Talk:Sexuality in Islam/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Millionth topic pool

I was quite surprised to see this perfectly legitimate and encyclopedic topic on Wikipedia:Millionth topic pool. --BD2412 03:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Burqa Use

• How "common" is the burqa? I thought it is only worn in a few countries and not universally there. Its use in Afghanistan for example has declined sharply since the fall of the Taliban. I believe it is almost non-existant in some of the largest Muslim countries such as Indonesia and Turkey. --Polynova 03:20, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • My gut response, from seeing footage of Muslim countries on TV is to say that it's pretty common - but that is frankly a response based on ignorance. I could be completely wrong, but I anticipate that someone who knows more than I will come along and correct any of my misperceptions that may have leaked into the article. --BD2412 03:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmm, I haven't been to the Middle-East but I lived in SE Asia for along time and Polynova is right, it's not particulary common in Indonesia or Malaysia and I wouldn't say it's that common among Muslim living outside Muslim countries, it was certainly not my experience in Dublin, Ireland living across the road from the biggest mosque in Ireland (it's not that big though, there aren't that many Muslims here) nor in any other countries I've visited... Anyway don't take this as an attack, it's not really a big deal, but I think it's best to remove the word "common" if it's being disputed. I think use of the khimar, the headscarf or veil is more common however I don't know how to integrate that into this article... there is more info at Hijab, External Hijab and Islam and clothing if you're up to it! :-) -- Lochaber 11:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Agree with removing "common". Not up to additional research on this topic just yet (hands full with law topics) but if no one else expands on it, I will get back to it at some point. -- 8^D BD2412^gab 12:36, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
        • Instead of using burqa, why not say Hijab so that all sects of Islam are included?

Prohibitions on sex

• Re: "Although the Quran specifically forbids intercourse during a woman's period of menstruation, there is no other general prohibition on sexual relations within the marriage itself." Isn't sex prohibited in daylight hours during Ramadan? I believe it is also prohibited to those making the hajj pilgrimage. If this is true, the quoted section needs to be changed. --Polynova 03:20, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, here I was going entirely on what I read on the first external link, which seemed fairly comprehensive. If I'm wrong, see response to question 1. --BD2412 03:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

revision

A REALLY GREAT job! I propose to take a look att the Muslim guild to see some proposed standards regarding hadith and Quran quotation. Also, i insit on having the fatwa included. again, a great job!

--Striver 03:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Agh, I was going in phases and we were editing at the same time ... I *hope* I got whatever changes you made reconciled back into it; sincere apologies if I didn't. Hadith ... definitely want to root through and pick out at least one unified, sourceable translation rather than the slapdash deal. And if you've standards for quoting them, I'd love to see them.  :) Qur'an passages are Haleem just because it's the one on my desk right now ... honestly, might have to switch them out to Yusuf Ali or something; copyright, fair use, yada yada. Since it has to be in english I hate to lose the comprehendible style english, though. --M. Landers 04:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

External link removed

66.226.196.12 removed this external link from the article, Critical article on Sex and Sexuality in Islam from Islam Review, explaining "I have removed the following link because the article is absolutely false, wrong, and incorrectly and grossly portrays women in Islam." I do not disagree with this assessment, but I do not know enough about the topic to discern if that is an accurate characterization of the article, and would welcome additional comments. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality

"It is not always clear whether or not the Qur'an specifically refers to female homosexuality."

Actually it seems to be very clear on the matter, as can be seen from these various translations: [Noble Qur'an]

004.015 - 004.016

YUSUFALI:

15 If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.

16 If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.

PICKTHAL:

15 As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation).

16 And as for the two of you who are guilty thereof, punish them both. And if they repent and improve, then let them be. Lo! Allah is ever relenting, Merciful.

SHAKIR:

15 And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them.

16 And as for the two who are guilty of indecency from among you, give them both a punishment; then if they repent and amend, turn aside from them; surely Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.

They all seem to say that what is prohibited to women (lewdess or indecency) is also prohibited to men and lewdness or indecency may be taken to mean (in part) homosexuality. This can be seen from the story of Lot taken from . . .

007.080 - 007.081

YUSUFALI:

80 We also (sent) Lut: He said to his people: "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you?

81 "For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women : ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds."

PICKTHAL:

80 And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?

81 Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk.

SHAKIR:

80 And (We sent) Lut when he said to his people: What! do you commit an indecency which any one in the world has not done before you?

81 Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people.

Thus:

... lusts on men in preference to women ... (007.081 : YUSUFALI) is identified as commit(ing) lewdness (007.080 : YUSUFALI) and lewdess is the same for women as it is for men.

rape

Here is some guys comment about rape: http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006050803122

--Striver 03:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Adolescent sexuality article

The Adolescent sexuality article needs a broader perspective, an Islamic perspective would be useful, please have a look at it. Paul foord 00:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem

"Sex outside of marriage" is not the same as Adultery, though this article treats them as identical. We need sources and references for the Islamic view of the (lesser sin of?) pre-marital sex as well. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

13 yr old rape victim stoned to death

In Somalia 1000 people enjoyed watching a live Snuff film of a 13 yr old rape victim be stoned in a football stadium. -->http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/11/01/amnesty.rape.somalia.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Interfaith

I noticed that several Islamic views on sexual morality were somewhat close to those taught by the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. I feel that these common views ought to made more clear, given that they might one day lead to some useful interfaith collaboration. Another issue would be to try and verify whether there is a dissident minority within Islam that is opposed to contraception. ADM (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with you noticing a commonality is that we have to avoid synthesizing a theory of similarity that has not been published by any reliable sources.--Vidkun (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect conclusion on oral sex?

From the article as it now stands: "Sunni Islam does consider that the consumption of sperm to be haram. As such many Sunni scholars consider orally stimulating the male sexual organ to be Haram or unlawful ...". Following the article references for this statement, however, we find:

If, on the other hand, you mean to ask whether married couples are allowed to derive pleasure in this way from each other, then the answer is, yes, provided they are doing so consensually. ref #1

As for oral sex between the husband and wife, most Muslim scholars see that it is a detestable act that doesn’t reach the category of that which is prohibited ref #2 (this reference seems to have a very handy partial list of "taboo" sexual activities in Islam)

... that all acts that aim at satisfying and pleasing the spouses are allowable so long as two things are avoided, that is anal sex and having sex with a wife while she is still in her menstruation. Thus, it is permissible for a husband and a wife to practice cunnilingus and fellatio. ref #3

As for oral sex, it is only permitted as a way of stimulation and foreplay. Scholars say that it is Makrooh to do it with the intention of ejaculating in wife’s mouth. This is based on the jurists’ views regarding the impurity of sperm and Madhy. ref #4

The 5th reference noted has actually got nothing to do with oral sex ... and I can't find anything in the 6th or 7th references either.

I'm pretty sure that the point is made: fellatio is not considered to be "Haram or unlawful", and there is only a debate on whether the consumption of sperm is undesirable or not (which isn't the same thing as being unlawful/forbidden). The article should be changed to reflect this -- and whilst we're at it, the article on "Religion and sexuality" contains the same erroneous claim about oral sex. 41.243.204.49 (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Poor Translation from Arabic Original Script of Quran

Under the section on Homosexuality, the Quranic verse 4:16 was mistranslated. As a native Arabic speaker and heavy reader of traditional books, it is easy to understand the original script that says "Walladhani Ya'tiyaniha Minkum...." the verse. The translation of the word "Walladhani" is "And those two who" and the misconception came from having a special word to refer to the couple of females, which is "Wallatani". But the translator forgot that if the couple is composed of both genders -male and female-, then the grammatical rule is that the male takes precedence and they are referred to using the word "Walladhani". Besides, there is no other sign in the context that can be related to homosexuality.

After all, homosexuality is clearly forbidden in Islamic law. The issue is having translators who are poor in Arabic to translate the highest Arabic scripture which is Quran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zadli2 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate Information on Punishment of Pre-marital Sex

The author has stated that "While the strictest forms of Sunni law can prescribe the death penalty for adultery, however in Shia law pre-marital sex is considered a lesser offence and might be punishable by a maximum of 100 lashes to the male; while married couples have their spouse whom they should turn towards for fulfillment".

The author has apparently confused two different punishments in the sunni law itself that are set for two different categories of people who commit adultery; pre-married and extra-married. While death penalty is for extra-married, pre-married adultery is punished by exactly 100 lashes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zadli2 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Rape

I've read tons of information on girls getting raped - and then punished as sex criminals, while the rapist gets off scott free. This is so opposite to Western jurisprudence that it ought to be mentioned in the article ... unless it's a fiction created by US conservatives to smear the "religion of peace".

But see honor killings. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried to write about rape, but somebody declared my edit to be "POV" and erased it. Is this because he personally thinks rape is okay, or because I didn't provide proper sources? Or is it Wikipedia policy not to cover controversial subjects? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You're seriously defending this edit? Seriously? rpeh •T•C•E• 20:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war with you on this. But I recall reading in many places about Islamic countries where women are (a) raped and (b) punished for illicit sex while the rapist goes free (see honor killing).

If this is not common knowledge, the I hope other contributors to this article will help me find the references. I don't always keep good notes when I read; sometimes I just soak up knowledge.

Or perhaps the question is whether we should limit this article to what the Koran says and have another article on Sex and justice in Islamic countries? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I haven't removed any of your posts except the first one, which was an un-cited, POV-pushing, signed post on a mainspace article. In other words, it broke at least three site rules so don't start accusing me of thinking rape is okay, or edit warring. Okay? rpeh •T•C•E• 14:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Sorry, Rpeh, I do not mean to imply that you hold (or are pushing) any particular viewpoint on rape. I have taggeded my offending comment with strikeout markup, and on request I will delete the marked-up phrase. Fair enough? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

More than fair. Thank you. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed claims that rape is overlooked in Islamic countries. Do you have any statistics for that other than anecdotal evidence ? Also removed the nonsense that honor killings are an extension of Islamic law. Honor killings existed in some cultures before they were conquered by Muslims. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view.

Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.

If you feel that the viewpoint expressed by the source I quoted is one-sided, you are free to add a source which disagrees. But simply censoring an idea because you're not convinced isn't right. If you can't give a reason why the material I included must be deleted, I intend to restore it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Colgate Jurisprudence Class

We are a student group from Colgate University and enrolled in an Islamic Jurisprudence course. We aim to edit this page for content and for proper citations building off of the existing work Jjacoby13 (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Repeated Information

This article has quite a bit of repeated information and needs to be cleaned up. I do not have the time, but figured it should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.96.98 (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Repetition

Point 8 and 10 seem to be redundant? --37.24.1.3 (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The page in question was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex with reference to the Quran. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

---

I propose that Sex with Reference to Quran be merged into Islamic sexual jurisprudence. I think that the content in the "Sex with Reference to Quran" article can easily be explained in the context of "Islamic sexual jurisprudence", and the "Islamic sexual jurisprudence" article is of a reasonable size that the merging of "Sex with Reference to Quran" will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Sex with Reference to Quran is a new article and although it is talking about the same topic yet it may have more information which can be added to this article. I other editors to discuss this. Pixarh (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That article was recently created by YdhaW (talk · contribs) and looks like a WP:Student assignment. It needs cleanup, and the poor references should be discarded. But I agree that there is no need for it to be its own article. Flyer22 (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on suggestion to merge the following two Articles;

• Article 1: Sex with Reference to Quran
• Article 2 : Islamic sexual jurisprudence

I, the writer of Article 1, would kindly object to the above suggestion for the following reasons;

1. I presume “the poor references”, mentioned by Flyer 22, are the bloggers I have referenced. I would agree that these references are not suitable to be considered in the same context as Jurisprudence references. They are my attempt to illustrate some of the problems that Muslims of today are facing in the light of their sexual orientation. They want to know if and what solution(s) is open to them within the verses of Quran. This is precisely why I am not in favour of Articles 1 and 2 being merged. They want to know what the Quran says.

2. I wrote Article 1 as an alternative to Article 2 and not as complementary to it, otherwise I could have instead simply edited Article 2 with my contribution. Article 1 refers to 142 verses from the Quran and only one well-known hadeeth (statement from Prophet Mohammad). The focus of Article 1 is primarily on the Quran. Unlike the scope of Article 2, Article 1 does not rely on the various Muslim cultures, traditions, sects, scholars or historical jurisprudence and the word “Fatwa” is deliberately not mentioned in it.

3. Article 1 makes it clear from the start that Muslims believe in “personal responsibility” and do not believe in “vicarious atonement”. The Quran repeatedly stresses the message to mankind that each person is responsible for his or her own actions and that on Judgment Day everyone will be resurrected and each human will individually have to answer directly to GOD for their every word, thought and deed. Muslims are therefore required to listen to the Quran and comply, and may also listen to scholars and fatwas but without obligation. There has been erroneous Fatwas on some vital issues; including but not limited to “marriageable age” and “lesbianism”.

4. Only through closer and direct contemplation of the Quran can one comprehend the vast gulf between traditional practices and the Quranic position on such practices. For example; words like “homosexuality” and “gay” traditionally refer equally to men and women. The Quranic position on Man-Man Sex and Woman-Woman Sex are very different, the first is deplored in no uncertain terms whilst the second is not.

It is hoped that future editors to Article 1 find it the proper platform to write their contributions with only focused citations from and references to the Quran, as Article 1 title suggests.User:YdhaW|YdhaW]] (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

{NB. Please note I am not a student and Article 1 is not a "Student Assignment")YdhaW (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm thinking more of delete. I tried to improve the article, but ended up tagging a bunch of issues, the most important being that it seems to be an essay of the writer's view and interpretation of sex according to the Qur'an. - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• HyperGaruda: I support the delete Idea, it really reads like an essay, not an encyclopedic article. --Mhhossein (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• HyperGaruda Delete per WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOTESSAY. This isn't written in an encyclopedic way and relies in a personal interpretation of the Quran, which is a primary source. Rupert Loup (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2015 (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.

Thighing

I do not see a section explaining Islamic attitudes towards intercrural sex or other forms of outercourse. I am wondering what would be good term for such a section and what discussions of it would be most relevant.

For example if it is okay to do this when penetration cannot happen due to menstruation or size differences. In reading about this I came across the term mufa’khathat and wanted to know it importance and exact meaning and colloquial usage.

Supposedly divine example of this is given in the Sahih al-Bukhari 231-233 but I do not know which English translations of this to trust. I am wondering if someone knows if any reliable sources confirm outercourse to be discussed in these 3 passages. Supposedly it discusses cleanup but I am not sure in what year.

Also read a 2011 claim of “Mufakhazat Alzigaar” referring to thighing but am also suspicious of it. In both cases I tried plugging these romnizations into Arabic to English on Google Translate but got no useful suggestions. --174.92.135.167 (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Islamic sexual jurisprudence

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Islamic sexual jurisprudence's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "kiss":

• From Islamic views on oral sex: Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari (14 June 2003). "Kissing and Foreplay". Darul Iftaa. Central-Mosque.com. Retrieved 8 July 2012.
• From Criticism of Islam: Ahmad, Kassim. "Hadith: A Re-evaluation", 1986. English translation 1997

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Pedophilia

I've read the whole article about islamic sexual jurisprudence and I haven't seen one thing: there's no section about pedophilia in islam. It's not a secret for anybody that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) married a nine years old girl. so I advice you, dear editors, to create a special section in that article concerning pedophilia in the 'religion of peace'. readers must know the truth about it. Thank you so much for your attention. --188.170.196.200 (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

1) her age is heavily debated, most think it likely that consummation did not occur until sexual maturity 2) this practice was incredibly widespread at the time and should not reflect on Islam or the Prophet 3) the mother of Jesus was also a child when she was married, have you been making a fuss about that or do you just not like ‘the religion of peace’ (something i’ve yet to see said, especially in scare quotes, by anyone who actually respects islam) Sapientivore (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Islamic sexual 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaE&cid=1119503545032
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215054059/http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaE&cid=1119503543866 to http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaE&cid=1119503543866
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215054251/http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaE&cid=1119503547172 to http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaE&cid=1119503547172

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) 10:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Islamic sexual 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120716152023/http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1731&CATE=115 to http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1731&CATE=115
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120716180532/http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?id=13339&hd=3&cate=0&t=rss to http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?id=13339&hd=3&cate=0&t=rss
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091122171200/http://www.sfusd.k12.ca.us/schwww/sch618/ibn_battuta/Slavery.html to http://www.sfusd.k12.ca.us/schwww/sch618/Ibn_Battuta/Slavery.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206191833/http://www.alinaam.org.za/library/homos.htm to http://www.alinaam.org.za/library/homos.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927174045/http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/Women/rape_in_islam.asp to http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/Women/rape_in_islam.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060428044620/http://progressiveislam.org/women/index.php/Sex%2C_Birth_Control_and_Pregnancy to http://progressiveislam.org/women/index.php/Sex%2C_Birth_Control_and_Pregnancy
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051201010701/http://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/muslim/mus-index.html to http://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/muslim/mus-index.html

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) 23:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Islamic sexual 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603085041/http://muslimaccess.com/ to http://www.muslimaccess.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415032643/http://www.islaam.net/main/display.php?id=391&category=134 to http://www.islaam.net/main/display.php?id=391&category=134

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) 10:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Proof

@14.203.129.249: The quote cannot be found in the book about the abu hania part link down below and kecia ali agrees that islam does ask for consent but was shocked other scholars didn't think so. https://archive.org/details/IslamicJurisprudenceAccordingToTheFourSunniSchoolsAlFiqhalaAlMadhahibAlArbaah/page/n17 arsi786 (talk) 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Arsi786: first of all why do you keep on modifying the quote in the source when you know that what you are modifying it into is not the real text?

secondly you have posted the link of the first volume. The quote is in volume 4

Here's the full quote in Al-Fiqh ala al-Mazahib Al-Arba'a (Vol. 4, p. 488) by Abd Arabic Rahman Al Gaziri

"The accepted understanding in the different schools of jurisprudence is that what has been contracted in marriage is for the benefit of the man from the woman, not the opposite." The followers of Imam Malik declared that the marriage contract is a contract of ownership of benefit of the sexual organ of the woman and the rest of her body

The followers of Imam Shafi said; "The most accepted view is that what has been contracted upon is the woman, that is, the benefit derived from her sexual organ." Others state, "What has been contracted is both the man and the woman ". According to the first opinion, the wife cannot demand sex from her husband because it is his right, not hers. According to the second opinion, she can demand to have sex with him

The followers Imam Abu Hanifa said, "The right of sexual pleasure belongs to the man, not the woman; by that it is meant that the man has the right to force the woman to gratify himself sexually. She, on the other hand, does not have the right to force him to have sex with her except once (in a lifetime). But he must from the religious point of view have sex with her to protect her from being morally corrupt

Kecia Ali's opinion is her own. Muslims do not follow Kecia Ali. Muslims follow the Imam Abu Hanifah, Shafi and Iman Malik 14.203.129.249 (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@14.203.129.249: Could you share a link or a pdf on where you found such information there is no volume 4 that I could find and I have copied and pasted the information youj have put here in the article for the time being. arsi786 (talk) 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Arsi786: you have not copied and pasted it correctly. The original quote I posted said

by that it is meant that the man has the right to force the woman to gratify himself sexually.

You have removed the "right to force" bit.

Secondly you have changed "the followers of imam abu hanifah" to "some followers of imam abu hanifah"...when you know thats not the original quote.

As for Kecia ali, it turns out from her full article that a master does not need the slave's consent for sex.

Did a man who wanted to have sex with his own female slave need to obtain her consent for that relationship to be licit according to early Muslim jurists? It is difficult to prove a negative, but the answer seems to be a clear no. Any argument must be largely from silence, as the sources simply do not discuss the issue. I recall no instance in any Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi- i, or Hanbali text from the 8th to 10th centuries where anyone asserts that an owner must obtain his female slave’s consent before having sex with her. Indeed, I am aware of no case where anyone asks whether her consent is necessary or even asserts that it is not required. The mere absence of discussion proves nothing, of course. Sometimes things escape mention because they are universally accepted. What jurists take for granted—particularly across madhhab boundaries—is often more telling than what they state explicitly. One could perhaps argue that slaves’ consent to sexual relationships with their masters was such an obvious requirement that no one thought it necessary to mention. Yet in sharp contrast to their silence about slaves’ consent to sex with their owners, scholars paid significant attention to consent to marriage. They agreed unanimously that an enslaved female’s consent was never required for a marriage contracted by her owner. Al-Shafi- i (d. 820) is typical: “He may marry off his female slave without her permission whether she is a virgin or non-virgin.”7 It strains logic to suggest that an enslaved woman is subject to being married off without her consent or against her will to whomever her owner chooses but that he cannot have sex with her himself without her consent

Source: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/F8E807073C33F403A91C1ACA0CFA47FD/S0020743816001203a.pdf/div-class-title-concubinage-and-consent-div.pdf 14.203.129.249 (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@14.203.129.249: Leave kecia ali's full quote and it seems she's not sure with it herself and its some as not all hanafi scholars agreed it with use some common sense where is link for the four madhab ruling part like I asked for at least show proof your word means nothing. arsi786 (talk) 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Arsi786: Kecia Ali is pretty clear. The answer on is consent necessary is a no. I can read Arabic and have the original text in Arabic too on what the Hanafi scholars say. There is no need to add the "some" qualification. Secondly, you have provided the views of other Hanafi scholars only on whether sex is a woman's right or not. Not any that disagree with allowing a man to force toe woman to gratify him. 58.171.86.132 (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@14.203.129.249: @58.171.86.132: Read what kecia ali herself said she is conflicted scholars have not explicitly said you can force slave girls into bed and I again its what you said the link given as a reference gives you the first volume of the book according to you there is volume four that says so in english but that's not proof you have to show actual proof and then give a link leading to where you got the quote from if not its not valid or a confirmed reference unless you can find a valid source explicitly stating a man can force himself on his wife I'll let this go. Arsi786 (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Arsi786: Kecia Ali is not conflicted, she has quite a clear conclusion. The volume of the book is not available online, I have the hardcopy in Arabic. Wikipedia allows us to use offline sources. You also cannot copy everything I gave you word for word, as that is a violation of wikipedia's copyright policies.58.171.86.132 (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@58.171.86.132: Kecia Ali said:

Did a man who wanted to have sex with his own female slave need to obtain her consent for that relationship to be licit according to early Muslim jurists? It is difficult to prove a negative, but the answer seems to be a clear no. Any argument must be largely from silence, as the sources simply do not discuss the issue. I recall no instance in any Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi- i, or Hanbali text from the 8th to 10th centuries where anyone asserts that an owner must obtain his female slave’s consent before having sex with her. Indeed, I am aware of no case where anyone asks whether her consent is necessary or even asserts that it is not required. The mere absence of discussion proves nothing, of course. Sometimes things escape mention because they are universally accepted. What jurists take for granted—particularly across madhhab boundaries—is often more telling than what they state explicitly. One could perhaps argue that slaves’ consent to sexual relationships with their masters was such an obvious requirement that no one thought it necessary to mention.

Read that slowly so its gets in your head there is no where written explicitly allowing that and I still don't believe you if its a known thing that all hanafi's scholars agree with surely you could find another source stating it I can provide plenty of islamic websites saying you can't force yourself on your wife even a hanafi site stating so and you referenced the wrong book ISBN 978-1887752978 this one is for the first volume not the fourth one https://www.amazon.com.br/Islamic-Jurisprudence-According-Sunni-Schools/dp/1887752978 so I am not gonna take your word for it. Arsi786 (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC) Arsi786 (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Arsi786: Again you are only quoting parts of the texts I have provided and cutting out parts which don't fit your POV.

There are numerous sources which say that Islam does not recognise the concept of marital rape. For instance,

"Is the forcible sexual intercourse made by him upon his wife qualified as a rape or commonly known as marital rape? Dealing with the above question, the majority of Muslim jurists are of the opinion that the mentioned fact is not a rape. Since rape has commonly been understood as a forcible penile penetration in a vagina belonging to a woman other than the man's wife, hence it is difficult to accept the idea of marital rape in Muslim countries, including in Indonesia."

Source: https://www.academia.edu/40737308/Islamic_Perspective_on_Marital_Rape 14.203.129.249 (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@58.171.86.132:@14.203.129.249:

Did you even read the article you gave and plus I asked for hanafi scholars.

"Considering the nature of the relationship between husband and wife in Islamic teaching, it is difficult to imagine the existence of marital rape, since the husband is bound with the obligationton treat her wife well (mu'asyarah bil ma'ruf). In sexual matter, the doctrine of mu'asyarah bilma'ruf can be applied by respecting the need and the willingness of the wife in sexual matter. Meaning to say, the husband is obliged to fulfill his wife sexual desire in one side, and he is not suggested to force her wife to serve him sexually if she is unwilling. It is better for the husband to sacrifice himself (to be patient) rather than sacrificing his wife. A good husband must be wise in choosing the better choice relating to the above issue. A good husband must be patient (shabr)for not saying that who is not patient is not good husband."

or

On the other hand, Quraish Shihab as quoted by Milda Marlia states that rape is unlawfuleven though it is carried out upon someone's wife. In Islam, the wife is obliged to obey herhusband instruction. However, if the demand or instruction of the husband contravenes with theIslamic rules such as asking for sexual service when his wife is in the moment of nifas (post-maternity bleeding), it is prohibited for the wife to fulfill her husband demand, and she may report the husband to the judge. In answering the question about the possibility of marital rapeto be ruled in the penal code, Quraish prefer to qualify marital rape under category of torturerather than rape itself. Abdul Wahib and Muhammad Irfan explain that term marital rape is unknown in Islam. Theissue of sexual intercourse has been ruled in under Islamic teaching of ethic (akhlaq) among otherthings are the obligation of husband to treat his wife with good manner and the obligation of wife to provide sexual service when her husband demand it.

What about these sites are they wrong now?

Islamic scholars describe that marital rape occurs when the man asks his wife to have sexual intercourse during her menstrual period or in an abnormal sexual position or during fasting hours in Ramadan. God gave the woman the right to refrain from her husband as God says, “And they ask you about menstruation. Say, "It is harm, so keep away from wives during menstruation. And do not approach them until they are pure. And when they have purified themselves, then come to them from where Allah has ordained for you. Indeed, Allah loves those who are constantly repentant and loves those who purify themselves." 2:222 If the husband used violence to force his wife to sleep with him, he is legally a sinner and she has the right to go to court and file a complaint against him to get punished. The woman also has the right to refuse to engage in sexual relationship with her husband if he has a contagious disease or use violence which hurts her body during the sexual intercourse.

http://www.dar-alifta.org/Foreign/ViewFatwa.aspx?ID=6033 Daratul ifta al misriyyah one of the biggest islamic institutes in egpyt.

Also from a hanafi fiqh fatwa site:

Imam al-Nawawi (Allah have mercy on him) states in his commentary on the Hadith of Abu Huraira stated above:

“This Hadith indicates that it is unlawful (haram) for the wife to refuse her husband for sexual intimacy without a valid reason. Menstruation will not be considered a valid reason, for the husband has a right to enjoy her from above the garment (on top of cloths).” (Sharh Sahih Muslim, P. 1084)

However, the above does not in any way mean that the husband may force himself over her for sexual gratification. The Hadith mentions “the husband spends the night in anger or being displeased” which clearly shows that he must restrain himself from forcing himself over her. Had this not been the case, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) would have advised the husband to gain his right in a forceful manner.

Similarly, it should be remembered here that, the wife must obey her husband in his request for sexual intimacy unless she has a valid reason. She must obey his as long as she does not have to forego her own rights. As such, if the wife is ill, fears physical harm or she is emotionally drained, etc; she will not be obliged to comply with her husband’s request for sexual intimacy. Rather, the husband would be required to show her consideration.

https://islamqa.org/hanafi/daruliftaa/7638

Arsi786 (talk 06:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Arsi786: You did not read the part which clearly states that the majority of Muslim jurists do not believe that Islam recognises marital rape. You are quoting the opinions of the few remaining ones. This is against WP:BALANCE and WP:DUE, policies which demand that each view be covered according to its proportionate size.

Also you still are not answering why you are removing words like "force" when they are clearly in the sources. That is misrepresentation. In fact, you should not be copy pasting the sources word for word anyway, but honestly summarising what they say. 14.203.129.249 (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@14.203.129.249: I stopped messing with the quotes and I haven't removed the force part you clearly did not read what I posted the concept of martial rape does not exist but you can't force yourself on your wife the article you gave says that so does the other two I have given it comes under other rulings you simply can't harm your wife even the article you gave said that even the hanafi fatwa site I have gave has said that.Arsi786 talk 07:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Arsi786: Again you are spinning around in circles. I have already proveb that most jurists do not recognise marital rape. And marital rape not being recognised naturally means under Islamic law one can force the woman. Here is a quote from Hanafi fiqh manual Hidaya (p. 141) which is the be-all and end all summary of Hanafi fiqh. All other positions are minor and fringe views:

But not if she be refractory.—If a wife be disobedient or refractory and go abroad without her husband’s consent, she is not entitled to any support from him, until she return and make submission, because the rejection of the matrimonial restraint in this instance originates with her; but when she returns home, she is then subject to it, for which reason she again becomes entitled to her support as before. It is otherwise where a woman, residing in the house of her husband, refuses to admit him to the conjugal embrace, as she is entitled to maintenance, notwithstanding her opposition, because being then in his power, he may, if he please, enjoys her by force

14.203.129.249 (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@14.203.129.249: Could you show me where exactly its not on the page you said? https://archive.org/stream/Hedaya_201703/Hedaya#page/n97/mode/2up.Arsi786 talk 17:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Arsi786: Here it is.

https://books.google.com/books?id=tc4DAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA141&dq

14.203.129.249 (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@14.203.129.249: You may use the source I will simply mention the other sources that disagree with this notion along with it as no hadith or quranic verse says you may force yourself on your spouse so it depends on the interpretation of the hadith then.Arsi786 talk 17:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

IslamQA

These references need to be removed. IslamQA is an unreliable source. See WP:RS. Unfortunately this would mean either deleting or unciting more than half the article. Which genius went ahead with introducing 80+ of these references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.156.92 (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

'Azl

'Azl (عزل) currently redirects to coitus interruptus. 'Azl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was merged to that article in 2010. Should't that topic redirect to this page instead (and whatever merging might be necessary from the 2010 version of that article) -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Baligh

Notifying that Baligh, which was a redirect to this article, was expanded by 116.58.201.8 to a standalone article. Please discuss whether it should be a separate article at: Talk:Baligh#Reverting edits.--Eostrix (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)