Jump to content

Talk:Sexuality in Islam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 202.134.14.156 (talk) at 19:37, 14 December 2023 (→‎The state of this article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Intercourse with jinns

It seems like this article has plenty to discuss already without wandering off into the mythological. I suggest that this material on jinns be moved to the page on jinns and that this article remain focused on the topic at hand, which is, I believe, for the sake of clarity, Islamic legal rulings pertaining to realistic and tangible sexual scenarios in human society (in the material world). Iskandar323 (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Sexuality in Islam per nom. No such user (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic sexual jurisprudence → Sexuality in Islam – This article title is more than a little odd. It gives the impression of being some sort of common name, but these three words have almost zero currency as a set phrase in academic literature. I got exactly 11 Google Scholar hits for it. At the same time, it is an unnatural and unconcise descriptive title. Sexuality in Islam, which currently redirects to it, would be a far better descriptive title. It would also parallel and be consistent with titles such as Sexuality in Judaism and Christianity and sexuality. That the article entails some discussion of Islamic jurisprudence is inherently implied by the fact that we are talking about sexuality in Islam which has a body of religious law covering most aspects of daily life; it does not really need to be said out loud in the article title, which should be focused on delivering recognizability. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Of the points at WP:AT the new title would boost recognizability, naturalness, concision (negligibly), and consistency (per Iskandar323). The article already does, and should continue to, address non-jurisprudential aspects of sex and sexuality in Islamic contexts, so the proposed title is more precise. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 02:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agreee Uzhan123 (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

P.S. After the move I removed the following paragraph from the lead, that I was unable to find a suitable place for. I find it overly bloated with wikilinks, and value of Arabic translations is questionable, since both the previous and the current are mere descriptive titles in both English and Arabic. I'm dumping it here if anyone wants to reintegrate it somewhere or reuse the references. No such user (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Islamic sexual jurisprudence (Arabic: الفقه الجنسي الإسلامي, Arabic pronunciation: [fiqhu'l dʒin'siːu'l ʔis'laːmiː] or Arabic: فقه النكاح, Arabic pronunciation: [fiqhu'n nikah]) is a part of family,[1] marital,[2] hygienical[3] and criminal jurisprudence[4][5] of Islam that concerns the

User:Uzhan123 this account has only one contribution following suspection as a sockpuppet. Lavito principa (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mallat, Chibli; Connors, Jane Frances (1990). Islamic Family Law. Brill. pp. 55, 58, 60, 62, 63, 64. ISBN 978-1-85333-301-9. Retrieved 26 May 2020.
  2. ^ Cohn-Sherbok, Dan; Chryssides, George D.; El-Alami, Dawoud (2013). Love, Sex and Marriage: Insights from Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Hymns Ancient and Modern Ltd. pp. XX, 88, 182, 196. ISBN 978-0-334-04405-5.
  3. ^ Khan, Muhammad Aftab (2006). Sex & Sexuality in Islam. Nashriyat. p. 296. ISBN 978-969-8983-04-8. Retrieved 26 May 2020.
  4. ^ Warren, Christie S. (2010). Islamic Criminal Law: Oxford Bibliographies Online Research Guide. Oxford University Press, USA. pp. 10, 11, 12. ISBN 978-0-19-980604-1. Retrieved 26 May 2020.
  5. ^ Zia, Afiya Shehrbano (1994). Sex Crime in the Islamic Context: Rape, Class and Gender in Pakistan. ASR. pp. 7, 9, 32. ISBN 978-969-8217-23-5. Retrieved 26 May 2020.

The state of this article

This move from a year ago seems to have worsened a problem with this article (pinging @Iskandar323 and @Firefangledfeathers for this reason); it treats "Islamic legal discourse/fiqh" as equivalent to "Islam". This is a fairly frequent problem, but in a high-exposure article like this, it is unacceptable; this article is not about sexuality in Islam; LGBT people and Islam does a better job at that despite being of a different scope. This is about the classical fiqh-related opinions on sexuality. That is not coextensive with Islam (or Muslims) of any period, and in some periods legalistic opinions were actively marginalized in many contexts. This is a grave issue of systemic bias, and in my opinion is enough to draftify an article if it was not so highly-viewed, but right now another move or rewrite might be in order. Uness232 (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Uness232: Perhaps. I take your point about the greater specificity of the current content. I still don't like the prior title, but how does Sexuality in Islamic jurisprudence sound? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem like a major problem to me that an article about "Sexuality in Religion" is about that religion's teachings about sexuality. LGBT people and Islam is a discrete topic, but maybe a hatnote would be in order, based on the multiple possible meanings of "sexuality". I agree that the article needs some expansion, and I particularly would love to see Uness232 add some content on the legalistic opinions that were marginalized, or remove some content if it's so marginal that it's undue. I don't think would be warranted; I understand that wasn't really on the table, but just saying. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative is that this page be renamed to reflect its current more specific scope and then "Sexuality in Islam" could be created as a parent for this, LGBT and Islam and other content. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers: The problem is that Islam (much like Christianity and Judaism) does not have one coherent body of interpretation on many things; sexuality included. While classical faqihs would probably agree with most of the interpretation of this article, in many periods these rulings were simply not carried out or respected by the general public. Ubayd Zakani's gay-lovers-on-a-mosque, sexually-explicit songs being performed in front of government apparatus (see for. ex. Saçbağı Takar Başına, or Gelibolu'da Bir Gelin), or the wealth of supposedly "illicit" material on bahnâmes, could not be widely produced in even the most secular countries of today's Muslim world without censorship or crackdowns; though they were done so half a millennium ago. The most correct title for this page then, would be 'Sexuality in classical Islamic jurisprudence', but that seems unwieldy, and @Iskandar323's suggestion seems to be the best alternative.
An even better thing to do would be to just start over on this article, but that simply doesn't seem realistic. Uness232 (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that there is such a problem with the article, among many others. I just think it can be improved as is. The content you propose to add about e.g. sexually-explicit songs would not fit in an article that is just about jurisprudence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware, and an article on traditional Islamic jurisprudence should not include historical non-legalistic realities. I am contrasting two things; if this is a Sexuality in Islam article, then it should include those, if it isn't and is about jurisprudence, it shouldn't, but it should be titled accordingly. Uness232 (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article already includes some non-jurisprudential content, and more can be added. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it is mainly jurisprudential content isn't it? Absorbing Uness232's critique, I see two paths forward: either we juice the jurisprudential content out into a Sexuality in Islamic jurisprudence child article, OR, we rename this page and construct a new "Sexuality in Islam" parent above this and other pages such as LGBT people and Islam, removing non-jurisprudential content to the parent, and summarizing the jurisprudential content there. If, for the sake of argument, we suggest that jurisprudential content is the majority of the content here, the latter is more pragmatic; if not, then perhaps the contrary is more pragmatic. But I think the process of teasing the two apart would be productive. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against the existence of a parent-child article structure like the one you propose. That said, much of the proposed content to be added would still need to be added to an article focused solely on jurisprudence. It still needs to talk about which laws or legal opinions were marginalized, and how Islamic cultures have accepted/ignored/re-interpreted the laws. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The previous name islamic sexual jurisprudence is better, it can cover all jurisprudences, ancient and modern, and another article called sexuality in Islam can be created. 202.134.14.156 (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality in Islam

@VenusFeuerFalle: Your recent edits on transgender and intersex issues of the articles only reflects the liberal view of the topic, not conservative views, thus it is not balanced and partial, you have removed many conservative references and added liberals, you didn't do the balance between the two views, you are betraying with the neutrality. Also seeking attention of User:TheAafi. Also check changes after this version. 202.134.14.156 (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Liberal vs conservative"-view beyond post-modern culture. I merely showed that sources actually say. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You just showed the sources that legalised transsexual issues, not the resources that restricted and forbide it, thus this is clear partiality and deviation of neutral point of view. 202.134.14.156 (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
202.134.14.156, I'm sorry to drive-by reply on someone else's talk page here, but—seeking their attention for what? Mind your business. Remsense留 17:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are playing a game of partiality on a topic using wikipedia and no one can attention to the matter? how weird is that? Can you change the XY sex-determination system of human which is present in every cell of a human, yet it is not discovered. Thus transgender surgeries does't help to produce the opposite reproductive cell or gamete because every cell's xy/xx gene system of the body denies to do it given by God. Ancient texts of the time of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) never allowed such kind of acts, let alone the operations, he used to send the exile from the society. You are just deforming their reproductive system, which is never allowed in the texts of Quran and Muhammad (pbuh). 202.134.14.156 (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure if I have ever significantly edited on this article. I find myself a nobody to offer an opinion on this because this is not the field of which I have any significant knowledge. I am sorry. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, it would be better to use the article's talk page and state what issues you have with it, and what reliable and verifiable sources support "the balance" that you are talking about. (Note: I have not been through this article) ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if you are avoiding the issue willingly to keep yourself safe in wikipedia, then you will be accountable to Allah for it in akhirat, Aafi. You have read in deoband and I know you have obviously read the courses of fiqhun nikah very well, and obviously in original arabic text. And you know, Allah don't forgive someone for any obligatory deed, for which he has ability to do it.202.134.14.156 (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have not studied at Deoband and I am not someone well-versed on this topic either, to speak about. I have been contributing to my subject of interest since 2019 (biographies, institutions, books etc) and I explicitly speak where I have knowledge. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you do me a favor and shift such private discussions to another place than my talkpage, just in case you really want to engage with an overly zealous anyonymous fanatic who proposes threats by emotional and religious oppression(I would't even agree to discuss someone like that). However, I would love to not have my notifications filled with each reply of that the emotional rant of such people. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one is zealous, it is a matter of fear that your non-neutral partial information can lead innocent muslims to astray. You are explaining one religion wrongly and pertially, you yourself are opressing ("muslim") people with trick and falsehood and gaming of information in the name of a "Muslim" yourself and then you are calling me a fanatic threating by emotional and religious oppression? The worst ever hypocricy.202.134.14.156 (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then who is that person in this link? Jamia Millia Islamia daora-e hadith obviously offers fiqhun nikah under the deobandi qaomi curriculum.(202.134.14.156 (talk)
@A. B., Liz, Iskandar323, Firefangledfeathers, and Uness232: 202.134.14.156 (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
seeking attention about the recent changes and difference between present version and this version and check them with concentration that, a lot of important citatations have been removed where the article was just near to perfectly completed and resourced then. The sources can be backed by googling in google books in english and arabic. There are lots of sources of references in arabic in google books and noor-books.com and other websites. Those who are proficient in arabic source finding in google and others, can help here. 202.134.14.156 (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know I was pinged to this talk page. I have no opinion regarding Islam and Sexuality. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
venus is just doing that thing. 202.134.14.156 (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
202.134.14.156, you have to sort that out with other, more knowledgeable, more interested editors.
Analysis shows that the Sexuality in Islam article has had 2514 edits made by 806 editors over the last 18+ years. This talk page has 216 edits by 83 editors. I did not make any of these edits. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexuality_in_Islam&oldid=1189904584"