Talk:Islamic marriage contract

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Islam (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


You may notice I am not deciding which hadiths carry weight. What exactly is the objection to the page as it is? Lao Wai 13:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It is vandalism because you are simply reverting without even trying to justify it. Explain what you think is wrong. I am not unreasonable. Or better yet ask Striver to look over the page. At least sensible people can deal with him. Notice that for the second time today you have broken the 3RR rule. This is not the sort of behaviour that you should be doing on Wikipedia. Now take a minute, think about what you don't like, and explain it to the rest of us. None of my quotes are untrue, all of them are relevant to the article, all of them help non-Muslims understand. What is your problem? Lao Wai 14:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
It is not vandalism, it is reverting a POV piece of Orignial Research. Nor does it breach the 3RR

Don't revert any single page more than three times within a period of 24 hours.
(This does not apply to self-reverts or correction of simple vandalism.)

You made a statement "The most important feature of a Marriage Contract is that which makes sexual intercourse legal." - Who the hell are you to decide this? Where is the citation? You base this on one hadee, who are you to decide this hadith carries such a weight? Who, apart from you, decided this to be the "most important Feature of a Marriage Contract" --Irishpunktom\talk 14:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I just changed that part in my most recent edit. I guess it should be more acceptable now? -- Karl Meier 14:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that is better, I would still like a source to put it's importance in context. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:21, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
To reply to Irishpunktom above. First of all it is not original research. I have made no claims. I have done no research. I have simply added some context and evidence. I am not in a position to do original research on the subject of Islamic law anyway, you know, not having access to God or Muhammed myself. Secondly, what POV am I supposed to be pushing? I do have opinions on the subject, but I can't see any of them reflected in this page. Thirdly, of course you have broken the 3RR rule. You are not reverting yourself, nor are you reverting any vandalism. Look up the link you provide, I quote,

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, namecalling, or other wholly irrelevant content.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia.

No obscenities, no namecalling, nothing irrelevant. You may think my work is misguided and ill-considered, but that does not justify your behaviour. There is nothing bad-faith about my additions here either and even if you think there is, they are not inarguably explicit. Stop repeatedly reverting my edits without even a simple explanation. I am perfectly willing to listen and to adapt. Lao Wai 14:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
If you don't like it explain to me why you don't. You will notice that it is in fact the prophet Muhammed who says this, not me. Are you saying that you know better than him? The citation I give is in fact the Hadith regarding his daughter's marriage. If you don't like it choose another phrasing. Don't keep reverting - there were a lot of spelling errors which I fixed. You are deleting them too. Lao Wai 14:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
No, I notice that it is based on a hadith. You are not a scholar, nor are you an Imam, you have no authority on which to weigh the merits of the Hadiths. It is not up to you to decide which Hadith is "most important". That is entirely original research. Wikipedia Official Policy explicitly states there is to be No original research. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Of course I am not a scholar. I am not trying to weigh up the merits of the Hadiths. That would be original research. The Hadiths provided (all of them by the way not just mine) make it clear what is the most important feature of a marriage contract, but it doesn't matter as there is another phrasing. The solution would have been to do the sensible thing and re-phrase my sentence not break the 3RR rule. I have not said which Hadith is the most important. Did you read what I said carefully? Lao Wai 14:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
It is not up to you to ascribe any importance to anything. Cite any source to justify any edit you make.. otherwise this is entirely your own opinion. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:46, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
I am not claiming it is up to me to ascribe importance. It is perfectly acceptable for me to put in two Hadiths which state the mahr is the most important element of a marriage contract. Which is all I did. Is it fair to say, given you do not comment on your other allegations, that you have now admitted that you were wrong on every other issue (reverting, vandalism, original research etc etc)? Lao Wai 15:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
You are also reverting an article which I have already changed. Look at the phrasing I chose. So, three times you have reverted me today for something I changed this morning. I will not make any comment on what sort of behaviour I think you are displaying. Ask Striver to edit this article please. Lao Wai 14:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
That is because you put the Exact same piece of unsourced original research on at least three pages. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:24, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Again, no research on my part. Second, no I did not. I moved it from one to another when Striver objected. (Sorry that was me earlier, the four ~ got lost. Lao Wai 15:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC))