Talk:Marriage in Islam

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mahr 

message: 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)
replies: text: Well actually there is a source on Wikipedia, in the article Islamic View of Marriage that says "The woman needs her juridical guardians consent if she is a virgin."  I could probably  have phrased that better. "A widow shall not be married until she be consulted, nor shall a virgin be married until her consent be asked." The Companions said, "In what manner is the permission of a virgin? " He replied," Her consent is by her silence." From the dictionary of Islam "Liberty is allowed a woman who has reached the age of puberty, to marry or refuse to marry a particular man, independent of her guardian, who has no power to dispose of her in marriage without her consent or against her will; while the objection is reserved for the girl, married by her guardian during her infancy, to ratify or dissolve the contract immediately on reaching her majority."  A girl under the age of puberty cannot consent in any meaningful way.  The question is, if she does not want to be married, and the marriage is dissolved, has her husband been committing adultery?  Obviously not - it is a valid marriage between the age it is contracted on her behalf and the time she gets it dissolved.  But I would be happy if you rephrased it to make it clear that very young girls, who cannot in any rational sense consent, can be married as long as they are silent.  After all Muhammed married a wife who was too young to even understand what was going on. Lao Wai 18:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont belive aisha was 6, more like 14. What you are refering to is bethorasal, not marriage. They are not allowed to have intercourse until the betrothal is solemnized in a marriage, and that only happens if the girl is post pubescent and concenting. Sunni claim she was bethrod at six and married at nine. She can be bethrod at young age, but not married. --Striver 03:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lao 

message: (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)
thread_title:  link vote

message: 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)
replies: text: Why just not spit it out: three Muslims have fewer sexual partners in a lifetime than one westerner. Much better to something like that in a factual and sourced manner than saying "no, we dont do that, maybe some hillbilly, but not we in the city".... --Striver 00:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure, maybe  three muslims have more sexual partner's than three westerner, but they keep it a secret. This sort of lame speculation has no place in an encyclopedia. It's also well known that even saudi arabia is having a bit of an AIDS problem. Klonimus 01:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, if we are going to make an assertion there should be some kind of study backing it up. gren グレン 02:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It's probably *alot* higher than that. That figure reminds me of China reporting that they had a total of 8 cases of HIV in 1990. Here's a link to an AFP articleHealth-AIDS-Saudi: Saudi Arabia has 6,787 HIV/AIDS cases, up five-times from 16 months ago , December 1, 2003. Just based on that data in that article the rate of infection in saudi citizens is at least 0.07% and is probably much higher. Given the sexually repressed nature of saudi society, I would be wholly unsurprised to see many cases go unreported. 
Klonimus 08:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Talk about actual customs? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "requires the consent of both parties very strictly if they are adults" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please give a better reference than the one you gave while making such a claim -- Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs)  10:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pakistani Custom

message: 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)
thread_title:  ayesha married muhammad when she was 6 and consummated (had sex) marriage at age 9 when muhammad was 53 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Usage of words Heterosexual and Legal contract 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cousin Marriages 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: There are several unsourced paragraphs. This page should have the 'refimprove' template in its header. --عبد المؤمن (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources 

message: 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)
thread_title: Watching

message: "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)
thread_title:  Biased passage 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of sourced material and insertion of unsourced material 

message: Encyclopaedia of Islam is not an authoritative source --Qdinar (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: according to wikipedia , it says there is forcing bride into marriage is possible in islam, but that is not true, because consent of bride is mandatory , according to hadithes, so, this shows this book is not authoritative, even if there are some scholars of islam with that idea, that should be shown, and may be wikipedia author did not bring/pass/transmit meaning of text of the book fully and correctly enough. --Qdinar (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd have to bring up the issue with WP:RSN if you feel that the encyclopedia is not a reliable source.  On Wikipedia, we report on what others say, not the "truth". EvergreenFir (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

text: see also Talk:Wali mujbir --Qdinar (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: i have posted in that discussion though its article is removed now. i said this : i cross-post here without blockquotes : 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  --Qdinar (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopaedia of Islam is not an authoritative source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  marriage not "compulsory" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Will raise this........ Swingoswingo (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

text: ..I also have doubts if any such 586 AD event ever happened in France. But let's see if we find something better on the cited claims. Swingoswingo (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Bogus source

message: If bride's free consent is not oibtained; the marriage IS VOID. Wrong info is provided. --Maadikhah (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please provide some reliable sources supporting your claim? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Khomeini's risalah is only one of them. --Maadikhah (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI: Saying that in Islam, a walee (guardian) can make a girl marry a man is a claim itself that needs to be proven by reliable sources. --Maadikhah (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We are discussing marriage-related stuff in Islam, so Islamic scholar's works can be used as resources stating one side/one point of view. --Maadikhah (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

text: And, according to many Muslims, common people and clergy, it is NOT Islamic to marry off people in this way. --Maadikhah (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Info 

message: 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)
replies: text: And, according to many Muslims, common people and clergy, it is NOT Islamic to marry off people in this way. --Maadikhah (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamophobia?! Or am I cynic/skeptic?! :/

message: I support '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)
replies: text: In that case, all the material relating to jurisprudence would need to be moved to the other article and reduced here to a single WP:SUMMARY section. Otherwise, the overlapping scope is a WP:CFORK. Eperoton (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not all just most. Keep it to a concise summary. CaliphoShah (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Quran 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Islam]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: You are absolutely correct, this kind of language is never allowed on Wikipedia and I will take care of it. Thank you, - Wretchskull (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is some very subjective/partial languages within this article. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Same sex marriage in islam