Talk:Rape in Islamic law

Revert

Pathawi, let us discuss this revert. I paraphrased it from the text from the section titled, "C. WOMEN ON DEATH ROW FOR OFFENSES AGAINST SEXUAL MORALITY" on page 13 of that source. Can you paraphrase it better?-1Firang (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, here's what you wrote: 'Even if raped, married women are convicted for adultery (zina) and sentenced to death by stoning if they cannot produce four witnesses to the rape.' The first paragraph of the section you're referring to says that zina convictions should be rare because of the high standard of proof, but then adds at the very end that this standard of proof is reversed in Iran. The second paragraph says that fear of zina prosecution may disincentivise rape reporting & gives two examples of prosecution. The third says that stoning is the prescribed penalty, but that it is almost never applied in practice. It says that the penalty applies differently to men & women. It then cites a case in which a woman was convicted in Sudan, though the conviction was overturned. The fourth paragraph says that these penalties can also apply to married sex workers. I would say that in all of that, the only thing that comes close to what you wrote are the two sentences specifically about Iran at the end of paragraph one. Pathawi (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pathawi: You have summarised everything beautifully. Can you now paraphrase as many as those and add them to this article (I am requesting you to do it as you feel I am doing it imperfectly which may lead you to revert what I add)?-1Firang (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I am not interested in doing that. I don't think it's a useful contribution to the page. My impression is that the kind of editing that you're doing in relation to rape, slavery, and the Love Jihad conspiracy theory are oriented toward shifting Wikipedia's pages in an Islamophobic direction, whether or not that is your intent. When you cite a source that says that it should be difficult to convict a rape victim of zina and that one particular country has inverted the burden of proof, but instead state that raped married women are convicted of adultery and sentenced to death by stoning, it's difficult to engage the edits as having been undertaken in good faith. You can of course introduce content from reliable sources that accords with an Islamophobic perspective, and as long as the balance isn't shifted too much you don't have to be responsible for the full range of sources—other editors will, hopefully, bring balance. But I'm not interested in contributing to this unbalanced editing project. With this page, at present, my only interests are ensuring that sources aren't mis-cited, & that the lead section not be used inappropriately. Pathawi (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add everything from what happened/was reported from Iran to the stoning to death in Afghanistan (considering the other countries mentioned in between them also).-1Firang (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The 2nd para has already been paraphrased and added - see this, so you only need to paraphrase and add what the other paragraphs say.-1Firang (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Kecia Ali Source

I have great respect for Kecia Ali as a scholar. I've just read the paper that's been cited. It seems to me that appropriate context for this paper requires recognizing a few things: First, she holds that the requirement of consent of a slave for sex is a reasonable reading of the Qur'ān and is near universal today even among Islamic State supporters who support the enslavement of captives in war. She looks specifically at fiqh texts from the eighth thru tenth centuries. We're dealing with a particular historical period. Second, Ali's argument is built largely upon what these fiqh texts do not address. I think the appropriate generalisation from Ali's paper is that consent was "not a key 'moral-legal concern'" for jurists. Reading between the lines, Ali believes—& again, I think she's a really admirable scholar & probably has this right—that they assumed consent was irrelevant. This is not a ruling in Islamic law, and law is the topic of this Wikipedia page. Third, & least importantly, the issue of withdrawal seems a little orthogonal to the issue of rape for this Wikipedia page. The point of this section in Ali's argument is that there are differences in whether or not consent in general is a meaningful issue between enslaved women & wives, but the issue at hand is not consent to sexual intercourse. Pathawi (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I would agree that material on the rights of slaves is getting a little off-topic. There could be a mention of rape in the context of ancient slavery, as and where applicable, if sources frame this specific point, i.e. with reference to the crime of rape in Islamic law (or its absence), but that's where the relevance to the topic would naturally end. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't tell whether or not we're in agreement: Ali does frame this in relationship to rape, and I think the content is relevant. I just think that the representation in recent edits is broader than what Ali's article supports. Pathawi (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I would do as you see fit, since you are clearly willing to engage properly with the source material, but I would suggest that anything on slavery go pretty far down the article, since slavery has been abolished and this is a page about an active legal topic, not the outmoded elements/opinions of said active legal topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Here is leading classical Hadith scholar, jurisprudence, and judge Abū ‘Abdullāh al-Ḥalīmī (d. 1012 CE) explicitly prohibiting even touching female slaves without their consent: وإن اشترى جارية فكرهت أن يمسها أو يضاجعها فلا يمسها ولا يضاجعها ولا يطأها إلا بإذنها “If a female slave is purchased and she dislikes to be touched, or slept with, then he may not touch her, lie with her, or have intercourse with her unless she consents.” (Minhāj fī Shu’ab al-Imān 3/267)

If your going to add kecia ali's source why not add other scholarly views on it to? 2A02:C7C:E83A:0:CDEC:1CA0:718A:A1A3 (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know that this is the scholarly source one would want to add. WP:PST: Ali's overview is very clearly a secondary source. A judge's interpretation of fiqh is a primary source. Surely al-Ḥalīmī's ruling is addressed in secondary literature somewhere? Pathawi (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia accepts secondary sources only, not primary sources. Kecia Ali is considered a Reliable Source on wikipedia. I don't mind if a secondary source is used to show what Islamic jurisprudence says to balance Kecia Ali but the paraphrased text using Kecia Ali as a source should not be removed (and I am glad that none of you have).-1Firang (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Not that I can find but kecia makes it seem that it wasn't the case when clearly there was jurist who held other views 2A02:C7C:E83A:0:CD7C:8D3B:6524:6D90 (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

This is one of the limitations of Wikipedia: We will always be behind secondary sources. That's just the nature of the beast. It's got to land in the secondary literature first. Pathawi (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@PathawiShouldn't kecia ali's own personal view be added into? 2A02:C7C:E83A:0:CD7C:8D3B:6524:6D90 (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be. I respect her greatly as an academic scholar, but is she issuing opinions that are taken up by the schools of fiqh? Does secondary literature cite her as a member of the 'ulamā'? Pathawi (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pathawi As a acedemic scholar her views should be mentioned when it comes to the scriptural context 2A02:C7C:E83A:0:CD7C:8D3B:6524:6D90 (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think so. Doesn't fit the nature of the article (rape within Islamic law), & would need to come from a secondary source in any case. Pathawi (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Pregnancy and zina offenses leading to stoning and jail convictions.

@Pathawi @1Firang @Iskandar323

Firang added this section which isnt what the source directly says or has been removed by the countries that are being mentioned this source that firang used https://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Judged-More-Than-Her-Crime.pdf and in here it talks about a case of zafran bibi in pakistan who was raped but convicted for committing adultery as she was pregnant due to the rape and her husband was in jail during that time but her case was later acquitted but these laws in pakistan were reformed in 2006 which no longer applied those methods while u.a.e law was reformed and no longer punishes such women either in 2022

For pakistan the law reform is mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Protection_Bill which reformed it rape laws in 2006 and no longer punishes women for the lack of witness and qadfh more details here https://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/2006/wpb.html

While u.a.e changed it laws no longer prosecuting women for it either https://bineidlawfirmuae.com/new-uae-law-2022-unmarried-parenting-sexual-assault-and-extramarital-affairs/

This is what firang recently added and add the zina statement before either its being misrepresented and is not the general shariah ruling and the countries mentioned no longer apply those rulings

On the other hand, women who have experienced rape or sexual assault may fear being prosecuted themselves for zina, discouraging some from reporting these assaults.

Pregnant, married rape victims are convicted for adultery (zina) and executed by being stoned to death if they cannot produce four eyewitnesses that their pregnancy resulted from rape.

Unless 1firang can explain themselves and why they are still needed. 2A02:C7C:E83A:0:B815:BD55:9A1B:ACDC (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this is a bad edit, and I'd like to request that 1Firang take a break from editing articles on Islam. Right now, however, I have to get to bed. Pathawi (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I was just informing you as I can't edit it 2A02:C7C:E83A:0:CD7C:8D3B:6524:6D90 (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence was paraphrased from this original - "The risk of being prosecuted for zina creates a strong disincentive for women to report rape or sexual assault"

The second was paraphrased from this original - ".....married rape victims are at risk of execution for adultery because of practices which defy these rules. These practices reverse the high evidentiary burden, requiring that pregnant women suspected of adultery prove, by four eyewitness accounts, that their pregnancy resulted from rape—an extraordinarily difficult burden to meet." and "Zafran Bibi, for instance, was convicted of adultery and sentenced to death by stoning after she declared that she was raped by her brother-in-law. The judge considered her pregnancy proof of adultery since Zafran’s husband was in jail at the time."-1Firang (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

These laws have been removed by said country so why still mention it and this law isnt the standard agreed view in islamic law either? You also havent specified that pakistan had applied this laws which were later removed. 2A02:C7C:E83A:0:CD7C:8D3B:6524:6D90 (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Any of you can suggest a sentence/s to show that those laws have been updated for balance, without removing what I have added.-1Firang (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pathawi Okay I waa just informing you that I couldnt edit. 2A02:C7C:E83A:0:CD7C:8D3B:6524:6D90 (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Well. You could edit if you'd create a user account. IP editors are absolutely welcome, but the tool of page protection limits that in cases of disruptive editing. Unfortunately, for this page I think that the admin misfired, & has missed the disruptive editing. Pathawi (talk) 05:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pathawi: I had posted the original text above for comparison. I feel that I had paraphrased it correctly. You, however feel that since the law has changed in one of those countries, that sentence should not be added. I typed, "Any of you can suggest a sentence/s to show that those laws have been updated for balance, without removing what I have added. above. You have also complained to an admin, Abecedare instead of engaging in a discussion here. Shall we start a Request for Comments to get other people involved in this (for your information, I haven't reverted your edit which removed sourced content; see the diff here)?-1Firang (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

No, 1Firang, this is not an accurate representation of what has happened. Your edit makes a generalisation about what happens in Islam in general from a source that makes a statement about Iran in particular. For the specific edit, the source does not support your claim even for Iran. No one needs to introduce an edit to show that some law has been updated as the source adduced does not support the claim in the first place. I find it hard to imagine the thought process that would accept the conversation above, then lead one to conclude that your most recent edits were an accurate paraphrase.

Three different editors have objected to your most recent edits here as misrepresentations of the sources. You have a very clear history of tendentious editing at other related pages. I have attempted to engage you on your Talk page, but you chose to erase my message rather than respond. I addressed an admin following this because of your refusal to engage. You have made it very difficult to imagine that this is a good-faith interaction. Pathawi (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Pathawi You typed, ".....that comes close to what you wrote are the two sentences specifically about Iran at the end of paragraph one. in this diff. I asked if you will paraphrase it better but you did not. Then I paraphrased it more accurately and added it but you have removed that sourced content now.-1Firang (talk) 07:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesnt matter if its sourced tge countries mentioned like pakistan and the uae no longer apply those laws anymore and reformed them pakistan in 2006 and uae in 2022 neither do they potray islamic law as a whole you failed to even mention the countries that apply such laws rather left it broad. 2A02:C7C:E83A:0:CD7C:8D3B:6524:6D90 (talk) 07:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

If you propose how we can change what I added, that is "Pregnant, married rape victims are convicted for adultery (zina) and executed by being stoned to death if they cannot produce four eyewitnesses that their pregnancy resulted from rape." we can avoid edit wars (I haven't reverted your removal of sourced comtent by the way) as well as RfCs'.-1Firang (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Quite simply, there is no need to paraphrase material that is not in the source. That's not something you can expect of other editors. Feel free to seek an RfC. Pathawi (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I also wanted to get notice to you in tbe article 1firang has also said under definition in the subsection relationship in zina:

On the other hand, women who have experienced rape or sexual assault may fear being prosecuted themselves for zina, discouraging some from reporting these assaults.

The source only mentions two countries were women were given such notices in uae and pakistan has mentioned before above the laws were changed and if the source is to remain I think a clarfication that the laws in the countries has change and no longer applies.

@Pathawi 2A02:C7C:E83A:0:CD7C:8D3B:6524:6D90 (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I am tired of arguing with you people, so I won't insist on restoring what Pathawi has removed but I hope you people keep the sentence that the IP is now asking to remove (see just above).-1Firang (talk) 08:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

By the way, that source was first added/used/cited by an IP (see this diff), not by me.-1Firang (talk) 1Firang (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content falsely claiming it was discussed

Pathawi, with this you removed sourced content falsely claiming it was discussed on this talk page. Please restore/self revert it.-10:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC) 1Firang (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC) strike blocked editor. TarnishedPath^talk 10:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

No. And the claim is not false. Two core issues are 1) that Ali's paper deals with a particular period, & 2) that while a few scholars from that period (eg, Imam aš-Šāfīʻi) made explicit statements such as that an enslaved woman's consent was not necessary for her "owner" to marry her off, the issue of consent was simply not considered. This is in fact discussed above. Pathawi (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pathawi: You have removed that sourced content from the History of slavery in the Muslim world article now and told me to discuss it only here. The sentence you removed was, "The consent of a slave for sex, azl or to marry her off to someone else, was historically not considered necessary.". The source cited for it says that, so please self revert your edit.-1Firang (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC) strike blocked editor. TarnishedPath^talk 10:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The cited source says, "They (scholars) agreed unanimously that an enslaved female's consent was never required for a marriage contracted by her owner. Al-Shafiʿi (d. 820) is typical: “He may marry off his female slave without her permission whether she is a virgin or non-virgin.”

Footnote 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. It is even more of a stretch to accept that the need for consent within concubinage was so obviously a condition for its legitimacy that no one considered it necessary to say so, but that the absence of the need for a slave's consent to her marriage required explicit affirmation.

A slightly different example reinforces the legal distinction between marriage and concubinage. In discussing withdrawal (ʿazl) as a method of contraception the jurists distinguish between consent (possibly) required from wives and that (never) required from enslaved concubines. They disagreed about whether husbands needed their enslaved wives’ agreement to practice ʿazl or that of their wives’ masters. (A person cannot simultaneously own and be married to the same slave, though people can under certain circumstances marry other people's slaves.) All accepted—sometimes tacitly, sometimes explicitly—that a man could practice withdrawal with his own female slave without seeking her permission".-1Firang (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC) strike blocked editor. TarnishedPath^talk 10:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The core issues are those raised in my very first comment above under Talk:Rape in Islamic law#Kecia Ali Source & reiterated above in this section. You have selected a quote out of context. The scholars in question are those of the eighth thru tenth centuries CE. Elsewhere in the paper, Ali specifically mentions other positions from other eras. 'Historically yada yada yada' is a general claim not substantiated by the paper. Secondly, two of the things that you state are supported by the paper, but a third is not: Ali's paper does support the claim that scholars from the eighth through tenth centuries did not require an enslaved woman's consent for marriage; it does support the claim that an enslaved woman's consent was not required for ʻazl; it does not support the claim that consent for sex was not considered necessary. Rather, Ali holds that consent was 'not a key "moral-legal concern"' for jurists, as stated above: It didn't occur to them to address it. This has all been said before. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's a better reading of this article. But you have to engage the argument—not just copy the same text to other pages & then demand that editors perform again there. Pathawi (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pathawi: This can be paraphrased and used with respect to consent of a save for sex: "Despite this protection against one form of sexual exploitation, female slaves do not have the right to grant or deny sexual access to themselves. Instead, the Qur’an permits men to have sexual access to “what their right hands possess,” meaning female captives or slaves (Q. 23.5-6; 70.29-30)."Islam and Slavery". Brandeis University. Retrieved 27 July 2023."-1Firang (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC) strike blocked editor. TarnishedPath^talk 10:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

We can restore this sentence you removed with this new citation now: "The consent of a slave for sex or to marry her off to someone else, was historically not considered necessary."-1Firang (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC) strike blocked editor. TarnishedPath^talk 10:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

No. Two key things: First, think seriously about the work that you're asking the word historically to do. Ali is writing about particular contexts. Second, instead of trying to find some sentence that will allow you to write the thing you want to write, you should look at the argument Ali is making in each of these articles. Pathawi (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pathawi: Then how about adding this sentence: "Female captives or slaves do not have the right to deny sexual access to their owners." using the second citation and this sentence "The consent of a slave to marry her off to someone else, was historically not considered necessary." using the first source?-1Firang (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC) strike blocked editor. TarnishedPath^talk 10:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point of what I'm saying around historically—shifting things to the present tense makes the matter worse when one of Ali's claims is that we can't read historical texts through modern sensibilities & a modern perspective. The issue is that specificity of historical context matters, & that the generalisations that are available from this source are limited (but interesting!). I also think it would be worthwhile to take a breath to allow other editors to weigh in. Pathawi (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323, you and me are the only editors trying to edit this artice - he perhaps will accept both sentences with those citations.-1Firang (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC) strike blocked editor. TarnishedPath^talk 10:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear here as to what specific statements are being discussed now. I'm aware that there's been some to and fro, and I'll admit, this azl business has got me scratching my head, as it seems somewhat unrelated. On a broader note, the subject in the context of slavery simply parallels the "marital rape" sections, because the principle is essentially exactly the same. Rape (per se) within marriage was not recognized as a thing (though other forms of violence and domestic abuse were). For concubines, the principle was the same. For slaves who were married off, the situation cycles back to the marriage situation. What the "marital rape" section doesn't state, but clearly should, is that the concept wasn't in the legal lexicon exist, so "marital rape" simply did not exist as a notion. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The relevance of ʻazl in Ali's article is that it's a clear case in which married sexual partners and enslaved sexual partners have differing rights, allowing her to hypothesise that differences in rights might apply elsewhere as well. It's an artifact of her line of reasoning—it's not very clearly related to the topic of rape in this article, & I don't think it belongs here. (If a partner wishes to cease intercourse for any reason, we wouldn't normally describe the cessation of intercourse as rape.)

What 1Firang wants to add is one of the following two sentences:

1. The consent of a slave for sex or to marry her off to someone else, was historically not considered necessary. (original)
2. Female captives or slaves do not have the right to deny sexual access to their owners. (revised)

I disagree with these additions. I hope that's clearer. Pathawi (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: I want to add both sentences mentioned by Pathawi above, using the first source (Concubinage and Consent) for the first sentence and the second citation for the second sentence (Islam and Slavery). If you disagree, please give a good reason.-1Firang (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC) strike blocked editor. TarnishedPath^talk 10:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Pathawi that the first part, to be included, needs to be contextualized within the appropriate period. Islamic law is a living corpus of tradition, not something dead and static, and obviously, specifically with respect to slavery, all of this is past tense. Concubinage and Consent incidentally explores the gradual breakdown in and dissolution of these traditions in some detail I believe. The marriage part is also redundant, as mentioned above, as 'marital rape', or rather the lack of recognition for it in Islamic law, is covered elsewhere. The second statement also lacks nuance and context, most crucially the 'when'. The other grey area here is the distinction between lack of consent and actual violence, since the former was not discussed or presumed to be unimportant, but violence was prohibited and punishable. In the context, it is pretty simplistic to view the practices of the times purely in terms of contemporary notions of consent - which somewhat implies a lack of a legal framework on this, when instead, the reality of the situation was that there was a legal framework; it is just that the legal framework revolved around physical violence. There is also a further point that evolved with time in the early Islamic period, and that is the religion of slaves. In the earliest stages, it was forbidden to have sexual relations with a pagan slave for instance, so that's another whole side to it. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: So how best can we tweak and add those two sentences under the section with the title, "Consent of slaves" (a consensus is necessary)?-1Firang (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC) strike blocked editor. TarnishedPath^talk 10:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The section on 'marital rape', even if the header is a bit of a misnomer, is quite well constructed and contains the necessary context. If this material has a place anywhere, it might be at the end of that section. BUT, obviously, these are historical, now obsolete legal considerations, and so the introduction would need to go something like: "In the era of slavery, similar rules governed sexual relations between slaves and their Muslim owners ..." Iskandar323 (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done 1Firang (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC) strike blocked editor. TarnishedPath^talk 10:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, @1Firang:, I think that it's important to give space for other editors to be heard from. I don't think that one other editor's opinion is a green light to make the change that you want to make. This is a discussion. Contentious edits often take a few days to iron out. Pathawi (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pathawi: You have removed sourced content now, which is disruptive editing. What are your objections?-1Firang (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC) strike blocked editor. TarnishedPath^talk 10:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

My objections are explained above & in the edit summary. Pathawi (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

You are the only one objecting. You have removed sourced content. You said, "I think that it's important to give space for other editors to be heard from." so you must clearly tell us what your objections are. You also said, "Contentious edits often take a few days to iron out." That ironing out hapens only when you clearly tell us what your objections are. In your edit summary, you said this discussion is ongoing for which you have to specify your objections clearly or else I may have to approach an admin to curb your disruptive editing. You don't have a veto over what should be removed or added (in this case, sourced content).-1Firang (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC) strike blocked editor. TarnishedPath^talk 10:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

My objections are clearly explained above & in the edit summary. Just read them. & breathe a minute to make time for other editors to chime in. Pathawi (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pathawi: I am trying to initiate dispute resolution as you have reverted my addition of sourced content with this edit again.-1Firang (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC) strike blocked editor. TarnishedPath^talk 10:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I look forward to the dispute resolution process. Pathawi (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• The problem ultimately is that the historical definition of rape is different from the modern definition of rape, and some folks retroactively apply the modern definition of rape to historical cases that were not considered rape by their contemporaries. Analogous situation would be to add Muhammad's marriage to Aisha to Child sexual abuse.VR _talk 19:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Reverts

Pathawi there was a sentence, "A woman who has been subject to force and raped is not liable to any punishment." I made it, "Jurists agree that a woman needs four male witnesses who may however, retract their statements about the rape and a woman who has been subjected to force and raped is not liable to any punishment." as that is in the source cited already. Please don't revert it.-Khaanate (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

In the Pregnancy due to Rape section, this article reads, "In Islamic law, if a woman becomes pregnant while out of wedlock and denies committing adultery, claiming she was raped by someone, most jurists of the Hanafi, Shafi'i, and Hanbali school of thought suggest that the excuse of such a woman would be accepted without investigation, while the Maliki school of thought requires that a woman provide additional evidence to support such claims, if not, she is subjected to the stipulated punishment." So is there a punishment for slanderous accusations of rape which can't be proved? Are such women accused of zina and punished for zina?-Khaanate (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

This says, “This means that if a woman accused a pious man of forcing her into adultery and there were no witnesses to prove her claim and she did not drag him by his clothes (to prove the offense), then she should be subjected to the hadd of slander whether or not she is well-known for chastity she should be subjected to the hadd of zina if she becomes pregnant as a result. The same ruling applies if she is proven non-pregnant unless she retracts her claim. If she drags him by his clothes and reports the crime of her own volition, then the hadd of zina is waived from her even if she is proven pregnant given the public defamation that she brought upon herself by reporting the offense. She is still subject to the hadd of slander and has no right to ask the man whom she accused to take an oath and swear to his innocence of the charge brought against him. On the other hand, if she accused a dissolute man of such a crime and she did not drag him by his clothes, then she is not subject to the hadd of slander or zina unless she is proven pregnant. However, if she dragged him by his clothes, then the hadd of zina is waived from her even if she is proven pregnant and the hadd of slander is waived from her as well. Lastly, if she accused a man whose religiosity is unknown and she did not drag him by his clothes, then she is subject to both the hadd of slander and that of zina. If she dragged him by his clothes, then she is not subject for that to the hadd of slander...”. Is that a reliable source?-Khaanate (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, for what kind of claim? It looks at first glance like a reliable primary source on positions of the Ministry of Endowments and Islamic Affairs of Qatar. It's not the kind of source we should generally draw on for more general claims: The ideal is secondary, scholarly sources. EDIT: Check out this short discussion for a look at a previous consideration of the source. I generally agree: The site is particular Islamic scholars' opinions—not a reliable source for statements about Islam in general or the broader community of scholars. Pathawi (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. Check reliable sources. Pathawi (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Khaanate, I do not see this in the source cited at the page cited. I have checked twice. Pathawi (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

On Pg.68, it says, "The Mālikīs have held, on the contrary, that pregnancy in an unmarried woman is by itself a proof of zinā and that the punishment would be due on its basis unless there be evidence to prove that the woman was subjected to irresistible force. When there is such evidence, then the ḥadd of adultery is suspended.

On pg. 69, ".....if the rape victim fails to prove her charge against the rapist by four witnesses, which is the most likely scenario, she is charged with slander (qadhf).'

On Pg. 73, it says, "The majority position—to admit pregnancy as circumstantial evidence—is based on a saying of the Companion (qawl al-ṣaḥābi), a statement in particular of caliph ʿUmar b. al Khattab, who is reported to have said that “stoning is obligatory on anyone who commits zinā, man or woman, provided that they are muḥṣan [lit., guarded, i.e., married] and that it is proven by witnesses, pregnancy or confession.”-Khaanate (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Please note that these are pages other than the page explicitly cited. This makes verification much harder. Probably more importantly, it does not support the claim as worded: There's nothing in what you've cited concerning witness statement retraction. Pathawi (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying your claim isn't true: For all I know ot may well be. I'm just saying that it is not supported by the source in the locations you've cited. Pathawi (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

So, can I add, "If the victim fails to prove that she was raped with four witnesses, she is charged with slander (qadhf)."? -Khaanate (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you'd be wise to add nothing at all to this page, at this point. With this account, you have thus far solely focused on this article, which has a history of controversy. I don't think you're yet familiar with reliable sourcing, given your first edits only a day ago. It's hard to tell what's motivating your edits when the content you're adding doesn't match the source you're drawing from. My honest advice is to read the link I gave you on reliable sources, & start out editing pages that are less controversial. In general, it's best not to start with a page by editing the introductory paragraphs: Check out MOS:LEAD on this, but that section should generally only reflect material that's already present elsewhere in the article. It's not a place to introduce additional stuff, & it's for the most part not a place for the perspectives of individual scholars unless they're meant to represent a broad consensus (or one of a small set of opposing views). I'm not an admin: I can't tell you what you can & can't do. I can just tell you what I'll argue against (or, when appropriate, boldly or procedurally revert WP:BRD).

In this particular case, I do not think that what you're proposing is the sense of what Kamali is saying. If it belongs anywhere, it's not in the lead section, but probably in the pregnancy section. It's very nearly already present in the first paragraph of that section. But Kamali is making a rhetorical argument here: The sense of the paragraph is that this is how some jurists have handled pregnancy as evidence, but he describes it as controversial. We thus should not take his nomic statement out of the context of its paragraph as a general truth, but present it—if we use it at all—as one juristic position. Pathawi (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

References