Talk:Divorce in Islam

message: Well I found the about.com article (http://islam.about.com/od/marriage/ss/stepstodivorce.htm) a thousand times more useful than this.  I'm not going to edit this because I am not an expert (I came here to learn) but I think someone knowledgeable should look into it especially the two types of woman0initiated divorce in particular the version where she keeps the dowry,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.99.100.158 (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Standard form extra-judicial divorce which parallels the talaq permitting the woman to remarry without the necessity of muhallil or halalah. I am surprised that anyone monitoring this page has not heard of it. David91 14:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc 

message: One of the references has the url of the link instead of a little number. Looking at the wiki markup, it has "ref" and "/ref" exactly like the next reference, which has the little number. Down at the References section the first says "Cite error 8; No text given." 
I have no idea how to fix it. anonymous 07:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference 

message: I am really wondering why the term is attributed the adjective "islamic"? Talaq is the Arabic word equivalent to divorce in English. This term is part of the language and it does not relate only to Islam (Arab Christians and Atheists use the same word to mean divorce). I think the article either should be deleted or make it redirects to Divorce in Islam and not the opposite. Will perform the changes if there's no objections. Bestofmed (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be relevant (copied from Glossary of Islam): "Separating concepts in Islam from concepts specific to Arab culture, or from the language itself, can be difficult. Many Arabic concepts have an Arabic secular meaning as well as an Islamic meaning. One example is the concept of dawah." Kaldari (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic term??? Talaq is the literal translation of the word Divorce 

message: The interpretation is completely wrong. Triple Talaq is a practice or a tradition not recognized by the Sunni Scholars (that is wahy it is named a tradition). In traditional Talaq procedure, one vocal Talaq is sufficient to proceed. To fulfill the Triple Talaq you have to perform divorce three times (in other words marry three times and divorce three times); automatically one can not marry for the fourth time (only after an intermediate marriage). see Triple Talaq for more (I am going to verify that article too). Bestofmed (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triple Talaq is not required to perform divorce (it is more a metaphorical tradition) 

message: The page we currently have at Talaq started out as a disambiguation page, and has since developed into a short article that, as has been commented on the talk page, is not nearly as good as this one. I found the second paragraph to be practically incomprehensible. I really don't understand why Talaq needs to be a disambiguation page, since the only pages it links besides this one are a redlink and a couple of stubs that are closely enough related to the topic discussed in Talaq (Nikah) that you'd have no trouble finding the information by just reading the Talaq (Nikah) article. I'd like to suggest that we move the current Talaq (Nikah) article to Talaq, leaving Talaq (Nikah) as a redirect and doing away with the old content of Talaq. Does anyone have strong feelings on this? - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 03:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved it to simply "Talaq" for now. Kaldari (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The article mentions that Islamic women may be granted divorce under certain conditions, but it doesn't explain what those conditions might be or how they vary among different schools or regions. Could someone elaborate on this? Women in Islam#Divorce also needs elaboration. Kaldari (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like there is an entirely different procedure for women to get divorced. See the article khula. This article, however, seems to only cover men seeking divorce. I'm not sure if talaq is used to refer to both or not. Perhaps khula should be merged into this article. Kaldari (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women granted divorces 

message: There is a merge discussion here Pass a Method talk 13:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your work on this. I've attempted to reorganize some of the content so that the material specifically related to talaq is under that section, and isn't confused with khula. It looks like some of the material under the Aftermath section may apply to both, so perhaps that should be reorganized further. Unfortunately, my knowledge is too limited to assist further in this, and there seem to be very few reliable sources in English. Kaldari (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support "Divorce in Islam" per nom and WP:NCDAB (prefer natural disambiguators).  The article is about a topic (divorce) in a specific context (Islam), i.e. a subtopic (cf. Divorce in South Africa or Marriage in Islam).  It is not about an entirely different meaning of the term "divorce" (cf. Divorce (film)).  But I am not keen on "Islamic divorce" for the same reasons.  —  AjaxSmack  03:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I have added references to what the quran says about the topic.
Expecting some user to revert the changes because they do not want to see what the quran has to say about it. 
Lets see who does it first and how long it takes.
Not my first time this has happened.
Regards, 
Khawar
 
Khawar.nehal (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  quran reference 

message: If you want to articulate your concerns about material discussing fiqh or the banner, please do it here. The article has serious WP:PRIMARY violations, and is missing the bulk of material discussed in academic sources: differences between madhhabs, relationship between historical theory and practice, modern transformations of the divorce law itself, and attempts to reform divorce norms through changes in judicial procedure. I've been planning to improve this article for a while and reading some academic treatments, but I can also share some entries from Oxford encyclopedias through email if someone else is interested in working on it. Eperoton (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Article contain Idaho rule on which a whole article is given. It tellsnikah Muhallil  on which a whole article is written. It tells Eelaa which is cited to secondary source. Kindly rather than making a tag of primary article. Please rather than making tag simply remove primary sources which are not supported by secondary source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemia pattinson (talk • contribs) 11:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   Removing material without non-primary sourcing is fine, as is adding non-primary citations, but all WP articles should stand on their own. Please don't remove maintenance banners until there's a consensus that the issue has been resolved (see WP:MTR). And why did you remove the sourced statement about differences between madhhabs again? Repeatedly removing sourced content without explanation is considered highly disruptive. Eperoton (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

text: You misunderstand.  Consensus is required to remove a banner.  This article still relies quite a bit on primary sources. PepperBeast (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are a couple of Quran and hadith citations without non-primary support and a couple of unsourced sections. We could replace the primary sources banner with a more general refimprove banner ("needs additional citations for verification"). Eperoton (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with refimprove.PepperBeast (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

text: We're tying to improve the article with better refs, not just chop bits out of it. PepperBeast (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I've swapped the banner for refimprove, and hopefully this will let us get past the distraction of debating the banner. , these banners are an invitation for other editors to help improve the article. It's normal to have them on for months or years, until someone has the desire and time to do so. Personally, I hope I'll be able find the time to improve the sourcing and content sooner than that. We can remove the banner after the issue has been addressed. Eperoton (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Let's not use website citations, since these are generally not RSs for generalizations and need to be contextualized within the spectrum of Muslim opinions. For example, the book on al-islam.org is by US-based modernist authors, while IslamQA.info is a hardline Salafist source. I can share with you the relevant entries from Oxford encyclopedias via email if you like. Eperoton (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm 100% down with adding better refs-- was mostly doing a quick-and-dirty to prevent  deletions for uncitedness.  PepperBeast (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad this article is finally getting some improvement. It used to just be total chaos. Keep up the good work! Kaldari (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Websites 

message: I've introduced a tentative separation between traditional jurisprudence and modern developments, which are to be expanded. It may not be entirely clean, as it looks like some of the refs may be describing modern laws. Eperoton (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical vs modern 

message: I'm replacing the description of classical jurisprudence with a summary of two entries of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Women. Some of the replaced content was based directly on primary sources. Some cited secondary sources, but since the article didn't differentiate between classical jurisprudence and modern national legislation, I wasn't sure what some of the sources referred to, and some referred to specific national codes. If you find that something important is missing and you can access the sources to verify what they're talking about, please restore the content. I also rolled back some Quranic quotations (the sources don't quote these passages and they can be quoted in footnotes if needed) and merged the discussion of iddah and nihah halala into the main body of text, since the concepts have their own articles. Eperoton (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block replace 

message: The section you're trying to add a main link for is "Quranic principles", so a main article on the topics would be a general article about Quranic principles of divorce. As you can see from the text of the section, it cites several surahs, and in fact Sūrat aṭ-Talāq is not among the explicit citations. I don't know if the title of the surah makes you think that it's the principal source of Quranic principles for divorce, but it's not, and the article on it is not the main article on the subject. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quranic principles and Sūrat aṭ-Talāq 

message: The Khul' article has had quality and verification issues for more than a decade and would be better redirected in this article with the more pertinent details copied over from Khul'. There is already significant overlap, such as in the Qur'an and Hadith references and general principles and considerations. The academic literature meanwhile does not tend to focus on Khul' as a subject in its own right, but normally covers it within the wider context of divorce/family law and jurisprudence. Khul' would be better off as a redirect to a condensed, well-sourced section in this article on divorce in Islam. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge of [[Khul']] into [[Divorce in Islam]]

message: There's a stale being merged template from last year, which was based on only the proposer's view. I've had a look at executing this, but think that doing so would unbalance Divorce in Islam, an important topic. Hence, I propose that we keep the current Khul' page, maintaining the current WP:SUMMARY structure, which seems to work well for readers. Klbrain (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This episode has somewhat faded from memory, but the purpose of this proposed merger appears less with a view to bloating this article, so much as condensing/dealing with the mess at khul' which is a medley of overly long quotes, and large sections of prose quite clearly taken more or less from a single source apiece. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That was part of my concern. I'd rather than editorial decision regarding refining the text be made first through editing, rather than using merging as a surrogate for a hard prune. I have looked at the Khul' article and each section is referenced, and there are a number of references to what seem to be reliable sources, rather than just one source. Can I therefore suggest that we leave this in the current WP:SUMMARY structure, as a merge without expert editing seems inappropriate; and we seem to have no editors with the necessary subject expertise willing to put in that editorial work. Klbrain (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objections. As you note, clearly I haven't had the will to enact the merger. I'm not sure I am even persuaded by my own original logic any more. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

text: OK; I've removed the templates; Khul' remains linked with a main template. Klbrain (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khul' in Summary format