This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Marriage in Islam article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wali mujbir was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 23 April 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Marriage in Islam. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Roskerjellybean728.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): OREY0100.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 03:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
There have been a large section about mahr in this article, and it does not belong here. Mahr belongs to all weding forms, and it is supposed to be covered in Islamic Marriage Contract.
Please move your mahr editions to that article.
-- Striver 21:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Lao Wai, could you cite sources for "The most important feature of a marriage in Islamic law is the giving of mahr which makes sexual intercourse legal." There are no other hadiths written here, why are you adding those? Why are you adding info on slaves to an article on Nikah? -- Irishpunktom\ talk 10:04, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
You just added that virging can be married away without consent. That is false. Please source or remove it. -- Striver 17:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Daniel Pipe's article is not about Nikaah. It's about "Arabian Sex Tourism". Your characterization of it as being about Nikah is original research. In fact, the article mentions "nikaah" only twice, and both of the times its in a quote by a Muslim that is saying how the sex tourism is totally unlawful under nikaah. Pipes usually doesn't write about Islamic marriage rules because he is not an Islamic theologian, and here he wasn't either, as he didn't even use the word in his own writing. Please find a better article. Yuber (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The link added is only another article by Pipes that uses speculation and his own personal opinions (without any sources btw) to create criticism on just about anything to do with Islam. Just the title of the article shows how much Pipes has speculated and then reading it shows that he has started making up his own stories. The article barely relates to Nikah at all, it talks mainly about men who stalk women and then marry them. The word occurs about once in the entire article (in a quote too) and barely focuses on Nikah as a principle; only an occurence in one society. It has nothing to do with Nikah itself, it only talks about "sex tourism". I don't know why klonimus relies on pipes for information on everything. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Klonimus, Karl... I saw your post on Jayjg's talk page (Klonimus) and I figured I'd address it, well, at least the issue on this page. I more or less agree with Anonymous... it's not really related, at least, not really more related than sex slavery in the Phillipines is related to the Catholic view of marriage. It also definitely does not belong on this page because of the scope of the issue. So, I would ask you (Karl and Klonimus) to please move this issue to
Islamic view of marriage. I think I will still disagree with you or at least ask for some kind of better presentation, but that is about the marriage process, and this is an exploitation of the marriage process not a contractual issue, which is pretty much what nikah is. Can we agree to move this issue to
Islamic view of marriage as that article's scope is large enough to cover this issue?
gren
グレン 00:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Yuber's objections to this link seem to me to be sound. The link is a short, poor-quality article of very dubious relevance to the subject of this article. The mention of nikah is only part of a quote from another article in a newspaper. The author of the piece linked to is a controversial polemicist. I'm sure that with a bit of work, the article could be expanded and improved and that would be a much better use of people's time than a revert war over an at best not-very-useful link. Palmiro | Talk 14:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Would we add a section on beating your wife to an article on Marriage under the Christian tradition? I dont think so. Lets not try to rubbish each other religions in wikipedia please. the link has no place - and should stay off. Unbehagen 19:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Klonimus, it is relevant. Queeran
(here was s deleted voting sugestion by Striver)
Don't_vote_on_everything. While this may not be everything, I believe a vote here is of no real use and should be solved by other means. Voting doesn't make things more encyclopedic or anything. gren グレン 05:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
More common among the rednecks? Source? Accuracy? I thought it was the Saud dollar rich shaykhs..
Further, the pree aranged marriage section is inaccurate and needs a prose check. -- Striver 00:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence rate: 0.01% (2001 est.) [1] -- Striver 05:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Klonimus 08:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
It is advisable that any issue not relating to Nikah ceremony not added to this article.
Siddiqui 19:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey lovely people, I'm marrying into a Muslim family and came to this page to better understand the Nikah. Rather than just discussing polgamy--which is a rather Western-centric, Orientalist perspective--why not talk about the Nikah itself, perhaps the different variation in different cultures (e.g., India, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, etc.)? I'm trying to understand what is expected of me in the Nikkah, and this page offered absolutely zero. Poo!
I believe this site gives info on aspects other pages may not. Are you saying that poligamy is something that you will not mind in your marriage, since it's Western-centric? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.227.146 ( talk) 06:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Under the section "societal role" there is an unsourced claim that consent is required when the people are adults. How is adult defined? Is a 13 year old an adult, as in Judaism, for example?
Newman Luke ( talk) 11:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Removed this portion because this is a local Pakistani custom, not necessarily Islamic.
Also, the word "Nikah" is very improper for Marriage, in Arabic, Nikah is having sexual intercourse. Marriage in Arabic is "Gawaz"
Please remove external web sites, not related and not reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Lewison ( talk • contribs) 05:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
"Nikah" is a marriage according to Islamic Law as well as Pakistani Law. Anyone who performs Nikah, has to be a registrar and must hold a license issued by Govt. of Pakistan. Once Nikah is performed, Registrar must place his Registered stamp on Nikah or marriage Certificate with his license number. And is responsible for validating the marriage. in case of dispute this person can be asked to present in front of court of law.
Note: there are many rituals like Mehndi, Manyo etc. that are performed in marriage by various communities to make marriage memorable but they are not mandatory they are traditional and cultural events.
Majority of Pakistani strongly believe that once Nikah is performed the man and woman get into a bond of life. Saying that "Nikah means having sexual intercourse" that's not totally true, using a woman only for sexual need is haram in Islam (It becomes Adultery) . According to Quran a man is not allowed to touch a woman until and uless he gave a woman a right of his wife, by performing a Nikah or Zawj(Gawz),by doing so Muslim man claim that respected woman is now his wife. (Note: There is whole section in Islam that talks about Wife's Rights and responsibilities of man towards his wife)
And according to last sermon of Holy Prophet Mohammad Peace and Blessing be upon him, "Treat your woman with dignity and give them their rights, they are for your help, respect them."
Another says of Prophet Mohammad Peace and Blessing be upon him: "Allah, Almighty God has placed one's heaven under the feet of his/her Mother."
If we combine the above statements it is clear that respect for woman has greater importance, and having sex with woman is a necessity of life, not just a desire to have sex. Islam also holds and preach spirituality as well.
(Oh God help us to understand the values of life and Message, and provide us protection from Devil and its shadow)
Following are some links that might help in understanding the context
http://www.jannah.org/sisters/marr.html
http://www.nikah.com/marriage/sahih_marriage_nikah.asp —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.39.197.209 (
talk) 04:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
so was she considered an "adult" as used loosely in this obviously biased article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.246.119 ( talk) 23:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
It is right of wife to have a sex with his man, according Islam. Yes Mohammad had a Sex at age 9. But it was permitted by Ayesha.
To help you understand the life cycle, refer to following website http://www.avert.org/puberty-girls.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.197.209 ( talk) 04:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no need to differentiate Islamic marriage with these words as done by Mhakcm. It is already written in the lede that marriage is between a man and woman (which implies heterosexuality). Further, the contrast with different religions needs to be well-supported by validated references. Shaad lko ( talk) 06:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Cousin Marriages are also allowed in Judaism and Protestant Christianity. They were allowed in Catholic Christianity, why single out Islam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.sam.oliver ( talk • contribs) 09:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Proposal for removing prefixes "Islamic views on xyz" | ||
I have started a request move to remove the prefixes Attached with the Prophets in Islam to there Names as in Islam. Like Islamic views on Abraham → Ibrahim as it becomes difficult to search the topic. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks. -- Ibrahim ebi ( talk) 19:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC) |
There are several unsourced paragraphs. This page should have the 'refimprove' template in its header. -- عبد المؤمن ( talk) 20:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Is anybody watching this article?
Every now and then you need to check back-edits, not just the current one. Several unnamed editors have made recent deletions with no edit summaries. A new editor added material. The work of new editors always needs checking and perhaps adjusting.
Amandajm ( talk) 01:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
"Children in some Muslim sub-cultures who defy their parents' wishes may in practice, suffer penalties supported by the community but this is only due to the lack of knowledge of the Sunnah, as the Prophet would never agree to force a woman to marry somebody she doesn't want. The family should try to find somebody that suits her better, as the following Hadith illustrates."
What? This is common practice in many parts of Muslim society, it's very easy to dismiss it as a misunderstanding of the books without citing sources. -- 189.70.241.12 ( talk) 22:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello EvergreenFir! Where do you get your informations about divorce from? Your changes just do not reflect the classical positions of the main madhahib. -- Metron ( talk) 12:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Metron, you recently
deleted a citation of
The Globe and Mail, widely regarded as a reliable source. You also
inserted the personal viewpoint that divorce is very difficult for women in Islam and that the marriage contract is only between the groom and the bride's guardian; the first is a personal judgment unbefitting an encyclopedia and the second isn't a universal view among Muslims - in fact the Hanafi schools, numerically the largest Sunni school, doesn't require a guardian at all so there are different opinions on the issue.
Perhaps there is something I have missed, but would you care sharing what the rationale behind these two edits was?
MezzoMezzo (
talk) 12:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Encyclopaedia of Islam is not an authoritative source -- Qdinar ( talk) 13:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
-- Qdinar ( talk) 11:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)i have found something from hadithes but that is not main idea of the hadithes but the idea of possibility of forcing into marriage can be taken from words of some hadithes : http://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/11/29 - so , it is said that widow has has more right , it look like it means that non-widow, virgin has less rights than her wali , but , there are other hadithes that strictly say that her permission is mandatory: http://sunnah.com/muslim/16/80 http://sunnah.com/bukhari/67/72 http://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/11/28
very misleading sentence in the header. Marriage is an important part of the religion. Using Jesus as an example for being single is not right. Islam is based on the Prophet Muhammad not Jesus. Zekenyan ( talk) 19:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Muslims do not differentiate among prophets whether he is Jesus, Moses, Muhammad or Abraham. Those who differentiate among God and his messengers are not Muslim. (Al-Quran 2:285 and 4:150-151) furthermore marriage is only recommended and not compulsory Smatrah ( talk) 13:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
the used source "Mouhamadou, Shaykh. "Women in Islam". Noor Ala Noor." is bogus and useless. Pages of claims without references (and lacking knowledge, pure jahiliyya). Historical claims unfounded. And used wrongly by author (nobody in Old Arabia decided anything about women in 586, that refers to Gaul). Kipala ( talk) 13:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
If bride's free consent is not oibtained; the marriage IS VOID. Wrong info is provided. -- Maadikhah ( talk) 17:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I really read WP:Assume good faith many times and I don't want to read contributors' minds; I am sorry; but I think Islamophobia has had at least a hidden unconscious role in preparing some pieces of this article's text. I agree and am sure that in many poor/under-developed Islamic countries, marriage without consent/minors' marriage happen; but this is not Islam's whole system of laws. This is inhumane, but it shouls be given attention that Islam, like any other religion, has interpretations and subverisions -- Maadikhah ( talk) 18:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I would just like to say that the meaning of "Nikkah" is to get married and not sexual intercourse. Please remove that word. We want people to know information that's real not fake. Plum3600 ( talk) 08:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
discover-the-truth
I support Al-Andalusi's merge proposal. One could imagine two different articles existing under the current titles, with one corresponding to a subsection of another, but that layout isn't compatible with the current state of these two articles. They are both organized by different aspects of marriage, rather than a legal/non-legal division. They are also both of poor quality, so they would benefit from a merge and cleanup. Eperoton ( talk) 00:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I oppose the merge. One article goes more in detail into the legal aspect in the religion. The other is broader and includes culture, history and some politics. This would be like the difference between The jurisprudence article is consitent in style with other Islamic jurisprudence articles that makeup an umbrella under Fiqh Other articles within the jurisprudence umbrella like Salah, Muslim hygienical jurisprudence and Adab seem consistent in style and section splitting. The merge would create a hole in that umbrella. CaliphoShah ( talk) 07:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Could we please include a little more on the Quran's teachings and stances on marriage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1E06:C2F7:A45A:28A8:FCB6:23F8 ( talk) 03:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I came across this promising Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Islam (relating to women's rights) and myself supported the same editorially too. IMO since topic potential is vast many Reliable sources on Google scholar seem to be available hence the article needs more editorial hands for some more update and expansion along with appropriate references.
Pl. do join to update and expansion, your help will be most welcome.
Thanks and regards
Bookku ( talk) 15:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
This is my first time making any sort of contribution to wikipedia, so you will forgive me for lack of completely proper conduct, but this articles has some instances of impartial/moral language: Mainly this one: "In unfortunate cases where the agreement was to postpone payment of the mahr, some husbands will bully their wives and insist on the return of what he gave her in order to agree to the dissolution of the marriage, this is un-Islamic and cruel."
If I am not mistaken, language that expresses value statements, and such words as "unfortunate" or "cruel", regardless of whether many, or most, agree that it is such things, is supposed to be discouraged (prohibited?). I'm not even sure on words like 'bully', which has an innately negative moral connotation. To my knowledge, wikipedia is not for the writers opinions, but rather the opinions and words of third party sources, who may or may not use this language. If the editor of this section wants to express that it is incongruent with Islam, or that a specific scholar (or multiple people) believes this is unfortunate and cruel, than I would think they ought to find and cite people (who actually believe that) to support this opinion.
65.26.65.200 ( talk) 16:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The topic of marriage between members if the same sect never makes a single appereance int he whole article (and there is a section exclusively prohibitations of marriage). Can we do anything to fix this? Akivahebrew ( talk) 10:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)