authorities are explicit in their desire to preserve the doctrine of "marital immunity". Interestingly, this is the same doctrine the R v R judgement called "implied consent", stating it was a "fiction" which had been legally adjudged "anachronistic and offensive" in 1976 in Regina v Steele. GPinkerton (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, you said marital rape is not considered rape in Islamic law, and I agree. In fact the article starts with The majority of Islamic jurists do not recognise marital rape as rape. But The very fact that some clerics have opined that it might nevertheless be impermissible is important and deserves coverage. Thank you for the insight on the English law, it's not a digression at all and actually helpful. At the same time it's not helpful for you to negatively speak about the religion of 25% of the world. It doesn't add to this discussion whatsoever.VR _talk 12:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

References

This edit

Reverted edit (as you can see in diff), per discussion at my talk page. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

@0eaceful: please do not misrepresent sources. The sources specifically say that men can forcibly marry slaves. Please self-revert. Thanks! GrammarDamner how are things? 17:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Show me if I am wrong I will revert. 0eaceful (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Page 252 of The Legal and Social Status of Women in the Hadith Literature states, "if the slave's master was a Muslim he could give her in marriage without her consent". Please self-revert, thanks! GrammarDamner how are things? 17:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

GrammarDamner and 0eaceful the discussion has been happening at Talk:Rape_in_Islamic_law#WP:NOR, please continue it there. No use in having the same discussion in two different sections.VR _talk 17:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually I disagree, Grammar's edit is not a proper summary of pg 252 (which isn't even cited). pg 252+ discusses various circumstances, some of which are forbidden, with or either without consent, and some of which are permitted, with or either without consent. The quote above is talking about one circumstance when it comes to marriage with a person of her (or his for that matter) master's choice which would be forced marriage. In the case of rape Suad Salma's explicit statement on the matter is "Even though, the destiny of a slave girl was in the hand of her master, she had some protection. For instance, no one could attack or rape her" (pg246). She does not make the connection anywhere else so it's a misuse of the source to make these connections ourselves. Please represent the sources correctly and try to look at them holistically rather than mining them for quotepulls. 39.37.165.118 (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Jonathan Brown

Eperoton tells us that Jonathan Brown makes it clear that his views on marital rape in Islam are not widely shared among his peers. This needs to be added to comply with WP:DUE. Or else the text on Brown should be removed altogether for contravening due weight. There have been some improvements on this article recently but there is still too much space being given to the minority viewpoints. The majority viewpoint in Islamic scholarship, we know, does not criminalise forced intercourse with wives. More space should be given to emphasise this. Mcphurphy (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree that Brown is on the scholarly fringe on this point, and we need to give more space to the mainstream. This talk page contains more balance than does the article, and has far more detail and sources. Maybe instead of objecting to all and sundry edits that expand the article, Vice regent could summarize the huge range of sources on spousal rape in about ten paragraphs or so, and we can work on improving things. Then we can move onto the forced marriage, slavery, and concubinage angles, which it is surely ludicrous to claim is not related to rape in Islamic law. GPinkerton (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, what matters is the sources. As OR one could claim that coerced arranged marriages and child marriages are related to rape as well but do the sources make such a connection? Suad Salma clearly doesn't as noted above, thought she does discuss rape in other contexts. Also Eperoton's full quote is:

"Jonathan Brown expanded his view on this topic in his book. As I recall, he does not present it as a modern opinion. He discusses traditional legal views and pre-modern court practice. He also is fairly clear that it is not a perspective that is shared widely among his peers, though he is a prominent scholar and his view merits to be reflected in more detail, based on the book. "

He says his views deserve more rather than less detail than already mentioned. The view that his arguments should be removed is what's ludicrous since he's a subject matter expert, though we can certainly cite him from his books rather than a blogpost. 39.37.165.118 (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead. GPinkerton (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Sadaf Jaffer

GPinkerton, you added [Sadaf Jaffer]], of the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies, criticized Brown and his questioning of "whether Muslim wives have recourse to the idea of sexual consent in their relationships with their husbands". But the source says,

Brown attempted an apology for his statements in his article “Apology without Apologetics,” but, despite the glib title, he continues to engage in apologetics to support his broader argument about slavery and sex slavery in Islamic history. For example, he walks back his earlier questioning of whether Muslim wives have recourse to the idea of sexual consent in their relationships with their husbands, but does not address the issue of a concubine’s lack of legal consent throughout much of Islamic history.

The term "walks back" means to reverse or distance from. So according to Jaffer, Brown's "Apology without Apologetics" is doing the opposite of "questioning of whether Muslim wives have recourse to the idea of sexual consent". Also, this article is about rape in Islam, not all the things professor Brown has said in the past.VR _talk 18:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Also according to Jaffer, Brown's lecture Islam and the Problem of Slavery very much does question that very thing, and generally dilating on the irrelevance of consent in his world-view. GPinkerton (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton. Below is an example of a misquote:

Actual quote:

"For example, he walks back his earlier questioning of whether Muslim wives have recourse to the idea of sexual consent in their relationships with their husbands , but does not address the issue of a concubine’s lack of legal consent throughout much of Islamic history."

Your version:

criticized Brown and his questioning of "whether Muslim wives have recourse to the idea of sexual consent in their relationships with their husbands".

Brown walks back his question and connects it to the idea that Muslim wives have recourse to the idea of sexual consent in their relationships with their husbands. He doesn't question it. He addresses the first point (as Gaffer herself implies) but not the second point. It's concubines he ignores, according to Gaffer. In any case your version is most certainly a misrepresentation of his views, as well as Gaffer's in the case of this specific quote. 39.37.165.118 (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Nothing is misquoted. I begin to suspect a severe case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on your part. We'll use what sources say, not what you'd prefer to interpret them as saying. 02:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton (1) do you agree that Jaffer says Brown's "Apology without Apologetics" walks back from an earlier position? (2) do you agree that "walks back" means "to take back a comment or reverse a decision"? (3) therefore do you agree that Jaffer is saying that Apology without Apologetics reverses the "questioning of whether Muslim wives have recourse to the idea of sexual consent"? VR _talk 02:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you agree this is irrelevant, and that the inconsistency of Brown's own position is not our responsibility to correct? GPinkerton (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, Jaffer is saying the opposite with what you quote her saying. I gave you a logical explanation of your misquotation above, broken down into three statements (1), (2) and (3). What part of that do you disagree with? And if you agree with all three of those statements, then that means you agree that Jaffer was misquoted.VR _talk 02:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you agree that Jaffer saying Brown's "Apology without Apologetics" walks back from an earlier position necessarily requires that Brown's position was exactly that which Jaffer criticizes, and that his subsequent changing of his position when criticized does not change the fact that he held the position to begin with? (2) do you agree that this means your attempt to exclude criticism of Brown is built on nothing at all? GPinkerton (talk) 02:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

What do Brown's earlier positions have to do with this article, when the only thing this article quotes from Brown is "Apology without Apologetics"? Has anyone quoted any of Brown's earlier positions in this article?VR _talk 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Brown talks about his earlier position in his apologetical non-apology, as does Jaffer, who quotes him at length in the document cited. I don't see why we should include his face-saving cover-up if we consider his initial statements undue. GPinkerton (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Lets clarify this: I am of the opinion that if cite Brown's statement A in this article then it would be fair to include a rebuttal to statement A, but not a rebuttal of other statements made by Brown. But you believe that if we cite Brown's statement A, it would be fair to cite a rebuttal to any of Brown's previous statements? VR _talk 13:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOR

This looks like WP:OR. I took a look at some of the sources and they don't seem to be talking about Islam legitimizing rape. If anyone disagrees, please provide the exact quotes below.VR _talk 14:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent:

I agree. One of the sources [4] directly contradicts the statement. On pages 245-246, it says "Even though, the destiny of a slave girl was in the hand of her master, she had some protection. For instance, no one could attack or rape her." Joelaroche (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. Lets remove this for now until it can be shown that sources indeed says what they are purported to say.VR _talk 15:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

"No one" refers to no one but her master, as it is clear from the examples that follow (“In case she was raped, Mälik said ‘her master received an amount equivalent to her loss in value’”). --Grufo (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Grufo I'm leaving the article as it is for now, but removing the OR you added about Quran 2:223 which is not found in the Dar-alIfta source. You have been directly warned about such additions before. 39.37.163.88 (talk) 08:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed it is not found in Dar-alIfta, but it is found in Quran 2:223, which is the source the article talks about in that point. So no, your revert makes no sense. And “me been warned” is you who keep “warning” me every time you don't like something I write. --Grufo (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Grufo, it's not about the Quran verse which I left in. It's about making value judgments and interpretive statements about the Quran that only secondary sources can do. You've been told this before by Eperoton. Take a step back and reflect for a moment. I'm the one sensing some rage here now. 39.37.135.0 (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

(←) None of the sources added by Grufo mention rape and they do not support the sentence Grufo is trying to add. I read the quotes Grufo added along with the sources. If Grufo disagrees, then please quote the sources below. I'm removing the disputed content for now. Please obtain consensus before restoring.VR _talk 17:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Once, I'm asking Grufo to justify the content and sources added here. I read the quotes in question from Pernilla Myrne and Salma Suad, and they don't talk about rape at all. I also followed the google books link and again, no mention of rape. Grufo keeps restoring content added by an indef blocked user without justifying it. The last comment by Grufo on this page was I will not go into details, because discussing with Vice regent is exhausting and I do not have the time now..VR _talk 18:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I guess you want to know how the sources are summarised into the Wikipedia sentence “it allows men …”. Pernilla Myrne formulates it as “Enslaved women could be used for sexual service”, while Salma Suad formulates it as “Their owners had the right to have sexual intercourse with them”. --Grufo (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Grufo neither of them says anything about "rape". Why do you think this material belongs in this article?VR _talk 01:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• This edit was first inserted by User:Balolay, who has since been indefinitely blocked for a variety of reasons. In fact, the user was found using sockpuppets just two days ago. It was later found that the material added did not conform to the sources. Additionally, it is strange to have this material in the lead since it is not covered in the body anywhere. So I'm removing this material. If anyone wants to restore it, then this should be discussed before adding to the article per WP:BRD.VR _talk 20:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The opening disputed sentence about sex slaves which was re added by Grufo without consensus should be removed. Not only is it undue, but more importantly, none of the sources support the statement by using the term consent and rape and this seems to a sysnthesized claim. Suad Salma in particular is clearly talking about the legality and permissibly of the relationships in relation to adultry rather than rape. The points in the source (a through to g) make this clear as does the preceeding sentence which compares the institution of concubinage with marriage ("Islam allowed cohabitation with slave women along side normal marriage"). In any case, as pointed out by Eperoton:

• • "We should be very careful about mixing up traditional Islamic legal notions (ightisab, zina, darar, etc) and modern notions (marital rape, domestic violence). When sources make those connections, we should reflect them accurately, but try hard not to make those connections ourselves." 119.152.128.94 (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

There are some valid points brought up here, thank you people for pointing them out! I will change the language to make sure it matches the source, especially with regards to "consent", "rape", and "marriage". I will also make sure that the material in the lead is covered in the body of the article. Thanks! GrammarDamner how are things? 15:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Grammar, you're not addressing the concerns at all. Where is the 'without any regard for their consent' bit comming from? Which source connects this to consent or to rape which the topic is about? 39.37.165.118 (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Page 252 of The Legal and Social Status of Women in the Hadith Literature states, "if the slave's master was a Muslim he could give her in marriage without her consent". This article is about rape, including marital rape, the conditions of said marriages are very relevant. Hope that clears it up for you, thanks! GrammarDamner how are things? 17:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

That sounds a bit like forced marriage to me and therefore wouldn't belong in this article. In any case, if that's the source you're gonna use, then make sure to only add that source as citation. Do not use sources that you haven't read yourself. As mentioned before these sources don't seem to check out.VR _talk 18:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Please explain how you think marital rape is separate from forced marriage. One is certain to involve the other. This issue is with consent, as well you know. GPinkerton (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we're fast moving out of the scope of this article and into WP:SYNTH territory. "Rape" has historically been defined (both in Islamic law and Western law) as "Forcible sexual intercourse by a man with a woman to whom he is not married." Western law has since changed and Islamic law is slowly changing too. So I think brief discussion of marital rape is warranted in this article. But forced marriage is not directly linked to this topic. In any case, if we did discuss forced marriage, we'd have to also consider the overwhelming majority of scholars (even the most conservative ones) that say forced marriage is against Islam.VR _talk 20:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. The Rape of Persephone is all about forced marriage, and the concept of "rape" covers both, and that, unsurprisingly, is why reliable sources repeatedly speak of forced marriage, implied consent, and marital rape in the same sentence. I don't see any reasoning behind your contention that discussion of marital rape should be "brief". Reference to "the West" as an antithesis of "Islamic law" is whataboutery based on a false dichotomy. The idea that overwhelming majority of scholars ... say forced marriage is against Islam is a nonsense, and might only be true is only considering specifically Islamic scholars that happen to be alive, which is a tiny, tiny fraction. Such omission would hardly be encyclopaedic, and treatment of modern developments is what ought to be considered briefly. GPinkerton (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree that all non-consensual sex is rape
— User:Vice regent

Special pleading? GPinkerton (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually Rape of Persephone involves both r.ape and forced marriage which are interrelated but separate (a woman can be raped in both a regular as well as a forced marriage), but this is irrelevant. In any case, for the umpteenth time what matters is the sources, none of which make the connection to r.ape.

Secondly, marital r.ape is a modern topic and every source here discusses this issue in a modern context rather than a purely historical one, so it makes perfect sense to discuss these views. At least the shift in views towards its existence merits special attention in detail, you've been told this before on the RS noticeboard. 39.37.190.80 (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Sock puppetry by 0eaceful

User 0eaceful (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry and block evasion. According to WP:BLOCKEVASION, the presumption is that any and all of their edits can and should be reverted, by any editor, without further explanation. However, if there is consensus that removing certain material would damage the article, it may remain. I reverted a couple of edits, but don't want to go any further, since I don't have time to do any research on the subject. I wanted to let people know, in the hopes it will help sort out the content dispute that has apparently led to the article being protected for the past week or so. --IamNotU (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I should point out that the material being contested was first added by an exteremely persistent sock named Balolay (et al). The status quo would be to revert to the version before his edits.

P.S I said GrammerDamner was warned not to restore the edits but it was more of a promise/assurance he made in response to a violation of the 3RR which concerned these very same edits. [5]. Apologize for the confusion. 119.152.130.30 (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Marital rape in lead section

I am asking any and all editors to please weigh in on this. We have had multiple discussions on this talk page already regarding this topic, yet Vice regent continues to remove and/or change content against consensus and recently with an edit summary that misrepresents the sources. I recently put the content back in per consensus. Shortly after, an IP editor who almost always agrees with Vice regent reverted my edit. The IP editor also mentioned that I have "been warned not to edit war". I would like to point out that the IP editor is referring to a withdrawn report at AN3 that took an absurdly stringent interpretation of 3RR. The reverts I made that were questioned had been discussed prior to their addition to the article, and they were reverting a sockpuppet mentioned in the section above, a sockpuppet of Vice regent's friend, User:Arsi786. Even though we have already reached consensus about this multiple times, I am asking other editors to weigh in before I fix the content again. Thank you. GrammarDamner how are things? 18:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Huh? The marital rape part is still there. It's the three sources about consent which make no reference to rape at all (one of them has been corrected). This is synthesis. I've already provided the only source where Suad Salma talks about rape above and in her source context presented here, she's actually talking about adultery. Whos misrepresenting the sources here? You'd know this if you had actually participated in the discussion above (you didn't). I've clarified my point about the warning above as well as the socks like Balolay and Koreangauteng whom you really like. Material by socks should be removed. I agree. Balolay added this. But even without that, the removal is justified. You can wikilawyer about the report and your assurances if you want but please be careful when making claims about consensus.

If you want you can add the first full paragraph of the marital rape section though I would consider it unnecessary. Lets see 119.152.130.30 (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

GrammarDamner you promised to never edit-war on this article in exchange for me withdrawing the 3RR complaint. So please discuss and don't revert. There is only one source for the content you seek to include, and I actually provided a quote for that. The other two sources don't support the content, and if you disagree, then please quote the sources below.

Secondly, per MOS:LEADREL this content is not WP:LEAD worthy material.VR _talk 19:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Problematic text in article

The current version of the article has the following problematic text cited to Kecia Ali.

This particular Hanafi position was not prevalent in other schools of thought. Kecia Ali states that while medieval jurists classified rape under the crime of ightisab, no medieval jurist classified marital rape as such. The term ightisab refers to "usurping something that belongs to another by force and against the person's will"; it denotes something "ugly" and "reprehensible". Nevertheless, most medieval jurists made a distinction between forced and consensual sex within marriage.

This is an example of cherrypicking and misrepresentation. Kecia Ali writes the following in Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam about the non-Hanafi stand.

The silence of the Hanafis can be explained easily: a wife's sexual refusal is irrelevant if not accompanied by her deartre from the conjugal hime, because the husband is permitted to have sex with her without her consent. Non-Hanafis do not penalize a husband for forcing sex on his wife, but neither do they explicitly authorize it in the way that al-Khassaf does. For all, marital rape is an oxymoron; rape (ightisab) is a property crime that by definition cannot be committed by a husband.

When Kecia Ali says the Hanafi view on forced sex by husbands was not shared by outsiders to the Hanafi school, she only mean that they did not explicitly authorize it the way Hanafis did. She clearly says non-Hanafis still don't penalise a husband for forcing sex on his wife. Mcphurphy (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I was just about to rectify this (since a fuller and more accurate treatment is quoted in a footnote) when the article protection arrived. GPinkerton (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

What sentence of that paragraph is misrepresented? Every sentence is accurately sourced. I'm ok with adding that non-Hanafis neither penalized nor authorized forced marital sex - but Ali says that in the context of ightisab and that part should accompany the text.

In addition Ali says

The Hanafi view that husbands were entitled to have sex forcibly with their wives when the latter did not have a legitimate reason to refuse sex was not widely shared outside that school. Even the majority of Hanafi thinkers who accepted this doctrine recognized a distinction between forced intercourse and more usual sexual relations between spouses; although both were equally licit, sex by force might be unethical. (page 12, Sexual Ethics and Islam)

That's currently not in the article, but should also be integrated.VR _talk 01:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

That's what I was going to add: the idea that forced and unforced sex are considered "equally licit". GPinkerton (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but that's what Kecia Ali says about the Hanafis. And she says despite considering them equally licit, they consider forced sex unethical. Finally, she says this in the context of early jurists regarding ightisab as something that can't be committed, by definition, by a husband. This is significant because Asifa Quraishi argues that marital rape can be penalized under a different category.VR _talk 02:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

No, the source says "equally licit" and "sex by force might be unethical". Nothing here indicates it was punishable, or even forbidden, in law. GPinkerton (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Kecia Ali doesn't mention marital rape as being punishable, even though she uses the term "unethical". But as I have pointed out, other sources do indicate that it was penalized under other categories. For example, Asifa Quraishi says some jurists penalized marital rape under jirah:

Harm to a sexual organ, therefore, entitles the person harmed to appropriate financial compensation under classical Islamic jirah jurisprudence. Thus, each school of Islamic law has held that where a woman is harmed through sexual intercourse (some include marital intercourse), she is entitled to financial compensation for the harm. Further, where this intercourse was without the consent of the woman, the perpetrator must pay the woman both the basic compensation for the harm, as well as an additional amount based on the diyya (financial compensation for murder, akin to a wrongful death payment).

By contrast Ali is looking at penalty under the law of ightisab. It will be useful to the reader to know how both scholars arrived at their different conclusions.VR _talk 02:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

VR you're delving into WP:SYNTHESIS now. Ali is pretty clear, the non-Hanafis don't penalise forced sex by husbands. Mcphurphy (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, one can't cobble together a third statement from two differing ones. GPinkerton (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I never cobbled together a third sentence. What I did was insist that we mention the context Ali herself gives when she makes the statement.

Here is how I'd write it:

Hina Azam writes that medieval jurists did not address sexual coercion within marriage, but they did address issue of a husband injuring his wife sexually, for which the wife could seek compensation. Kecia Ali states that medieval jurists classified rape as ightisab, a crime which excludes marital rape by definition. She states that while Hanafis believed a husband could have forced sex with his wife, non-Hanafis neither authorized forced sex nor penalized it. Ali writes that most medieval jurists distinguished between consensual and non-consensual marital sex, though both were licit, non-consensual sex could be unethical. By contrast, Asifa Qureshi states that some jurists penalized marital sex that causes harm under the doctrine of jirah in which the wife could seek financial compensation; if the marital sex was non-consensual the husband must pay an additional amount based on the diyya.

VR _talk 18:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Your text does not faithfully represent Asifa Qureshi's views.. Mcphurphy (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Mcphurphy, since you went ahead and added some of the proposed content above, I'm going to go ahead and add the rest of it too, including the Asifa Qureshi content.VR _talk 21:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Fresh start

It seems that there are several (relatively unrelated) disputes here and several editors (including me) have been reverting the page to previous versions, despite some constructive work had been made in the meanwhile. I propose that we restart from this version of the page containing all the disputed passages (I presume?), so that we can list here (again, but concisely) what we think is problematic and what not. Pinging participants since July 2020 Balolay, GrammarDamner, Mcphurphy, Vice regent, Eperoton (I hope I did not forget anyone, and if I did, please ping them too) --Grufo (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Grufo, I don't understand why you are restoring duplicate content?VR _talk 13:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, its rather rich of you to insist your own version as a starting point. Why not say, start from this version last edited by Eperoton. Also, you didn't ping Joelaroche who opposed Balolay's insertions that you restored.VR _talk 13:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit exactly to discuss about it here, as stated in the edit summary (“Vice regent, I just opened a discussion. Please state there what you disagree with before take any action.)”). As for the duplicate content, it looks you are right (removed it now). I believe the version I restored is the longest. Eperoton's version does not contain many later interventions. --Grufo (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi all. I was among the editors summoned on this matter. From what I've been able to sift through since May, it appears the best course of action has already been taken: Citing to the sources with an excerpt of the relevant supporting language. Given that so much of the debate seems centered on interpretations, would it be helpful to put something in there about how some of these laws and views are contested/contestable based on interpretation? Just thinking out loud. Zurkhardo (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC) Zurkhardo

I think that is a good idea, to place competing, opposing or different interpretations in the article. That would provide more information from different viewpoints, so the article gets to be more unbiased.--Thinker78 (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

No mention of following terminologies of Koran

Terminologies:

1) Ma malakat aymanukum & Maal-e-Ghanimat. Meaning: "Your right-hand possession"…Getting married to get freedom. Maal-e-Ghanimat with respect to women captured after the war.

2) Kafir Women

3) There is no word for secularism in Islam/Koran.

volume 2, book 23, number 374: حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو عَامِرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا فُلَيْحُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ، عَنْ هِلاَلِ بْنِ

عَلِيٍّ، عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ قَالَ شَهِدْنَا بِنْتًا لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ وَرَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم جَالِسٌ عَلَى الْقَبْرِ ـ قَالَ فَرَأَيْتُ عَيْنَيْهِ تَدْمَعَانِ قَالَ ـ فَقَالَ ‏"‏ هَلْ مِنْكُمْ رَجُلٌ لَمْ يُقَارِفِ اللَّيْلَةَ ‏"‏‏.‏ فَقَالَ أَبُو طَلْحَةَ أَنَا‏.‏ قَالَ ‏"‏ فَانْزِلْ ‏"‏‏.‏ قَالَ فَنَزَلَ فِي قَبْرِهَا‏.‏v

Source: https://www.sahih-bukhari.com/Pages/Bukhari_2_23.php

Translation: We were (in the funeral procession) of one of the daughters of the Prophet and he was sitting by the side of the grave. I saw his eyes shedding tears. He said, "Is there anyone among you who did not have sexual relations with his wife last night?" Abu Talha replied in the affirmative. And so the Prophet told him to get down in the grave. And so he got down in her grave and had sex/rape with the dead.

This last appears to be a deliberate mistranslation. The Arabic has no mention of the desecration of the deceased, nor does the linked translation. If you need to lie to advance your cause, what value could your cause possibly have?

With regard to the earlier parts of the post: I don't know a Qur'ānic term for secularism. I don't know a Biblical Hebrew or Greek term either. Secularism as such is a modern concept—the term isn't even two centuries old. Modern Arabic of course has a term for it (العلمانية), & classical Arabic had means for talking about irreligion & the contrast between religion & worldliness or religion & civil orders, just as Latin & pre-1850 English had. Pathawi (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)