User talk:GrammarDamner/Archives/2020/July
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Mcphurphy in topic Rape in Islamic law
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:GrammarDamner. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Rape in Islamic law
Thank you for your edits on Rape in Islamic law. Would you like to take a look at the talkpage discussion too? Here is my proposed version[1] of the marital rape section, and here are a list of quotes from the sources I used to write my proposed version.[2] You can cross-check my proposed text with the source quotes. I am also concerned that the present version of the marital rape section is a misrepresentation of the sources. I have explained reasons for my objections to the present version on the relevant talkpage discussion. Mcphurphy (talk) 04:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Mcphurphy, thank you for showing me this. I like your proposed version much better than what is currently on there. Unfortunately, there appears to be some POV-pushing at the article. This style of POV-pushing is a problem in nearly every topic on Wikipedia. Fans of particular people, topics, etc. go to those pages and simply remove negative information. It's honestly becoming depressing for me to deal with, and I'm not sure if I want to continue. I will take a look at the talk page and offer what I can. Thanks! GrammarDamner how are things? 20:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input @GrammarDamner:. There is another article you might be interested in contributing in. Concubinage in Islam. I created it. I would be very eager to hear your thoughts on the content disputes there on the talkpage. Unfortunately, since 17 May[3] some editors keep on making contentious removals of longstanding content there without consensus, in violation of WP:STATUSQUO. Eperoton has also spoken against it.[4][5] Perhaps you could help move us disputants towards a resolution. Mcphurphy (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @Mcphurphy:, thanks for pointing that out. I've taken a brief look at the article and the talk page. At first glance, it doesn't look like I have much to add to the discussion. I find VR's assertion that Islam discourages slavery appalling. All of the Abrahamic religions explicitly permit slavery in their sacred texts. But then again, we should AGF. Perhaps VR is focusing more on modern attitudes with that statement. I'm certainly aware that the vast majority of Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. today overwhelmingly oppose the institution of slavery, especially sexual slavery. However, as I've been saying, it's important not to whitewash these articles, and it's very important to retain history. My only thought on improving the article right now would be to add a short paragraph to the lead that sums up a few points from the "Modern Muslim attitudes" section. Mainly, I think the lead should mention that most Muslims are against slavery, but it should also mention that many are ignorant and/or unaware of the history of slavery in Islam. This is something that should most likely be added to similar articles about slavery in other religions. It also looks like the article's title was changed, is that correct? I think I prefer the original title, as it's more accurate. Finally, as I said, I've only skimmed the article and talk page so far. I will hopefully get a chance to look into everything a little more thoroughly in the near future, maybe I will have more to contribute then. Thanks! GrammarDamner how are things? 15:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- And also, FWIW, I think it is a very well-organized article. GrammarDamner how are things? 15:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I have an entire section on the modern Muslim attitudes, cited to excellent sources, which says that most Muslims today oppose slavery and are unaware of the consensus in classical Islamic law which endorses it.[6]. And yes the article title was originally Sexual slavery in Islam. Lots of move-warring on both sides since May. Mcphurphy (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- And also, FWIW, I think it is a very well-organized article. GrammarDamner how are things? 15:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @Mcphurphy:, thanks for pointing that out. I've taken a brief look at the article and the talk page. At first glance, it doesn't look like I have much to add to the discussion. I find VR's assertion that Islam discourages slavery appalling. All of the Abrahamic religions explicitly permit slavery in their sacred texts. But then again, we should AGF. Perhaps VR is focusing more on modern attitudes with that statement. I'm certainly aware that the vast majority of Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. today overwhelmingly oppose the institution of slavery, especially sexual slavery. However, as I've been saying, it's important not to whitewash these articles, and it's very important to retain history. My only thought on improving the article right now would be to add a short paragraph to the lead that sums up a few points from the "Modern Muslim attitudes" section. Mainly, I think the lead should mention that most Muslims are against slavery, but it should also mention that many are ignorant and/or unaware of the history of slavery in Islam. This is something that should most likely be added to similar articles about slavery in other religions. It also looks like the article's title was changed, is that correct? I think I prefer the original title, as it's more accurate. Finally, as I said, I've only skimmed the article and talk page so far. I will hopefully get a chance to look into everything a little more thoroughly in the near future, maybe I will have more to contribute then. Thanks! GrammarDamner how are things? 15:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input @GrammarDamner:. There is another article you might be interested in contributing in. Concubinage in Islam. I created it. I would be very eager to hear your thoughts on the content disputes there on the talkpage. Unfortunately, since 17 May[3] some editors keep on making contentious removals of longstanding content there without consensus, in violation of WP:STATUSQUO. Eperoton has also spoken against it.[4][5] Perhaps you could help move us disputants towards a resolution. Mcphurphy (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)