Talk:Islam and domestic violence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Proposed Merge

I support Callio's proposal to merge most of the material from Criticism of the Qur'an#Domestic behavior into this page from as that will allow this topic to be expanded further. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. The content is similar, but the two topics are different. This article has a wider scope, and there still should be material on Domestic behavior in the Criticism of the Qur'an article. Some matearial will naturally be lost, as not all criticism is scholarly. Such material has no place here, yet it does in the criticism of the qur'an article. The relevant meterial should just be copied here and edited.--Sefringle^Talk 03:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'll withdraw my Support too. You're right, I dont see any point for any mergers. We're good. I took out the merge proposal, it had been put in by someone else. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I took off the "result" part of the header because it doesn't seem to me that discussion should be closed before this article is cleaned up and we clearly distinguish what belongs in this article and what belongs in the Criticism of the Qur'an article. I copied a lot of stuff from that one and integrated it here, because there was a ton of overlap. It seems to me that most of the content remaining there should be removed, because it's basically a less complete version of this article. Also, I'm not sure why non-scholarly criticism of domestic violence in Islam does not belong in this article. To me, that seems to be a pretty important part of this page, especially given the neutrality concerns raised below. If we only make this article about Qur'anic exegesis, we risk giving readers the (incorrect, at least in practice) impression that there is no connection between Islam and domestic violence. Calliopejen1 07:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've merged everything into here that I wanted to merge; hopefully everyone else is okay with how this article is beginning to evolve. Calliopejen1 06:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Text versus reality (Neutrality tag)

Is there a possibility of adding to this article to talk about the modern day interpretatation of these verses and what the reality is rather than making the whole first part simply a proIslamic flier? I've traveled to many muslim countries and I can guarantee that the reality is much different than the quoting of a few select verses from the Qur'an would suggest; perhaps someone with time write a bit about media in muslim countries as there are even shows broadcast during "family times" that instruct men on the proper way to beat their wives. Gtadoc 16:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Calliopejen1 for making the divorce section more npov. My wife's mother was assualted and nearly murdered by her husband for trying to get a divorce (in the US even) and he was sent to jail here, but she is afraid to even go back to her home in Pakistan for fear of being attacked there by her own and his families. In many muslim countries it is nearly impossible for a woman to even ask for a divorce, much less to bring her case before a court. To have statements implying that a woman can simply go to a court and ask for a divorce is ridiculous and insulting to people who have lived (or not) through trying to get relief from violent husbands. Gtadoc 06:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Good that she survived. Yes you're right, there's a lot of women oppression on those countries. So... is the tag still needed? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so; the section needs expansion pretty badly but as is thats not reason for the tag. If there isn't any other objection I'll take it out. Gtadoc 15:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

'beating'

i would recommend replacing instances and variants of the word "beat" with something less loaded, such as "hit". beating generally refers to extensive physical damage (i.e. battery). while some literally translate it to "beat", i don't believe they intend the meaning and imagery commonly associated with the word in the English language (bruises, broken bones, and so on). at the same time, i think the article title is slightly problematic, "Islam and domestic violence" implies a (positive) connection between the two - and again, "domestic violence" is far too strongly worded to accurately represent what is permitted in the Islamic texts. ITAQALLAH 10:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

is it okay if i press forward with the aforementioned changes? ITAQALLAH 17:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the title be as it is - considering the circumstance that domestic violence is assuredly a part of Islam & we know that because of circumscribed permissions for it laid down in the Quran itself?66.29.115.69 (talk)

Although i agree with the fact that the title implies this connection, historically, in several translations of the Koran, beat has been used "If you experience opposition from the women, you shall first talk to them, then deserting them in bed, then you may beat them" (Koran ed. Peter N. Stearns) the use of hit implies a single blow, and is much more explicit in its definition. Using the word beat, as translated by experts allows readers to see the possible interpretations of the phrasing as intended by the original writers of the Koran —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.99.55 (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

i don't see what variant interpretations can be derived from the phrase "you may beat them" - beat in a domestic context commonly refers to forceful and possibly continued strikes (i.e. battery, grevious bodily harm). that is not what is is intended by the concession of corporal punishment, as stated by the exegetes (and i don't think that's the intended meaning of translations from decades passed); and is also why a number of academic sources prefer a less loaded word such as 'hit.' ITAQALLAH 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This is quite irresponsible and bizarre. The translators use the word "beat" over "hit" for linguistic reasons. Don't you know some Arabic? Also don't remove someone's statement just because you don't like it, and don't insert editorializing like "Muhammad forbade" which strengthens the material beyond what is cited. Arrow740 (talk) 08:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Your token excuse regarding the Hirsi Ali quote is disappointing. It's not the question but her answer which is relevant to this article. Arrow740 (talk) 08:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Some translators use beat, others as far as I know use words like strike and so on. But the word as used today is generally quite loaded, and does not connote what the jurisprudence permits. Hence, a more neutral word with basis in the sources can and should be deferred to.

As for Hirsi Ali, some her main 'criticism' has been provided already, and this answer is in the context of whether her film would be offensive- try to present views that are appropriate in their context. It's also not appropriate to just mass revert to your version from a few months back, which is what you've been doing on several articles now. ITAQALLAH 14:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Provide sources, not empty rhetoric. The Qur'an says beat according to all the sources currently available. Arrow740 (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, which is why it's fine to retain its usage in the quote of the verse. Beat, in common English usage however, refers to something quite different to what is stipulated (i.e. battery, bruising, and so on). Even Y. Ali recognises that in the footnote. Hit is used by Roald (cited in the article) - in her entire discourse she favours the word 'hit' over others and the list of primary sources she provides are all also translated as hit (pp. 148-149). As indicated by the all sources, the chastisement must be non-violent and must not cause physical damage - this is totally different to what 'beat' in common discourse implies.[1] ITAQALLAH 02:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You might want to modify your statement. Hitting is a violent act, and there is no doubt a different word in Arabic for "hit" or else Y. Ali would have jumped at the opportunity to translate idribunna as "hit." Y. Ali is as we know, the apologetic translator who feels the need to add statements to the Qur'an in the form of parenthetical statements in his translation. Hirsi Ali is a very notable figure involved in a high profile movie about Islam and domestic violence, and you shouldn't try to censor her statement. Regarding "beat," use hit whenever your source does. Since the Qur'an says beat, beat should be the default. Arrow740 (talk) 08:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The claim that all prominent translations use beat is false. Da-ra-ba simply means to strike, most translators render that as beat. They're not wrong, but it's clear that the meaning intended doesn't correspond with what beat implies in common usage - so there is certainly an issue with using it in standard prose. In fact, you don't even seem to be denying that; so this artificial qualm ("it's used in prominent translations") seems little more than a pretext to trump WP:NPOV and disregard more neutral words which convey the proper meaning. As for Hirsi Ali, you can find wikiquote thataway. I think there is enough coverage of her views without the irrelevant material. ITAQALLAH 14:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Arabic term Da-ra-ba simply means to strike. --Be happy!! (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It must be tough to be saddled with this. Arrow740 (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As you seemingly have no meaningful response to offer, I have reinstated the more neutral version. ITAQALLAH 23:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

2 of the USC translations [2] use Beat, the 3rd uses Scourge. There are even more which use the word "beat" [3]. I dont see why you're switching over to the softer "hit" when these translations do not use this softer word. We should switch back to beat. The translators know more, trust me. Scholars too are using the word beat most often (e.g. see some here). You can take a poll of all the sources talking about it and you'll see that beat is the most popular word. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You have, unknowingly I think, disproved Arrow's false claim that 'all' prominent translations use 'beat'.

Matt, it's got nothing to do with what words translators use. It's got to do with what word we should favour in the prose. As per WP:NPOV, we should stick to neutral writing whenever necessary. Arrow hasn't contested my claim that beat is a loaded word, do you? And, presuming you don't, are these loaded connotations representative of what is allowed in the sources, or what translators like Y. Ali explain what is meant by the verse? Hit is not a softer word, it is merely not a loaded word. ITAQALLAH 15:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

He probably meant that almost all translations use Beat (which is as good as all for the purpose of this discussion). Loaded word, NPOV or not, we should use the word that is most used by all the sources. If all the sources use "Airplane", it wont make sense to make headings of "Trains". Get my point? For example if we're talking about a serial killer, we'll use the word "Kill" or "murder" etc., if thats what the sources are saying. You're violating policies here, by trying to use a softer word that sources dont even use often only because it doesnt look good to you. By using Hit, you're violating WP:OR because thats not what sources are using. We can debate this all year long, ItaqAllah. Use what the sources are saying. So do you want to do a poll of what the sources are using? This is the only way to decide this issue. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

<reset>"He probably meant that almost all translations use Beat (which is as good as all for the purpose of this discussion)." - Oh come on, that's just playing with the facts.

"You're violating policies here, by trying to use a softer word that sources dont even use often only because it doesnt look good to you. By using Hit, you're violating WP:OR because thats not what sources are using. We can debate this all year long, ItaqAllah." - Have you even been reading this discussion? I have already said that hit has precedence in the reliable sources, namely Roald (2001) - who throughout her entire discourse uses the word 'hit', and also translates ~ a dozen primary sources using the word hit.

"Loaded word, NPOV or not, we should use the word that is most used by all the sources." – Hold on... NPOV does matter here. It is one of the core content policies and is non-negotiable. You also seem to be admitting that beat is a loaded word. So why favour a more loaded word, if another neutral word has precedence in reliable sources?

"If all the sources use "Airplane", it wont make sense to make headings of "Trains". Get my point?" - I don't understand how this analogy is relevant to the discussion.

These arguments about which is present in translations most is all irrelevant, and any poll is merely a red herring. We have established that beat is a loaded word. There is no evidence that the word used by translators corresponds to the imagery associated with the word in colloquial usage. You even admit that beat has less POV implications, by stating it is "softer" (it's not softer, by the way, it carries exactly the same meaning but without the POV baggage). ITAQALLAH 18:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Who cares about what Roald says? I dont even know this person. You picked them because they used the word Hit. You're trying to censor stuff, brushing things under the carpet and making this article look better, thats what this is about. Tell me why exactly again are you using Hit? Doing a Poll is not casting a red herring. Dont use all these wiki terms and interlinks Itaq, when they can much more easily apply to what you do here yourself all the time. BEAT is the word used in most of the sources, and THATS how we decide what word we use. Real simple. Open an RFC or mediation on this if you want. The word beat will say, since thats what sources have used. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Roald is a reliable source and currently used in this article. Tell me Matt57, what am I trying to "censor"? POV meanings not intended in the translations? Also Matt, I don't think I equivocate meanings of words, so I don't see how you can say I'm equivocating. You are totally avoiding the question of whether beat is loaded, because you don't deny it. You also don't deny that hit is accurate and used in sources. You seem to have dropped your OR accusation, now you are claiming we must use what is present in most translations. Of course, the latter is completely irrelevant, because the associated POV is clearly not intended; and I also think this is being used as a shallow pretext to favour POV language over neutral language. (As a patent example, I doubt you would ever support usage of 'prophet Muhammad' - despite its overwhelming presence in reliable sources.) ITAQALLAH 18:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Tell me why exactly again are you using Hit?" I suggest you start at the very beginning of this section and work down from there. ITAQALLAH 18:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, beat is the word all the sources (primary and secondary) use. Thats the word we go. If you disagree, you'll have to open an RfC. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"As I said, beat is the word all the sources (primary and secondary) use" - Really? Now you're contradicting yourself. And wrong. ITAQALLAH 19:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse, by all I meant, most. So what do you want? Want to open an RfC on this too? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

All doesn't mean most - that's just highly deceiving. I wouldn't want to accuse you of deception, but I don't know how you could claim all primary/secondary sources use beat when we have just been discussing them. Let's try going through this step by step. Do you admit that beat used in current and specifically domestic context refers to repeated forceful strikes, and evokes images of bruising/broken bones/battery?[4] ITAQALLAH 19:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No. And you trying to guess what kind of images it evokes is OR. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not OR, I have provided a reliable source. If you don't accept the common images associated with the word beat despite it being obvious (and you do, else you would never have said that beat is 'softer' than hit), then I think you are being needlessly obstructive. ITAQALLAH 19:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have provided the source where the most often used word is beat in the translations. Roald is just one source and secondary. You're the being obstructive here. Ofcourse hit is softer than beat, but thats the not the point. The point is, we use the word which the sources are using. Your evaluation that Beat has POV problems is your original research. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I proved your last sentence wrong already with a dictionary reference. See also Beat. As I said, let's go through things step by step. Instead of denying the obvious just to act the antagonist, you should concede that beat in a domestic context implies bruising, repeated hitting, and so on. We can move forward from there. ITAQALLAH 22:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree to using "hit" instead of "beat". As stated, "hit" describes the act, while "beat" adds a certain aspect of violence and repetitiveness. The meanings can be verified from hit and beat.Bless sins (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The Qur'an says beat. That's what the translators say; beat or scourge. Some Muslim scholars think the beating shouldn't be too severe. That's fine. We know there are hadith that support more severe beatings. Arrow740 (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We are here to write an encyclopedia that conforms with Wp:NPOV. Regarding translations, there are many, many translations.Bless sins (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your characterisation of the issue is quite misleading Arrow. Even this new (and suspicious) IP reverter understands the loaded meanings behind using the word in standard prose - that is, in fact, why he is unfortunately pushing its usage. "We know there are hadith that support more severe beatings." - that's your own original research, and contradicted by the reliable sources used in this article. Hit has precedence in the sources used in this article, and is undisputably more neutral. ITAQALLAH 04:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hitting it usually something incidental or even accidental as in 'I ended up hitting another car after I had sped through the intersection'. It's something you do to a fly or a cockroach or a baseball. Most cases: it's a once thing you do, which is effective, then you're done with it. 'Beating' is purposeful, deliberate and contempletive of something that can be sustained and repetitious till it attains that purpose: exactly the Quran's kind of permission you have to maintain your attacks until (though no longer than) effects subduing or beating the nushuz out of the subject. "idribuhunna for nushuz" --> beat until they no longer rebel, then proceed no longer. Why else is it so commonly discussed in such terms: [5]? Other than that it is a term deriving from most respected translations of the source (see above) and is seen to prevail in the great majority of them; whereas 'hitting' is just a termed pulled in, contrarily, through the personal preference of a couple of persons proposing terminology for the writing of this article - no more - and there seems no better reason than that for its being preferred. The prevailing language of respected translations of the sources is what's meant for us to be going with.

And, oh dear, though the sources report 'beating', that's just 'loaded' and somehow therefore wrong and unable to be usefully employed for exposing the subject. Then maybe best for us to redefine 'War on terror' as 'Worldwide antiterrorist police action': sounds much less 'loaded', bro. Only one problem: that's not how it came out of the mouth of the person acknowledged for first and most famously defining it. The same analysis equally then also applies for most famously scandalous pronouncements of other idiots.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Please try reading the above discussion. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox - please keep your messages civil and to the point. People are unlikely to read tangental quips, with all due respect.

If you have read the above discussion, you will know that beat is still favoured for use in the translations. We are talking about what word to use in the prosaic discussion. Your clear admission of POV behind this term demonstrates why it violates WP:NPOV. Alternatively, we have secondary reliable sources using hit, which is a neutral word, and certainly not `"accidental" or "incidental" as you claim (please consult a dictionary). I can see two words - both with precedence in reliable sources. One is more neutral than the other. ITAQALLAH 14:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, when quoting a source that says "hit," use hit. Otherwise use the word the Qur'an uses. Arrow740 (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Employing the term "bro", uncivil you feel? Harden up. And it's soapboxing to employ examples from other contexts to express as much as the idea "don't scurry to the option of expressing euphemisms for original terms you don't like because you have found a group of commentators that have done so"??

I didn't say your calling me bro was uncivil. Please refer to WP:CIVIL again and re-read your comments in that light. ITAQALLAH 15:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Words are words and the POV you find is the POV you're choosing to give them. The 'POV' for the choice is the 'POV': lets use the term most closely imitative of that which raises the mention of the subject in the primary source itself. And if there's two alternate terms, it's one that evokes the primary source language and the other which is euphemistic of it and employed by those seen to have an emotional interest in being euphemistic about it. The tenor of the argument about this was expressed most aptly by the other person above who observed "it must be hard to be saddled with this". Yeah, it is. And the honest term is the one that employs no alterations of or substitutions upon the terminology of the source.66.29.115.69 (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Using words in translations (the "terminology of the source", as you put it) is one thing, using it in modern, standard prose where the meaning has accrued multiple negative connotations (entirely unsupported by anything in the sources) is something else. As you admit, beat is something repeated. And as I hope you will be honest enough to further admit: in a domestic context it connotes bruises and broken bones. Neither of these implications are afforded by the primary sources, despite the translation 'beat' popping up (As a sidenote, there is no indication that hitting must be continued until nushuz stops - hitting is merely an attempt to stop it. If it doesn't work, then alternative avenues such as divorce are taken.)

66, you are proving my point for me. There is absolutely nothing "euphemistic" about hit, except that it doesn't contain the tendentious imagery of "beat" which itself is not permitted in the sources. WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. ITAQALLAH 15:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Then experience 'tendentiousness' is only in you and others like you who just don't like the terminology employed by he expert translators who consulted the source. From the plain terms of the verse I don't see any words of limitation on the manner/intensity of these beatings other than "but when they no longer find a way to proceed against you, (then) no longer proceed". And I've never heard such doubletalk as this about "multiple negative connotations accruing" after a particular phrasing was employed. From the time Yusuf Ali authored his translation in 1936 to the present there's been no evolution in the meaning/sense of what it is to "beat" - other than, I suppose, it being employed in American English by those expressing the idea "to defeat in a contest": a sense that will cause no confusion here.66.29.115.69 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to be a new editor. I wonder why you are using an IP...

This appeal to IDONTLIKEIT is a non-sequitur, and quite amusing people when throw it around in non-XfD debates. You were clearly admitting the POV behind the term in your edit summaries and early comments. Now, when it's revealed that it violates content policies, you totally deny any such meaning whatsoever.

Anyway, perhaps you can re-read my above comments and not shy away from tackling its central arguments. That is, 1) beat is a loaded word when used in a domestic context, 2) those meanings do not conform to what the primary and secondary sources specify, as evidenced by the article, 3) 'hit' is used in reliable sources. This nonsense about the word used in translations is irrelevant, the "terminology of the source", as you put it, is far different from the meaning you are knowingly pushing. 4) hit connotes a physical strike, and is more neutral than beat. ITAQALLAH 01:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It really doesn't concern us that in your personal POV a particular word is too 'loaded' for your taste, what we're concerned about is conservativeness in reflecting the original terms of the source. There's not a policy or a guideline anywhere about which lets an editor take the stance: "I don't like THAT term coming from a predominance of views on the original source, I like THIS one that comes later as a the pet term employed by some secondary commentators and explainers". Is there anyone who doesn't think that the said school of commentators escape awareness for being thoroughly invested in the apologetic view of their subject matter?66.29.115.69 (talk)

1)Every word conveys meanings. 2)The preponderance of sources say "beat." 3)Hit is used in one source and in none of the prominent translations. End of story, really. 4)No word is "neutral" in and of itself. Again, when quoting a source that says "hit," use hit. Otherwise use the word the Qur'an uses. Arrow740 (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

1) Not every word conveys biased and unintended meanings. 2) That doesn't respond to the point made, which is about whether the word accurately reflects what primary/secondary sources say is allowed. 3) That source is a reliable, secondary source with a detailed discussion on the topic. Hit thus has precedence in the sources, as does beat. 4) I didn't say hit was neutral, I said it was more neutral than beat. As both are used in the sources, we can opt for what is more neutral. ITAQALLAH 02:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hit is used far less than beat. If the Quran used the word "Fire", should you replace the analysis of a related article with the word "warm" because Fire is too hot in your opinion? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to work on your analogies :-). Nobody claims the word fire is loaded. ITAQALLAH 02:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Quran in many places vilifys certain groups as being 'in the Fire' or 'abiding in the Fire' to evoke the concept of damnation. If I wanted to run a certain agenda I could scream and wail that 'consigned to the Fire' was POV/loaded/too harsh/unintended meaning/not a fair translation of what was expressed, and campaign for 'held in disfavour' as my personal preference. But in doing so I'd be exposing a lack of neutral honesty to the terms of the source and a willingness to euphemise and spin my own interpretive tales. Wikipedia doesn't stand for that.66.29.115.69 (talk)

Good point. Arrow740 (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if we were discussing it in normal prose, we would be reserved in our descriptions. If we wanted to refer to a group as 'in the Fire', we would use it in quotes. ITAQALLAH 23:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh but, even in quotes, that would also be totally unacceptable because - with reference to your startoff comment of 10:47, 20 October '07 - you wouldn't personally "believe they intend[ed] the meaning and imagery commonly associated with the word in the English language", remember? Did I miss something?66.29.115.69 (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your analogy is falling apart. In the fire means just that: In the fire/In hell. There's no alternate, loaded meaning of that in standard English discussion. ITAQALLAH 20:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm giving an example. We use what the sources say. We shouldnt water a certain word down because it sounds too loaded. Are the sources using this word? Thats all we need to know. If the Quran said "pour boiling water down his throat", we wont say "thats too loaded, lets use 'let him drink some warm gatorade'", otherwise this will be misleading and misrepresenting the sources. Sorry, the word Beat is the word used on almost all the sources. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. That example doesn't work either. By the way, it looks like you are conceding that the word beat is loaded when used in this context. ITAQALLAH 03:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course it does. "Hit" and "beat" have slightly different meanings. You have made the judgment that "hitting" a wife is acceptable while "beating" is not, so hitting is a more "neutral" term. It is not more "neutral." It is just different. Your vague arguments about "loaded" are not a reason to mistranslate the Qur'an. Arrow740 (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is mistranslating the Qur'an? The section is talking about hitting in Islamic jurisprudence, which is an amalgamation of what is specified by primary texts and certain commentators. The translation of the verse has not been changed.

You have made the judgment that "hitting" a wife is acceptable while "beating" is not - Not at all. I am saying that hit more accurately represents what the jurisprudence specifies. Compare the modern domestic meaning of beat (battery) with what the sources specify; that is, no bruising, no marks, no excesssive force, preferably use a siwak. While I am happy to continue our discussion another time, this section is fast becoming a troll magnet with several inappropriate comments. It might be better to stop feeding, and compromise on using hit when the source does. ITAQALLAH 23:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's what some of the sources are using. Beat is used everywhere, in the large majority of translations and sources. Chastise is used twice as is scourge. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Beat

• Washington post: "Many Muslims also believe that men have the right to beat their wives." (other places too)
• Quran translations:
  • Yusuf Ali: Beat
  • Hilali-Khan
  • Shakir
  • Khalifa
  • Arberry
  • Palmer
• Yusuf al-Qaradawi
• Dr. Ahmad Shafaat says: "This word has almost universally been translated here as "beating". As this is a pro-Islamic person who is saying this, this is really all that needs to be said here.
• Others (I stopped here, there are more)

Scourge

• Quran translation:
  • Pickthall
  • Rodwell

Chastise

• Quran translation
  • Sher Ali
  • George Sale

Hit

• Roald

The majority of sources use beat, hence we use what the sources, including translations and scholars of Islam are using. Are you saying we ignore what Yusuf al-Qaradawi says and listen to what this much lesser known person Roald says? We use what the sources use. You trying to use NPOV is not applicable here. If the Quran said Fire, we wont say we have to follow NPOV and use "warm". The goal is to accurately represent what the sources are saying, otherwise this will be misleading the reader. Using "Hit" is OR because you are not caring about what the sources are using. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you believe Al-Qardawi is a reliable source?

Your survey shows that most translations use beat. I don't dispute that. Your survey also shows a source saying that many Muslim men think they are allowed to beat their wives (see:battery, a common connotation of the word beat in standard discourse). I don't dispute that either. None of that is of any relevance when discussing what is prescribed in jurisprudence. Your fire analogy doesn't make sense at all. Using hit is not OR- I've made that quite clear- it's used extensively in a reliable source, which itself provides numerous hadith translated with hit. ITAQALLAH 02:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Roald is a converted Muslim of Norwegian origin. Do you see now why she's using the word hit, instead of Beat? Obviously, this woman wrote a book to water down what her religion actually says about the topic and she's trying to justify it. Now I can see what you're so intent at using this source. Why are you only looking at what Roald is saying? What about all the other 200 references for this article? Do you have access to the book? An occurence of "beating" is coming up on page 170 in Google books of her book but its not letting me see what it is. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Your attack on a specialist of Islam because of her personal beliefs is disgusting. It's like discrediting other well known scholars of Islam just because they're Jewish. ITAQALLAH 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing "disgusting" about it, please keep such comments to yourself. I knew something was up. She turned out to be a convert after all. Now it makes sense. The more important point: can you tell me now why you're only considering her opinion only and what about the other references on the article? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"She turned out to be a convert after all." Please note wikipedia will not discriminate against people on the basis of their religion. Her opinion is bieng considered because she is a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"please keep such comments to yourself"- Please keep your ad hominem attacks against a living, respected scholar to yourself then. How many of the "200 references"(!) used in this article are discussing the topic of hitting in Islamic jurisprudence? ITAQALLAH 23:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

same as if it were a well-credentialled Tory journalist (who in such a case would also be a member of the Tory Party) being, lets say 'a little kind' in reporting on the details of the latest Tory Party sex scandal. I'd still be suspending some disbelief and looking to other sources not so predictably 'on-side' for some input. Whether Wikipedia urges it or not, that's what my inbuilt personal BS-detector would be urging me to in the circumstances of a live controversy with partisan tinges.66.29.115.69 (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Choosing to convert is not a sign of objectivity. I'm not saying she's not reliable, but your response was a little strong. Arrow740 (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Itaqallah, sorry but this is unacceptable. When the scholars are all talking about the word "beat", labelling those sections as "hitting" is misrepresenting the source. You said you found my discovery of this Roald being a convert to Islam 'disgusting'. Whats actually disgusting is the encouragement to beat a woman if she disobeys her husband. Beat is what the sources use, so thats what the headings will say. Titling this article as Domestic Violence is actually already doing more than what should be done. I wouldnt mind if the title of this article was Islam and wife beating. If you think thats ridiculous, just look at what the whole issue is about and what everyone in this article is talking about and what words they're using. Domestic violence was used because it sounds better. We're already doing these abusive teachings a service by giving them a soften stage due to a softer title. The headings will stay. The sources talk about the word Beat. Roald is only one source. I wish these verses were revealed today. Women's rights organizations would sue the 'revelation' and take the offending verses to court. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly Matt57, stop soapboxing. It reveals nothing other than a tendentious agenda. ITAQALLAH 20:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see my post at the end. I've given you a number of references which talked about the jurisprudence. You wanting to use Hit is infact reflecting a tendentious agenda. Use what the sources say. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh so she's coming from being a member of the cult rather that being aloof of it. If I seem unsurprised by that revelation, it's only because I am. Very much this whole laboured discussion is coming down to a couple of voices presuming to know better than the expert translators who had access to the source in its original language in deciding terminology to be employed re beating rebelliousness out of a defiant spouse. Even if they made a really good linguistic argument, we'd still be unpersuaded because the expert translators are what's published and what has standing among the scholars. I'll also put this to you: when you 'hit', keep your eyes open because you can be 'hit' back. But when you're dominated and bossed by someone because of their God-given reserve power to take to physically chastising you until you correct your behaviour, that's the experience of being beat.66.29.115.69 (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please cease these trollish comments. And no, your speculation about physical domination is just that. ITAQALLAH 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, beating until submission is a sign of respect. Of course. Arrow740 (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(Nod and smile stifled)66.29.115.69 (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Itaqallah, as to what other sources use the word 'beat' in relation to Islamic jurisprudence, 1) This article is not only about "jurisprudence". Its about that and everything else. 2) Look at the references: #4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 19 (it was a nice farewell speech in which men were reminded again that they could beat their wives), 21 and others. All of these are using Beat in relation to Islamic jurisprudence. Did you see the refs? The motivation to use Hit instead of Beat is to smooth over what you would like the reader to see as less as possible. Even though thats true, we use Beat because thats what the majority of sources use. For you say to say that Beat has negative connotations and Hit is better to use, is OR because the majority of sources talk about Beat and not hit. If 90% of the sources are using the word "Red" in relation to a certain incident, its wrong for the article to use "Pink". Red is the right word to use because it represents what the sources are talking about. Get my point? This is beginning to sound like your debate on FFI's notability. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt, your analogies aren't very good. I've already agreed with Arrow to use hit simply when the passage is sourced to Roald. Your response doesn't really address the issues I raised anyway. I don't know what the debate over FFI has to do with this. ITAQALLAH 21:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, so after 75-odd days of trying it on since 20 October last year, you finally acknowledge the futility and admit to the viewpoint which I'm sure we all easily comprehend and would have agreed upon before then: from within quotes it's not appropriate to change 'hit' to another word, otherwise don't transpose other words revealed from the original source (ie. Quran) with it.66.29.115.69 (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not what's been agreed to. Any prose that's referenced to a source using hit may also use hit. ITAQALLAH 23:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine. Using hit where the source has used Hit is ok with me. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source: Robert Spencer

See the edit summary here that "Robert Spencer is not a reliable source". Is not the content of the sources he's referring to borne out by the analysis/commentary he makes? He draws our attention to an instance where Muhammad hurt Aisha by striking her in the chest at home, and another instance where Aisha commented that it is the muslim community where domestic violence against women is the largest problem. So if he's 'not reliable', what's the unreliability that's he's been charged with or found guilty of .. in any of his seven published books and contributions to many respected publications on the general subject of Islamic scriptural exegesis? He's an expert commentator on Islam who's not gained a reputation anywhere in particular for being 'not reliable'. Even his Wikipedia biography concedes that he's a 'writer on Islam' and the author of 'bestsellers'.66.29.115.69 (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Anon, we have discussed Spencer in the past. please take a look at this [6] by Carl Ernst. Spencer does not have any degree in Islamic studies. He is just a writer. He does not publish his works through presses that practice blind peer-reviewing. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

So Carl Ernst, an academic, has vague objections about his reliability. So Daniel Pipes, another academic, has the opposite view. I'm persuaded that someone who has been invited by so many publications and media orgs, themselves reliable sources (eg. New York Times, BBC, CNN etc.), about the same broad subject is not himself unreliable. This notion that a focused degree is -required- for establishing reliability as a source needs to be squashed too. Hillary Clinton would be a reliable source about Bill Clinton re the life they've lived together, similarly Sammy Davis Jr and Dean Martin about the time they spent with Frank Sinatra - even Kitty Kelley (his biographer, who never met him). None of them achieved a degree in researching the other as a subject matter - but all can nevertheless be said to have attained or demonstrated reliable expert knowledge about it. Robert Spencer is in that category.66.29.115.69 (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes himself is a critic of Islam. NYT, BBC and CNN are News Agencies not reliable academic circles. Spencer is indeed notable as a critic of Islam but not as a scholar. --Be happy!! (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

However, CNN, the NYT and the BBC are reliable sources for wikipedia. Having been published by reliable sources such as those lends some credibility to the writings of those who have been published by them. However, I've removed him and would welcome a more neutral source to flesh out that subsection. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That Spencer appeared on CNN doesn't make his statements there reliable in anyway for wikipedia. Also, note that your recent edit to the article constitutes original research (WP:OR) by citing a primary source directly. Reliable secondary sources evaluate reliability of the reports, compare them with other incidents (e.g. times that other things happened or nothing happened) and provide an scholarly view regarding its relevance to the scope of this article. To cite an example in this way provides a skewed version of the general relation of Aisha and Muhammad.--Be happy!! (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not in any way OR to cite a primary source. You've completely misread that policy. I agree, showing up on CNN doesn't make him reliable for wikipedia. Being a best selling author on the topic of Islam does. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Having a best-seller book doesn't add reliability. It just increases notability as a writer. Yes choosing what to cite from the primary sources and how to present it as a summary of the matter is what a person has to do when citing the primary sources and that's why it is OR. This has been the common practice in all the Islam related article for a long time. --Be happy!! (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not OR. Read the bloody policy and try to comprehend it. We'd have no articles if we could not use material from primary sources in the manner you seem to believe is OR. Being a party published by a respected third party publishing house does make Spencer a reliable source per the POLICY WP:V not simply the guideline WP:RS. You should really brush up on these things, Aminz. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why the issues of 'bestselling' and and 'respected publishing house' are being brought up all over again. Bestselling means nothing when it comes to reliability. It is in fact normal for most controversial books. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for most scholarly books, as they don't set out to whip up the kind of frenzy attempted in polemical tracts. And Regnery might be a respected press for conservative political literature... but it ain't no respected press for academic studies, that's for sure.

Primary sources should have backing from an appropriate secondary source, especially when they are open to interpretation as is the case with this instance (I suppose you could do a g-search for 'la-ha-da' and 'Aisha'. Not that such would be reliable for use on Wikipedia, of course). ITAQALLAH 19:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)