Talk:Sexuality in Islam/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Punishing the rape victim

I don't see how this is an extraordinary claim or why (per NPOV) a viewpoint conflicting with Islam's view of itself should be deleted. Are you saying that honor killings do not happen in any Islamic country, or are you just unhappy to have a viewpoint other than your own made available to readers?

If there is a division of opinion on whether rape victims are punished in Islamic countries, we ought to describe the dispute, not take sides on it by saying that rape victims aren't being punished. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not denying that some rape victims are punished, but saying "Rape is forbidden but/yet/however" is clearly WP:SYNTH that implies that Islam (indirectly) condones and encourages rape, which is an absurd claim that I don't think any reputable Muslim jurist has ever said.

In addition, the paragraph mentions honour killings. Why is it in the section on rape in an article on Islamic jurisprudence (Islamic law) ? do we know of any reputable scholar who condoned honour killings of rape victims ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no original research here, merely pointing out a contradiction between (a) the Muslim claim that rape is forbidden in Islam and (b) a typical newspaper report that says Sharia law (1) punishes the rapist victim but (2) not the rapist.

Also, it doesn't matter what only Muslims say (that view is not a form of bias that Wikipedia endorses). It also doesn't matter only what scholars say. This is not Scholarpedia; any verifiable source is permitted.

I'm sorry that the reported facts disagree with your viewpoint, but removing well-referenced information just because it "promotes" a viewpoint you disagree with is always a violation of NPOV, a core policy at Wikipedia.

Please do not edit war over this, or break project rules. If you have editorial questions, discuss them (which you have started to do), such as:

• In addition, the paragraph mentions honour killings. Why is it in the section on rape in an article on Islamic jurisprudence (Islamic law) ?

The answer is that Honor killings occur in some Islamic countries, just as punishing rape victims justified by Sharia law (an Islamic concept) occurs there.

If you would like to work together (and within Wikipedia guidelines), perhaps you could help me draw the distinction between what is merely a tribal holdover, from before Islam came in and civilized the lands where rape-victim punishment and honor killings still occur - and how Shari law is applied (properly or improperly) according to Islamic scholars.

Discussion works better than deletion, and I'd rather work with you than take this to dispute resolution. I don't think you are deliberately violating the rules but just are unfamiliar with them. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Please provide views by reputable Muslim scholars or non-Muslim experts in Islamic studies who have claimed that rape is part of Sharia. I think it was made clear to you that the introduced changes violate WP:SYNTH. If rape is clearly condoned by Islamic law as you claim, why couldn't you find references other than extremist sources like Jihadwatch and aina.org ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war with you. If you don't accept the reputation of Hasan Mahmud, the Director of Sharia Law of the Muslim Canadian Congress, [1] then you are welcome to craft the article according to your own POV. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"Director of Sharia Law" means nothing if the person holds no qualifications in Islamic studies, which seems to be the case here. If you're looking for a more scholarly work, I suggest this paper on zina and rape in Islamic law (conclusion end of page 14). Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) You were advised by another contributor [] that "Islamic" includes more than just the Koran. There are hadiths, etc. When most English speakers see words like "Islam" or "Islamic" they probably think of the entire Islamic civilization - not just what Muslims say about their religion. So I hope you won't mind if I put back the parts about rape victims being punished for fornication, in Islamic countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think that it would be very wise to take into account the entire history of women in Islam and the current history of Middle Eastern Islam v. the West before making any decisions about whether rape seems permissible by Islamic values. For instance, while said rights may seem wanting now, in a time where tribal women were basically property Islam gave them rights women in most of the world could only dream of. This only continued to improve, until the conflicts between the Middle East and the West became intense and there was a massive cultural backlash against all thing Western - including unfortunately, women’s rights. (i hypothesize that to be a result of feminism being so visible at the time, perhaps combined with remaining tribal values. note that muslim populations around the world do not have the same issues as wahhabists in the ME) Sapientivore (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

biased wording under section ‘children’

i don’t think ‘here’s religion contradicting itself again’ really has a place on wikipedia, please advise and/or correct the passage. i’d have done it myself but struggled with proper flow rephrasing the surroundings Sapientivore (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. I agree and have removed this. This section needs more work but thought this could be a start.

AussieWikiDan (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit conflict with User:AussieWikiDan

I am seeking attention about this recent reverts of AussiWikiDan of my adits, he removed my edits related to pragnancy by intercourse of human and jinn and some other related subjects quoted from given reference book of Brill Publishers and two citation of islamqa.info and islamweb.com. Pregnancy and procreation is a major issue in Islam. So I think the edits should remain. Seeking other's comments. 103.230.107.41 (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

For no one involving in the discussion, I am reverting my edits. 103.230.106.41 (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Please wait for comments, usually a week or a few days - not hours. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Please do not ignore the entirety of my edits by edit warring, see WP:EW. As previously explained on your talk page, your edits contain citations from unreliable sources. A website that is an open FAQ type blog site is NOT reliable. As your whole section relied on one citation I trimmed and removed references to 'multiple sources'. Others content has been removed because the tone is not encyclopaedic. Please do not revert my edits again without discussing.

AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 02:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Consent in concubinage - correction

I corrected the first sentence that erroneously stated that Islamic law required a man to gain consent for sex from his female slaves. The sentence ended with two citations, but neither supports the claim. The second citation (Kecia Ali), explicitly states that consent was not required. The first citation, a hadith, was irrelevant. The hadith refers to an incident when a man raped his wife's slave. Islamic law did not allow men to have sex with their wives' slaves - that is zina (fornication, a criminal offense). Legal concubinage was between a man and his own slave only.

There is no basis to claim that a man would need his slave's consent. Slavery means control - the slave owner can tell his slaves what to do. We might find this objectionable but that is what slavery meant. It would make no sense at all for Muslim jurists to say that a man must ask his slave's consent. They didn't say he needed his wife's consent, so why would he need his slave's consent? Both marriage and slave-ownership were conceived as control over the woman's body.

People don't like to say this because they feel defensive or are afraid of being Islamophobic. But this is unnecessary - there is nothing unusual about Islamic law in this respect. Consent for sex is a very modern idea in most societies. Marital rape did not become a crime in the UK until 1991. The last US states to prohibit marital rape were Oklahoma and North Carolina in 1993. The first, Nebraska, only did so in 1975. In all of the medieval and early modern societies I am familiar with, the law granted men control over women's boides. In many societies a woman's consent was not required to marry her. Even in places where her consent was required for marriage, once married her husband had the right to have sex with her. This is an unpleasant fact about the past and we do no one any favors by hiding it.

Some Muslim jurists stated that a man could not beat or physically mistreat his female slave. This could conceivably mean that if he beat and injured her during sex this would be an offense. But equating this with rape suggests a very problematic attitude to sexual consent. Consent is an active process - modern law does not assume that the woman consented if she didn't resist. In the context of a master-slave relationship, a man likely wouldn't need to use physical force to have sex with his slave. The relationship is inherently coercive. The issue of consent wouldn't even have occurred to the jurists (and indeed, by our standards today, there is no way a slave could consent to anything because of the coercive nature of the relationship). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb212 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Removal of content

@আফতাবুজ্জামান:, why did you removed these contents? :To get rid of pornography, Muhammad had taught many supplications (Dua), two of them are:

"O Allah, I seek refuge in Thee from the evil of what I hear, from the evil of what I see, from the evil of what I speak, from the evil of what I think, and from the evil of my semen" (i.e. sexual passion).

— Abu Dawood, 1551

...O Allah, forgive my his sin, clean my heart, and protect my chastity.”

— Ahmad (22211) and al-Tabarani. Al-Haythami, al-Albani (al-Silsilah al-Sahihah 370)

103.134.25.90 (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Because it is original research. Source doesn’t say what you wrote. And stop editing, i clearly know you're user:Lazy-restless. You are block evading. I know you don't care, so i am going to request steward about you. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I have added them in Islamic sexual jurisprudence#Supplications for being refrained from illegal sexualities, is it now okay? 103.134.25.90 (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@আফতাবুজ্জামান: Check the source clearly, the title of the chapter is overcoming addiction of pornography and "similar addictions". But you are blaming me that I am wrong???? 103.134.25.90 (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes but It doesn't said Muhammad had taught this dua to get rid of pornography. The author of that book suggest that. Also, This article isn't for writing dua. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@আফতাবুজ্জামান:, sorry, you are right, i have asked today a sunni Islamic scholar about that, and he assured me that, supplication doesn't fall under jurisprudence. 103.134.25.90 (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@আফতাবুজ্জামান: see this change, I have given pdf link, you can now surely verify it. I did the edit after completely reading the passage from the book of google book's preview then, but unfortunately google book has restricted the preview recently, that's why you couldn't verify it, and for that, now I have given the pdf download link of the book, so that you can verify it. 103.134.25.90 (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2021

I am requesting to add this part in "intercourse with jinn" section's 2nd paragraph:

Ibn Taymiyyah said::

"The Jinn's possession of humans can be out of a desire or passion — as it exists among humans — and they might have sexual intercourse with them and have children; and this case is common, as mentioned by the scholars. The majority of scholars dislike marriage to Jinn, which might take place out of hatred towards the humans and as a punishment for them — if they (the humans) initially hurt them, by urinating on them, or pouring hot water or killing some of them — even if such acts were carried out unintentionally. Because there is so much ignorance and injustice among the Jinn, they would punish the possessed more than he or she deserves; this punishment could take the form of mockery or pure evil, as violent humans do among themselves. The first case is considered a vice act, which has been forbidden by Allah it, as He has forbidden it among humans, even if both the man and woman consent to it. It is a vice and an unjust act; therefore, the Jinn should be addressed to understand that it is a vice act and/or an injustice so that the proof is highlighted against them, and they should know that the judgment of Allah and His Messenger, who was sent to both Jinn and humans, should be applied on them. [...] The summary of jinn's reasons to possess mankind is as follows: 1. The passion for the male Jinn for a woman or that of the female Jinn for a man. [...]

103.134.25.90 (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what this long original quote is contributing to the article, and there's no context for the suggested insertion. The target section is tagged for clean up, so it's probably best to get consensus before any edits to the section. DrKay (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mellifluous7.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

There is the photo of Prophet, with burakh and Gibrail remove the photo of prophet

119.160.118.111 (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 19:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Intercourse with jinns

It seems like this article has plenty to discuss already without wandering off into the mythological. I suggest that this material on jinns be moved to the page on jinns and that this article remain focused on the topic at hand, which is, I believe, for the sake of clarity, Islamic legal rulings pertaining to realistic and tangible sexual scenarios in human society (in the material world). Iskandar323 (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 6 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Sexuality in Islam per nom. No such user (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Islamic sexual jurisprudence → Sexuality in Islam – This article title is more than a little odd. It gives the impression of being some sort of common name, but these three words have almost zero currency as a set phrase in academic literature. I got exactly 11 Google Scholar hits for it. At the same time, it is an unnatural and unconcise descriptive title. Sexuality in Islam, which currently redirects to it, would be a far better descriptive title. It would also parallel and be consistent with titles such as Sexuality in Judaism and Christianity and sexuality. That the article entails some discussion of Islamic jurisprudence is inherently implied by the fact that we are talking about sexuality in Islam which has a body of religious law covering most aspects of daily life; it does not really need to be said out loud in the article title, which should be focused on delivering recognizability. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Support. Of the points at WP:AT the new title would boost recognizability, naturalness, concision (negligibly), and consistency (per Iskandar323). The article already does, and should continue to, address non-jurisprudential aspects of sex and sexuality in Islamic contexts, so the proposed title is more precise. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 02:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I agreee Uzhan123 (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

P.S. After the move I removed the following paragraph from the lead, that I was unable to find a suitable place for. I find it overly bloated with wikilinks, and value of Arabic translations is questionable, since both the previous and the current are mere descriptive titles in both English and Arabic. I'm dumping it here if anyone wants to reintegrate it somewhere or reuse the references. No such user (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended content

Islamic sexual jurisprudence (Arabic: الفقه الجنسي الإسلامي, Arabic pronunciation: [fiqhu'l dʒin'siːu'l ʔis'laːmiː] or Arabic: فقه النكاح, Arabic pronunciation: [fiqhu'n nikah]) is a part of family, marital, hygienical and criminal jurisprudence of Islam that concerns the User:Uzhan123 this account has only one contribution following suspection as a sockpuppet. Lavito principa (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC) References