Talk:Women in Islam

Beatrack you removed sourced content with this edit and then you use the islamqa source to say the opposite of what it says. Have you read WP:IDONTLIKEIT?-~2026-38095-23 (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Your edits are not in good faith and were not the standard view and Islam qa gave multiple views and made a distinction between a urban housewife and bedouin housewife. Beatrack (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Plasticwonder, Beatrack has removed a lot of sourced content, yesterday and today from this article, please restore it.-~2026-38095-23 (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Your edits, as stated in the edit summaries, do not appear to be in good faith or even focused on Muslim women in Islam. You added a lot of regional and social issues from India, restored content that had already been removed by other users, and added your own interpretation of primary sources. Beatrack (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I did not interpret primary sources but just paraphrased them, so please restore the sourced content you removed yesterday and today.-~2026-38095-23 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

No for primary sources you did and no a lot of your edits aren't relevant to women or about women in islam mentioning indian laws and customs are not needed here. You also restored conent removed from previous users without a reason? Beatrack (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@Plasticwonder and Aciram: Beatrack has removed sourced content from this article on the 6th and 7th of July, 2026. Please look at the sentences and sources that he has removed and restore what you deem fit. I am tired of edit wars with him.-~2026-38095-23 (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

You refuse to discuss I am happily to add spurces back if they actually apply here. Beatrack (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Plasticwonder and Aciram: Beatrack has removed sourced content from this article on the 6th and 7th of July, 2026. I am inexperienced, so please look at the sentences and sources that he has removed and restore what you deem fit (please look at what he removed on the 6th also).-~2026-38682-50 (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

If you weren't sure about your edits the why add them? Beatrack (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Beatrack Can you clarify more about the reverts you've made? I'm not really seeing a problem in @~2026-38095-23/@~2026-38682-50's edits here, especially about « Indian laws » or « edits [that] aren't relevant to women or about women in Islam », and there's no problem about tone either...? ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 10:29, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

C.Fred had told him to revert all his edits, so if he doesn't, you should follow it up with C.Fred.-~2026-38682-50 (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

No he didn't The issue was with edit warring Beatrack (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Are you using another account and editing as a temp account? How are you getting notified of any changes? Beatrack (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

As stated before I removed a large number of edits made by an temp account that either relied on primary sources without secondary support, pushed a POV, or introduced custom/regional issues laws about india which aaren't relevant here.

Restoring already removed content without a reason

Replacing mutah with misyar as they are the samething Beatrack (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I had mentioned both Nikah mutah and Nikah misyar but you removed the latter. Primary sources are allowed as long as they are not used for interpretation.-~2026-38682-50 (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

You removed and mixed them when they are two seperate things and one is legal in shia beliefs there was no need to alter it and misyar is not the same as mutah?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_Islam&diff=prev&oldid=1362975774

Also why did you restore already deleted content? Beatrack (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

That edit did not remove the term nikah mutah, it only added nikah misyar with a reliable source. I restored earlier content because it was removed without any reason. ~2026-38682-50 (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

C.Fred may sanction you if you don't revert your edits that removed sourced content on the 6th and 7th of this month.-~2026-38682-50 (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Instead of discussing the issues in hand your involving other users and refusing to engage and no the use was with edit warring you cannot revert more then three times a day. Beatrack (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

.nhals8 has found no problems with the sourced content, so please explain why you removed sourced content or self revert your edits of 6th and 7th July.~2026-38682-50 (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Its still under discussion and they simply wanted the reasons for the removal which I gave. Beatrack (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

C.Fred can see that you removed sourced content on the 6th and 7th of this month and then reverted what .nhals8 had restored earlier today and will sanction you for edit warring if you don't self revert immediately.-~2026-38682-50 (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

You have not given any valid reason for removing sourced content and now you are edit warring by repeatedly removing sourced content (on the 6th, 7th and today).-~2026-38682-50 (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Plasticwonder and Aciram: may also report you to the administrators noticeboard for edit warring.-~2026-38682-50 (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I can report you because your edits are not in good faith and you clearly have a account how else are you being notified hiding behind a multiple temp account also breaks the rules Beatrack (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

C.Fred, I stated my issues clearly on the talk page. Instead of engaging with them, the same temporary account as before invited .nhs8, and then my edits were reverted without addressing the concerns I had raised.

I also did not violate the three-revert rule within the last 24 hours.

I believe the temporary account may also have a registered Wikipedia account and may be using the temporary account to make edits. Beatrack (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

n.hals Instead of engaging with my explanation, you reverted my edits.

Do you agree that Nikah Misyar and Nikah Mut‘ah are the same thing?

Do you agree with adding primary sources without any secondary-source explanation, and with adding a hadith about Muhammad’s marriage to one of his wives as if it is relevant here?

Do you agree that adding laws concerning India and its customs is relevant to women in Islam?

Do you agree with re-adding multiple removed edits from other users and reinstating them because temporary accoun decided to add them back with no clear reason given? Beatrack (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

.nhals8 Fixed the ping

Instead of engaging with my explanation, you reverted my edits.

Do you agree that Nikah Misyar and Nikah Mut‘ah are the same thing?

Do you agree with adding primary sources without any secondary-source explanation, and with adding a hadith about Muhammad’s marriage to one of his wives as if it is relevant here?

Do you agree that adding laws concerning India and its customs is relevant to women in Islam?

Do you agree with re-adding multiple removed edits from other users and reinstating them because temporary accoun decided to add them back with no clear reason given? Beatrack (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

1) No.

2) Primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge (MOS:ISLAMOR), and there are many (yet not some, e.g. Muhammad) sections that are more or less straightforward interpretations.

3) There are 172 million Muslims in India, and the article does discuss about rights of women in countries with significant Muslim populations.

4) has the summary "Restored unexplained removal of content"...? The majority of 23's edits have summaries explaining why they added them back

Among the mess in which you reverted, there are chunks of secondary sources. ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 16:58, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

1. But the temporary account did. You were willing to revert my edits in order to add that back in.
2. But why is that relevant here? This is about women in Islam, not about Muhammad’s marriages. If there are several interpretations and views, that is exactly why secondary sources are needed.
3. But those laws were not about Islam; they were about Indian customs and laws involving Muslim women. Why add that here? No other Muslim country is mentioned in terms of customs or laws. The article is simply about what Islam says about women.
4. The temporary account did not explain why they re-added edits that other users had removed for various reasons, and they still have not addressed it when asked.
5. Did you even go through this the temp account just randomly drcided to readd things removed by various other users you don't find that strange https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_Islam&diff=prev&oldid=1362981065 also a lot of it was original research or without secondary sources supporting it

Beatrack (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Beatrack: Plasticwonder has reported you for repeatedly removing sourced content on the Administrators noticeboard, so please self revert your edits immediately.-~2026-38682-50 (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The Discussion is still ongoing. Beatrack (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

ToBeFree, Beatrack has been removing sourced content and his version is not the stable version. I am sure that Plasticwonder and .nhals8 agree. I therefore request you to self revert your edit and restore the sourced content.-~2026-38682-50 (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Not until a consensus is reached and my issues are addressed. Beatrack (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:ONUS applies. Find a consensus for restoration and the content can be included. Plasticwonder doesn't have an opinion on the content and just wanted to help with the edit war. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Plasticwonder, Beatrack and .nhals8, so let us discuss each edit.

1. This edit introduced sentences that conveyed what the reliable sources said and should be restored.

2. This is also reliably sourced.

3. This is also reliably sourced and should be restored.

4. This is also reliably sourced and should be restored.

5. This is also reliably sourced and is about Islamic divorce laws followed in India (it also added a reliable source for a previous sentence).

6. This replaced a sentence that temporary marriage is not allowed in Sunni Islam with a sentence that it is (known as nikah misyar), with a reliable source.

7. This is about maintenance after a Muslim woman gets divorced in India (with reliable sources).

8. This is about how and why child marriage is legal in Islam (with reliable sources).

9. This just added a reliable source and should be restored.

10. In this edit, only these sentences are unsourced: "Muslim scholars say this is fair because men must pay for the family (food, house, clothes) and women keep all their own money and do not have to pay for the family.", "In the past, many rich Muslim women owned land and gave big gifts to mosques and schools. In some old cities, 25% to 50% of big charity gifts came from women.", "Some people say the verse lets husbands hit wives, other people say the Prophet never hit a woman and told men not to do it." and all the other sentences are reliably sourced.-~2026-39245-05 (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

So, what are the objections?-~2026-39245-05 (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@Aciram: Please comment.-~2026-39245-05 (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

You can't force people to join if they don't want to. Beatrack (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Just mentioned them hope you respond to it and not ignore it like usual Beatrack (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

1. The same source says that most scholars did not deem women obligated to do household chores, although some scholars differed when discussing Bedouin and urban women. You ignored that entirely.

The issue of women travelling with a mahram is also more complex. The ruling differs greatly depending on safety, whether the travel is necessary, and whether a group of women can travel together. Other hadith also limit travel to three days. Your comment did not clarify this, which is why secondary sources are needed.Your third point is not needed. The topic is Islam, not customs. There is no need to mention the customs of every country, and if customs are mentioned, why only select a few? Historical context and customs are already discussed in the article.

2. Indian laws and customs are not needed here. Divorce is already mentioned, and the rules of divorce in Islam are already well explained. You also combined divorce with polygyny, even though divorce already has its own section.

3. There is no need to mention customs again. The article already discusses customs and explains that such customs are not necessarily linked to the religion. The topic is Islam and women, not customs of the Muslim world, which vary across 50 to 60 countries.

4. The verse is already mentioned in the article, so why repeat it? Also, what is the need to mention concubinage here?

5. Your sources about Indian laws are not relevant. There is already a section about divorce in Islam and its rules, as stated before.

6. Nikah misyar is not similar to nikah mut‘ah. You also did not explain what nikah misyar is or how it differs from nikah mut‘ah.

7. This is not needed here. It concerns Indian law, not women in Islam.

8–9. How is Indian marriage law relevant here? Also, why mention only one wife and not the ages of his other wives? Where does it say that this only applies to women as a whole?

10. You restored a large number of edits that had already been removed. Why? You had to go quite far back to restore them. The current page already contains these verses and hadith, yet you decided to re-add previously removed sources. It is strange that a temporary account would know about past content to restore, especially since it is not clearly mentioned in the edit history.

What was the need to mention the Qatif case here, when the issue with Saudi law was about segregation, not rape? Saudi Arabia no longer enforces public segregation laws in the same way and she wasnt punished due to the rape but it was mentioned in that section why restore it?

Another controversial edit you were willing to restore was the claim about “sex on demand,” which is not accurate. The reference says that a woman can refuse if she is on her period, sick, tired, or has a valid reason. It also ignores that men are likewise obligated to provide sexual intimacy to their wives.

This source was given, but none of those things were mentioned:https://newageislam.com/islamic-world-news/women-give-husbands-sex-%E2%80%98even/d/102694

<br<

The current edits already mention domestic violence, its rules, and what scholars say about it, so why restore an older version of that? Beatrack (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

You are allowed to add content with the opposite point of view but not remove sourced content. The Islamic laws pertaining to Muslim women in India and Saudi Arabia can be mentioned in this article. Muslim girls can be married by age 9 because Aisha's marriage was consummated at that age and clerics have ruled it to be legal - read the entire text of that edit, it is self explanatory.-~2026-39245-05 (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

You were POV-pushing and only mentioned sources that suited your argument. You also added primary sources without supporting them with secondary sources.

Indian laws are separate here and are not governed through Islamic law only and yoy gave Indian divorce laws for Muslim women even though a whole section on divorce in Islam has already been mentioned and no other Muslim country’s divorce laws were mentioned, so why only mention Indian laws.

The age-of-marriage laws in Islam vary by Muslim country. Most Muslim countries define the minimum age as 16 to 18. These laws also concern boys, as adult women can marry underage boys in some contexts. This is not something that applies only to women.

You also have not addressed one of the other points. Beatrack (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

At this point I'll reverse my position to being a third party in this conversation. I've pretty quickly realized that I'm not an expert or have enough knowledge in this specific field, and it was a presumptive thought on my side to somewhat restore the edit war to its original state. ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 09:15, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used without secondary sources. You can mention the Islamic divorce laws of as many countries as you like but do not remove sourced content. I have provided reliable sources that say that Muslim girls can get married by age 9, if you have reliable sources to say that it is not so, please provide them but don't remove reliably sourced text saying that it is licit to get married at age 9. What other points have I not addressed (if it is reliably sourced, you should not keep harping on it)?-~2026-39245-05 (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Plasticwonder, Aciram, ToBeFree and .nhals8, please mention the Wikipedia rules that Beatrack needs to read and follow.-~2026-39245-05 (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:ONUS for starters? Which requires consensus for re-addition, not removal? This applies to sourced content as well; verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I am open to learning, but that applies to both of us. Your edits do not appear to be in good faith, especially given the POV-pushing, the selective addition of information, and the failure to include secondary sources or explain how the rules are interpreted and applied. Beatrack (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-39245-05 You're not exempt from following consensus guidelines by the way. And I know this is not exactly in the right reply lane but while the Quran and Hadith can be cited as primary sources, you still need reliable WP:secondary sources, preferably independent of the subject, that analyses, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesize the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas from the primary sources. ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 02:45, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Secondary sources are preferred for Wikipedia, which itself is a tertiary source that does not interpret primary sources. Especially if there is a dispute about what primary sources say, find secondary ones and use them, or don't include the material. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@Beatrack: I had read the rules that said primary sources can be used if they are not used for interpretation but now since ToBeFree says that we should also use secondary sources, please tell me what primary sources you object to, I will find secondary sources also for the same.-~2026-39245-05 (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I gave you a whole list of concerns, but you ignored most of them and only addressed one point. Beatrack (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

You only added a hadith without any explanation. You also didn't mention my country's rape laws, whether any Muslim-majority country still has 9 as the minimum marriage age, or whether those laws apply only to women.

The issue is that when you cite a hadith, which is a primary source, you also need reliable secondary sources that explain its interpretation and historical or legal context. Simply adding a hadith without any explanation is the problem. Your edits don't address these issues, so they don't appear to have been made in good faith. Beatrack (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

If you tell me which country you live in, I will add information about the rape laws of your country but don't remove sourced content.-~2026-39245-05 (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I had added a hadith, "it is unlawful for the woman to refuse to come to her husband's bed.^[1]" with a reliable source. I shall mention secondary sources for it now. What other points do you want me to address?-~2026-39245-05 (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

This reliable secondary source says, "The hadith also directs a wife to help her husband and seek his satisfaction, because a man is less patient than a woman when it comes to doing without intercourse. The most disturbing thing for a man is his sexual impulse, so Islam urges women to help their husbands in this regard". It can be paraphrased and added as, "As per the hadith, a man is less patient than a woman when it comes to avoiding sexual relations, so the hadith instructs a wife to assist her husband and pursue his fulfillment; Islam encourages women to support their husbands in this respect because a man's sexual inclination is the most unsettling thing.".-~2026-39245-05 (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Please also read the text under the sections with the headings, "(B) MAKING HERSELF AVAILABLE TO HER HUSBAND" and "(G) SUBMITTING HERSELF TO HIM" in this reliable secondary source. We can paraphrase and add that too. Will you now allow the sourced content to be added back, along with this explanatory secondary source?-~2026-39245-05 (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Plasticwonder, Aciram, ToBeFree and .nhals8, I have addressed all the concerns of Beatrack and if he still refuses to allow the sourced content to be added back (with the above secondary source), he should be blocked from some topics. C.Fred already told him to self revert his edit which removed sourced content from the article about Slavery in 21st-century jihadism which he did. Apart from that and this (women in Islam) article, he has removed sourced content from the articles about hijab, Slavery in Afghanistan and some other articles. Continuing his behaviour of removing sourced content is unacceptable.-~2026-39245-05 (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

No, I was warned for edit warring, not for removing sources that can legitimately be disputed or removed. That's why consensus is needed here.

Regarding the slavery in Afghanistan section, I didn't remove the sources. I reworded the text to accurately reflect what the source actually said even the other editor who originally wrote that section agreed with the change and updated it accordingly if you look at the talk page.

From my perspective, you don't appear to be engaging in good-faith discussion. Instead of addressing the content of my points, your edits largely consist of empty threats that I should or could be banned, or attempts to involve other editors rather than having an actual discussion about your edits. Beatrack (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Did you even read what I said last time? I said

Another controversial edit you were willing to restore was the claim about “sex on demand,” which is not accurate. The reference says that a woman can refuse if she is on her period, sick, tired, or has a valid reason. It also ignores that men are likewise obligated to provide sexual intimacy to their wives.

This source was given, but none of those things were mentioned:https://newageislam.com/islamic-world-news/women-give-husbands-sex-%E2%80%98even/d/102694

I already gave the answer and response even the old edit you wanted to add back said this in its reference but was left out did you make that edit origininally that's why you want to restore it? Beatrack (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, in the website you just cited:https://www.theshariacouncil.org.uk/can-a-wife-refuse-intimacy-if-the-husband-is-mistreating-her/Why were you selective again and failed to mention the following parts?«If a wife refuses her husband’s request for intercourse, she has committed a major sin unless she has a valid Islamic excuse, such as menstruation, obligatory fasting, or illness.»The page also states that a husband should respond to his wife’s request for intercourse and that he is not permitted to neglect her in a way that causes harm. It further cites the hadith in which the Prophet states that a wife has rights over her husband

This is directly relevant, particularly the statement that a wife may refuse when she has a valid excuse and that the husband also has obligations toward her. Why did you leave them out while presenting the source? Beatrack (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

You did not make this edit previously; it was part of your restoration of an older version? Are you saying you orginally added that hadith in before it got removed by other users?

Also, no hadith says that it is unlawful for her to refuse. Did you read the source? It says that if the husband spends the night angry after she refuses, the angels curse her. You should not alter the meaning of a primary source.

This is why a secondary source is needed. A wife may refuse if she has a valid reason, and even the older sources and the website providing the guidance mention that point. For some reason, however, that qualification was left out. Beatrack (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

What did the Qatif case have to do with rape in this context? You restored several older edits, and this was one of them. Why did you want to add that material under the rape section when she was not punished for being raped but being alone with a male friend which they both later got kidnapped and which she was then raped by her kidnappers? Beatrack (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

We can add that a woman can refuse sex if she has a valid reason like being on her period, sick or tired and that men are likewise obligated to provide sexual intimacy to their wives. The Qatif case is about rape but if other experienced editors object, we can remove that content. Are there any other points or do you agree to add these points as well as the sourced content you removed earlier?-~2026-39245-05 (talk) 04:49, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure, My issue was with how willing you were to restore certain edits selectively while ignoring parts that did not suit you also you altered the primary text and You still haven’t addressed the topics and points I raised.

The Qatif case was not simply about rape. She was punished for violating the gender-segregation laws in force at the time because she was alone with a male friend. She was not punished for being kidnapped and raped. Saudi Arabia has since abolished those segregation rules. Beatrack (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I already mentioned that we can incorporate your text that a woman can avoid sex if she has a valid reason like being on her period, sick or tired. Any other points or can we ask ToBeFree to incorporate these points and restore the earlier sourced content?-~2026-39245-05 (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Besides this one, I disagree with adding the rest. You still haven’t properly addressed the points raised. Please engage with them properly this time instead of making empty threats and inviting others into the discussion. Beatrack (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Plasticwonder, C.Fred, Aciram, ToBeFree and .nhals8, should the paragraph beginning with, "The Girl of Qatif was......" in this edit be deleted even though it is well sourced? I have addressed all the points objected to and if we incorporate the sentence about "valid reason for avoiding sex", we can restore that edit.-~2026-39245-05 (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Beatrack, I have addressed all your concerns but if there is anything more, you must specify them correctly.-~2026-39245-05 (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

You haven’t responded to most of my concerns or questions. Moving on to a new topic or point doesn’t mean the previous issues have been addressed go and answer them. Beatrack (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

What is the relevance of including it here, under the section on rape? She wasn’t punished because of rape or for being Kidnapped but meeting with her Male friend, under an old gender segregation law. My issue isn’t with the sources it’s with the relevance to the Wikipedia article. Beatrack (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

You have to specify exactly what is not addressed. @C.Fred and ToBeFree: Please observe that the points of Beatrack have been addressed but he is still repeatedly saying that they have not been. This is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.-~2026-39245-05 (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

If you can see my previous comments, you’ll notice that you haven’t addressed any of them after I responded to your points. Beatrack (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe that I have addressed all your points but if you feel I haven't, please mention those points correctly. You are wasting my time by repeatedly saying I have not addressed your points even though I have.-~2026-39245-05 (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

These are the ones you did not answer:

1. The same source says that most scholars did not deem women obligated to perform household chores, although some scholars differed when discussing Bedouin and urban women. You ignored that entirely.The issue of women travelling with a mahram is also more complex. The ruling differs greatly depending on safety, whether the travel is necessary, and whether a group of women can travel together. Other hadith also limit the restriction to journeys lasting three days. Your comment did not clarify this, which is why secondary sources are needed.Your third point is unnecessary. The topic is Islam, not customs. There is no need to mention the customs of every country, and if customs are mentioned, why mention only a select few? Historical context and customs are already discussed in the article.
2. Indian laws and customs are not needed here. Divorce is already mentioned, and the rules of divorce in Islam are already well explained. You also combined divorce with polygyny, even though divorce already has its own section.
3. There is no need to mention customs again. The article already discusses customs and explains that such customs are not necessarily linked to the religion. The topic is Islam and women, not the customs of the Muslim world, which vary across 50 to 60 countries.
4. Your sources about Indian laws are not relevant. As stated before, there is already a section about divorce in Islam and its rules.
5. Nikah misyar is not similar to nikah mut‘ah. You also did not explain what nikah misyar is or how it differs from nikah mut‘ah.
6. How is Indian marriage law relevant here? Also, why mention only one wife and not the ages of his other wives? Where does it say that this applies to women as a whole?This is already mentioned in the Wikipedia article, including the relevant hadith, how marriage laws vary, and the fact that most Muslim countries do not set the marriage age at nine. There is already an entire section about this.
7. You still have not addressed the Qatif case issue or responded to my latest comment about it. Beatrack (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@.nhals8 and Plasticwonder: Please comment on the points above and below (my reply).-~2026-39245-05 (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Plasticwonder has made it clear they are only here to stop edit warring Beatrack (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

No comment You should be the one answering those. ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 09:12, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Just reminding him Beatrack (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

1. The source does say that, "A lady must also take care of her (Muslim) husband and house, including cooking and other household chores."^[2] - please go through the source provided. We can add that a mahram is needed for journeys more than 3 days.

2. Divorce laws can be added in the section about divorce, even if it is the Islamic Sharia laws of India.

3. Customs of Muslim women can be mentioned in this article if reliable sources are provided

4. They can be mentioned

5. Nikah misyar does happen and I have provided reliable sources for it. I have explained that Sunni Muslims follow it (different from Shias who follow nikah mutah)

6. It says marriage at age 9 is legal as per the Sharia with reliable sources

7. The inclusion of the Qatif case should be decided by someone more experienced - you can see that I have pinged them above.-~2026-39245-05 (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

1. Did you deliberately ignore the part where it says that most scholars did not consider it mandatory, while a minority distinguished between Bedouin and urban women? Do you not see that you ignored the very source you provided? Do you not see how dishonest that is?Please address my point properly instead of simply repeating yourself. I will repeat my explanation:The issue of women travelling with a mahram is more complex. The ruling differs significantly depending on safety, whether the journey is necessary, and whether a group of women can travel together. Other hadith also limit the restriction to journeys lasting three days. Your comment did not clarify any of this, which is why secondary sources are needed.
2. Indian laws are not Islamic laws, so they do not need to be mentioned, especially if this is specifically an Indian or South Asian issue.
3 and 4. This page is not about customs and Culture and customs have already been addressed. You would either be repeating yourself or adding irrelevant information about customs that is not needed and greatly vary.
5. That was not the issue I raised. Please address my actual point. I will repeat it:Nikah misyar is not the same as nikah mut‘ah. You also did not explain what nikah misyar is or how it differs from nikah mut‘ah.
6. An entire section already exists on this issue, and the hadith is also referenced in the article. Did you even read the page properly?
7. I disagree. I do not even see how this is relevant, for the reasons already stated. Beatrack (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

1. You can add "that most scholars did not consider it mandatory, while a minority distinguished between Bedouin and urban women". You can also add "The ruling differs significantly depending on safety, whether the journey is necessary, and whether a group of women can travel together. Other hadith also limit the restriction to journeys lasting three days." with a reliable source.

2. The Islamic Sharia laws of India can be mentioned in this article

5. I can only form a sentence as per the source about nikah misyar

6. Which issue, your numbering is difficult to understand?

7. I want an experienced editor to say if the Girl of Qatif rape case should be excluded.-~2026-39245-05 (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Plasticwonder, Aciram and .nhals8, should the paragraph beginning with, "The [[Qatif rape case|Girl of Qatif]] was......" in this edit be deleted even though it is reliably sourced (from the section about, "Rape") or can it be added back into this article? Can the Islamic Sharia laws of India related to divorce/maintenance after divorce be mentioned in this article (in the section about, "Divorce")?-~2026-39245-05 (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

1. It has already been mentioned. I made that edit myself, and the Bedouin–urban divide is no longer relevant.Why does it need to be mentioned again? At this point, your edits seem more focused on scoring points than engaging in good faith.
2. No, it is not relevant to Islam, and divorce in Islam has already been explained in depth.
3. That was not my point. You did not explain the difference between them or clarify what each one is; you simply grouped them together.
4. This has already been mentioned, including the references to the hadith. Why are you repeating it? That section is already detailed and explains both the laws and the general ruling.
5. Sure but I dont see the relevance to add it back. Beatrack (talk) 11:24, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

1. Let me quote from the source. It says, "She also has to take care of the house, doing things like cooking and so on, in accordance with what is customary among people like her and her husband...........What the Bedouin wife has to do is not the same as what the urban wife has to do..........every woman who is able to take care of her house by making bread, grinding flour and so on, should do so." How do you propose to add that?

2. The Islamic Sharia laws of India can be mentioned in this article - .nhals8 has also confirmed that.

3. I added that Nikah misyar is allowed for Sunni Muslims with a reliable source, so you should allow it to be added.

4. I didn't understand what this or point 5. were.-~2026-39245-05 (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

1. That is not what the source says, and my edit already fully states the general ruling as it is.
2. They no longer want to participate, and Indian laws do not apply here. Divorce laws are already well explained. Take that to “Islam in India” if you want to add it so much.
3. That was not my point. You are not even trying to have a discussion. What did I actually say?
4. This is about the age of marriage, which is already covered in the article, along with the hadith. You are just repeating content at this point.
5. This was about Qatif. Beatrack (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure whether a consensus can be reached. The temporary account keeps repeating the same points, and we have only agreed on one issue. What should be done now?

ToBeFree Beatrack (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Five pings, okay :) I currently personally see no need to do anything. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

A consensus was not reached you did not address most of my concerns, and only one of my points was acknowledged. Restoring previously removed content without resolving the remaining issues would amount to edit warring again. Beatrack (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Beatrack, let us discuss each edit with the correct numbers and propose what you want to have:-

1. This edit introduced sentences that conveyed what the reliable sources said. Let me quote from the source. It says, "She also has to take care of the house, doing things like cooking and so on, in accordance with what is customary among people like her and her husband...........What the Bedouin wife has to do is not the same as what the urban wife has to do..........every woman who is able to take care of her house by making bread, grinding flour and so on, should do so." How do you propose to add that?

2. This is also reliably sourced.

3. This is also reliably sourced and should be restored.

4. This is also reliably sourced and should be restored. This can also be added as a reliable source for the same.

5. This is also reliably sourced and is about Islamic divorce laws followed in India (it also added a reliable source for a previous sentence).

6. This replaced a sentence that temporary marriage is not allowed in Sunni Islam with a sentence that it is (known as nikah misyar), with a reliable source.

7. This is about maintenance after a Muslim woman gets divorced in India (with reliable sources) which another experienced editor (.nhals8) also feels is fine to add back.

8. This is about how and why marriage at age 9 is legal for girls in Islam (with reliable sources). A secondary source explains that it is licit because Aisha's marriage was consummated at age nine.

9. This just added a reliable source and should be restored.

10. In this edit many reliably sourced sentences were added. Among these, you have objected only to the inclusion of the Qatif rape case.-~2026-39219-75 (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

ToBeFree, we are both just repeating ourselves, so I request you to read the above 10 points and the response by Beatrack below and let us know what can be restored, what needs to be tweaked (for example he has agreed to restore the sentence that a wife cannot refuse sex if it adds "unless she has a valid reason like being on a period, tired or sick") and what should not be added (he objects to the Islamic [Sharia]] laws of India with respect to divorce and maintenance after divorce in the sub-section about, "Divorce" because they are country specific but I feel we can add it; he also objects to the Qatif rape case in the sub-section about, "Rape").-~2026-39219-75 (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

You haven't engaged properly at least I did and directly went through each point Beatrack (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

We are just repeating ourselves which is why I want someone else like ToBeFree, Aciram or Plasticwonder to go through my points above and your response below and comment.-~2026-39756-57 (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

You didn't respond to my point's thats the issue I engaged, and sure lets see what thwy say. Beatrack (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Moritoriko, nobody has bothered to give an opinion; we are both just repeating ourselves, so I request you to read the above 10 points and the response by below and let us know what can be restored, what needs to be tweaked (for example he has agreed to restore the sentence that a wife cannot refuse sex if it adds "unless she has a valid reason like being on a period, tired or sick") and what should not be added (he objects to the Islamic Sharia laws of India with respect to divorce and maintenance after divorce in the sub-section about, "Divorce" because they are country specific but I feel we can add it; he also objects to the Qatif rape case in the sub-section about, "Rape"). For household chores (that a wife needs to do them), we can add this, this and this also as reliable sources.-~2026-39756-57 (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I don’t know why Indian laws are being brought up here when the Islamic rules of divorce have already been stated. Take that discussion to pages related to Indian law.
Also, the Qatif case wasn’t even part of your edit, and the woman was not punished for being raped, so why mention it? Beatrack (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Since you fixed your cimment I'll just repeat myself here

1.My edit is fine and is the majority view no need to change it go read the source you used.
2. That is not what the website you provided says. You altered the quotation quite significantly. It actually states: "A 2013 global study by the Pew Research Center, based on over 38,000 in-person interviews across 39 such countries revealed issues of women’s rights in the Muslim world (Lo and Seltzer, 2015). Gutmann and Voigt (2015) contribute to the scholarly discourse on gender equality within Islamic contexts by developing an Islamic State Index. They evaluate women’s rights through both legal (de jure) and practical (de facto) frameworks. Legal metrics encompass economic, employment, inheritance, and property rights, whereas practical rights are assessed utilizing the CIRI Human Rights Dataset. Their research indicates that a heightened adherence to Islamic principles is associated with increased discrimination against women, particularly in relation to social rights. The study encompasses both nations with Muslim majorities and those wherein other faiths, such as Christianity, predominate (Gutmann and Voigt, 2015).The discourse surrounding women’s rights within the framework of Islamic law has garnered significant attention in contemporary society, reflecting a complex interplay between tradition, interpretation, and modernity. As societies evolve and the role of women continues to expand across various spheres, the principles of Islamic jurisprudence emerge as a critical lens through which to examine gender equity and rights. The interpretations of Islamic texts have, at times, contributed to disparities in legal and social status between men and women. The challenge lies in discerning between cultural norms that have been historically associated with Islam and the divinely ordained principles themselves (Meidina, 2022). Contemporary Islamic scholars and activists are increasingly engaging in critical analyses of traditional interpretations, advocating for a re-evaluation that prioritizes gender equity. This involves revisiting classical texts with an eye toward contextual understanding and emphasizing the spirit of justice and compassion inherent in Islamic teachings. The ongoing dialogue concerning women’s rights in Islam highlights the dynamism of Islamic jurisprudence and its capacity to adapt to evolving social contexts. By critically examining traditional interpretations and prioritizing the principles of justice and equality, Muslim societies can strive to create legal and social frameworks that empower women and uphold their fundamental rights within the framework of Islamic law (Panjwani, 2020).The subject of women’s rights within the context of Islam necessitates comprehensive scholarly inquiry intended to reinstate justice and counter unfounded allegations. The objective is to elucidate that Islam does not serve as a system that subjugates women; on the contrary, it bestows upon them the rights conferred by Allah. The primary objective of this research is to elucidate the role and rights of women from an Islamic perspective. The article identifies and analyses the challenges and obstacles that women continue to face in accessing equal educational opportunities. These obstacles are shaped by a complex interplay of social norms, conservative religious interpretations, and socio-cultural and structural challenges. To achieve complete gender equality, it is imperative to address these impediments and dismantle the structural barriers that impede women’s advancement. The paper addresses the evolving roles and rights of women in the modern era, particularly from an Islamic perspective. It highlights that, despite advancements, women often face social injustices and are sometimes viewed as inferior beings in various societies."Why did you select only certain parts of the source and then misrepresent its overall argument?https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12848632/
3. I do not see any need to add this. The article already says something very similar. All you are doing is repeating existing content.
4. We already agreed to add part of this, provided that the complete ruling is stated. This includes the husband’s duty to have sexual relations with his wife, the wife’s right to refuse intimacy when she has a valid reason, and the fact that refusing intimacy without a valid reason may be considered sinful for either spouse. The verse is also already included in the article. The verse and the hadith concern two different rulings. The verse concerns the permissibility of sexual relations and describes wives as a place of cultivation, which is already adequately explained in the tafsir which can be provided. There is also no need to add material about concubines here, as it is not directly relevant to Muslim women and concerns a historical practice.
5. This is country-specific Indian law, not a general explanation of divorce in Islam. The article already explains Islamic divorce law in depth. Detailed information about how Muslim personal law operates in India would be more appropriate in an article such as Muslim personal law in India or Islam in India.
6. Nikah misyar is not the same as temporary marriage. A source stating that misyar is permitted in Sunni Islam does not support replacing a sentence about temporary marriage with a claim that temporary marriage is permitted. They are distinct forms of marriage and should not be conflated.
7. This raises the same issue as point 5. Maintenance following divorce under Indian law is country-specific legal information and is not necessary in a general article about women in Islam, particularly when the general rules concerning divorce and maintenance are already explained in the article.
8. The article already discusses the age of marriage and includes the relevant hadith. Restoring this material would repeat existing content. The proposed framing about “how and why marriage at age 9 is legal” is also not a neutral summary. Moreover, the edit merely provided a hadith without offering any explanation or context.
9. A reliable source may be added if it directly supports an existing statement that requires a citation, but that does not mean the surrounding repetitive content should also be restored.
10. As stated before, no, this will not be added. It was not even your own edit, but material from another editor’s contribution that had already been removed. It is also not specifically about rape and therefore does not belong in the rape section. She was punished for violating a separate law, which is no longer enforced, rather than for being raped or kidnapped. Beatrack (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

You edited this poorly. You did not include a signature, To be clear this is a response from the user Beatrack to the temporary account below.

1.My edit is fine and is the majority view no need to change it go read the source you used.

2. That is not what the website you provided says. You altered the quotation quite significantly. It actually states: "A 2013 global study by the Pew Research Center, based on over 38,000 in-person interviews across 39 such countries revealed issues of women’s rights in the Muslim world (Lo and Seltzer, 2015). Gutmann and Voigt (2015) contribute to the scholarly discourse on gender equality within Islamic contexts by developing an Islamic State Index. They evaluate women’s rights through both legal (de jure) and practical (de facto) frameworks. Legal metrics encompass economic, employment, inheritance, and property rights, whereas practical rights are assessed utilizing the CIRI Human Rights Dataset. Their research indicates that a heightened adherence to Islamic principles is associated with increased discrimination against women, particularly in relation to social rights. The study encompasses both nations with Muslim majorities and those wherein other faiths, such as Christianity, predominate (Gutmann and Voigt, 2015).

The discourse surrounding women’s rights within the framework of Islamic law has garnered significant attention in contemporary society, reflecting a complex interplay between tradition, interpretation, and modernity. As societies evolve and the role of women continues to expand across various spheres, the principles of Islamic jurisprudence emerge as a critical lens through which to examine gender equity and rights. The interpretations of Islamic texts have, at times, contributed to disparities in legal and social status between men and women. The challenge lies in discerning between cultural norms that have been historically associated with Islam and the divinely ordained principles themselves (Meidina, 2022). Contemporary Islamic scholars and activists are increasingly engaging in critical analyses of traditional interpretations, advocating for a re-evaluation that prioritizes gender equity. This involves revisiting classical texts with an eye toward contextual understanding and emphasizing the spirit of justice and compassion inherent in Islamic teachings. The ongoing dialogue concerning women’s rights in Islam highlights the dynamism of Islamic jurisprudence and its capacity to adapt to evolving social contexts. By critically examining traditional interpretations and prioritizing the principles of justice and equality, Muslim societies can strive to create legal and social frameworks that empower women and uphold their fundamental rights within the framework of Islamic law (Panjwani, 2020).

The subject of women’s rights within the context of Islam necessitates comprehensive scholarly inquiry intended to reinstate justice and counter unfounded allegations. The objective is to elucidate that Islam does not serve as a system that subjugates women; on the contrary, it bestows upon them the rights conferred by Allah. The primary objective of this research is to elucidate the role and rights of women from an Islamic perspective. The article identifies and analyses the challenges and obstacles that women continue to face in accessing equal educational opportunities. These obstacles are shaped by a complex interplay of social norms, conservative religious interpretations, and socio-cultural and structural challenges. To achieve complete gender equality, it is imperative to address these impediments and dismantle the structural barriers that impede women’s advancement. The paper addresses the evolving roles and rights of women in the modern era, particularly from an Islamic perspective. It highlights that, despite advancements, women often face social injustices and are sometimes viewed as inferior beings in various societies."

Why did you select only certain parts of the source and then misrepresent its overall argument?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12848632/

3. I do not see any need to add this. The article already says something very similar. All you are doing is repeating existing content.

4. We already agreed to add part of this, provided that the complete ruling is stated. This includes the husband’s duty to have sexual relations with his wife, the wife’s right to refuse intimacy when she has a valid reason, and the fact that refusing intimacy without a valid reason may be considered sinful for either spouse. The verse is also already included in the article. The verse and the hadith concern two different rulings. The verse concerns the permissibility of sexual relations and describes wives as a place of cultivation, which is already adequately explained in the tafsir which can be provided. There is also no need to add material about concubines here, as it is not directly relevant to Muslim women and concerns a historical practice.

5. This is country-specific Indian law, not a general explanation of divorce in Islam. The article already explains Islamic divorce law in depth. Detailed information about how Muslim personal law operates in India would be more appropriate in an article such as Muslim personal law in India or Islam in India.

6. Nikah misyar is not the same as temporary marriage. A source stating that misyar is permitted in Sunni Islam does not support replacing a sentence about temporary marriage with a claim that temporary marriage is permitted. They are distinct forms of marriage and should not be conflated.

7. This raises the same issue as point 5. Maintenance following divorce under Indian law is country-specific legal information and is not necessary in a general article about women in Islam, particularly when the general rules concerning divorce and maintenance are already explained in the article.

8. The article already discusses the age of marriage and includes the relevant hadith. Restoring this material would repeat existing content. The proposed framing about “how and why marriage at age 9 is legal” is also not a neutral summary. Moreover, the edit merely provided a hadith without offering any explanation or context.

9. A reliable source may be added if it directly supports an existing statement that requires a citation, but that does not mean the surrounding repetitive content should also be restored.

10. As stated before, no, this will not be added. It was not even your own edit, but material from another editor’s contribution that had already been removed. It is also not specifically about rape and therefore does not belong in the rape section. She was punished for violating a separate law, which is no longer enforced, rather than for being raped or kidnapped. Beatrack (talk) 16:33 11 July 2026 (UTC)

For household chores (that a wife needs to do them), we can add this, this and this also as reliable sources.-~2026-39756-57 (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Beatrack @~2026-39245-05, and all other involved parties. I noticed that this talk page has been going on for awhile and I just wanted to ask if the people involved think they'll eventually be able to reach a consensus or if they would like to consider something like Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard or RFC to help resolve it? I am an inexperienced user that cannot make any helpful comments on the discussion at hand, I simply want to know if I could provide assistance in helping to find places for dispute resolution (if needed) and nothing more. If no one is interested, please disregard. Sorry for bothering. Wik206 (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

A RFC might be helpful Beatrack (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Beatrack @~2026-39245-05, and all other involved parties. I am coming from the 3O noticeboard. There are more than 2 editors offering substantial opinions in this dispute so this is not the kind of discussion for the narrow purpose of 3o. Moritoriko (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you think this would be a better time for a RFC or a use of the dispute notice board? I'm an uninvolved party trying to find the appropriate venue for mediation Wik206 (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Why do you reject the majority view and only want to mention the minority view which is mainly applied to urban and bedouin women Beatrack (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a draft of the points to be accepted, added to or objected to from this edit (I have already improved it by adding many secondary reliable sources):-

1. A lady must also take care of her Muslim husband and house, including cooking and other household chores.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} Muslim females should be trained to undertake their role as mothers and housewives and not depend on any governess.^[6] The basic duty of a woman is towards her household duties and duties related to motherhood.^[6]

2. A Muslim woman is not allowed to travel unless she is accompanied by a Mahram (husband or any other relative who she is prohibited from marrying).^[7] This however, according to the Hanafi school of Islamic law, need not be followed if the travelling is for less than three days.^[8]

3. Historically, a marriage constituted a form of ownership or dominion: a husband wielded exclusive control over his wife's sexual (and when she was free, reproductive) capacity; controlled her mobility; paid her dower, as if he were paying a purchase price; and gained the unilateral right to dissolve the marriage, a right similar to a slaveholder's power of manumission.^[9]

4. A 2013 global study by the Pew Research Center, based on over 38,000 in-person interviews across 39 such countries revealed that a heightened adherence to Islamic principles is associated with increased discrimination against women, particularly in relation to social rights. Women often face social injustices and are sometimes viewed as inferior beings in various societies, despite advancements.^[10]

5. Many rules about women today come from old local customs and male-led ideas, not directly from the Quran. The question of women's place in Islam is talked about a lot in the modern world.^[11] According to Leila Ahmed, "textual Islam" has historically been the province of a male elite and doesn't accurately represent the understanding of Islam embedded in the experiences of many Muslims, especially women.^[12]

6. Wives are (as) a tilth (to continuously produce and rear children) for Muslim men who have to go to their tilth when and how they like and send forward (some good) for themselves, and take Allah as a shield, and know that they shall meet Him, and give good tidings to the believers (other Muslims).^[13] A Hadith indicates that it is unlawful (haram) for the wife to refuse her husband sexual intimacy.^[14][15] She can however refuse if she is having a period, is on an obligatory fast or is sick.^[16]

7. Sex with captive women known as Ma malakat aymanuhum which means, "What your right hand possesses" is licit.^{[17] [18]} Female slaves do not have the right to grant or deny sexual access to their master.^[19] Slavery in 21st-century jihadism persists.

8. A law has made Talaq-e-biddat illegal in India but Talaq-e-ehsaan and Talaq-e-hasan are legal and Courts are being appealed against it. In Talaq-e-hasan, the husband pronounces "talaq" only once a month, usually when the wife is not menstruating. Then the couple waits for a month after the first "talaq" is pronounced and the marriage remains as it is. If the husband does not repeat the word "talaq" in the next month, the couple can reconsider and come to a compromise. If the husband pronounces the word "talaq" three times in the third month, the divorce becomes official.^[20][21] In Talaq-e-Ehsan, the husband pronounces "talaq" once and waits for the expiry of a three-month iddat or waiting period. If the husband and wife start living together again before the expiry of the three months, the divorce is considered void. If reconciliation does not occur during this waiting period, the divorce becomes official.^[21]

9. Marriages known as Nikah misyar are allowed for Sunni Muslims.^[22] A Misyar marriage is a type of marriage contract allowed by some Sunni Muslims where the wife renounces some Islamic marital rights such as living together, the rights to housing and maintenance money (i.e. financial support or alimony, nafaqa), and where the husband foregoes the right to home-keeping and access (his right to have her act as his housekeeper).^[23]

10. A controversial Islamic law passed by the government of India was that maintenance was available only during the iddat period after divorce, and after that, the responsibility for paying maintenance was shifted to the woman's family or the Waqf Board. This created problems for Muslim women, who were considered discriminated against by the law as they were deprived of the basic right to alimony under Secular law.^[24]

11. According to Islamic scripture, Muhammad married Aisha when she was six years old and consummated the marriage (that is, had sex with her) when she was nine or ten years old.^[25][26] The Hadith (the sayings of the Prophet Mohammed) states that Mohammed married Aisha when she was just seven years old and consummated their union when she was nine, so it is not illegal for nine-year-old girls to get married.^[27][28] Other jurists have ruled that girls who have not attained puberty can be married at age fifteen or sixteen.^[29] Obtaining the pre-pubertal bride's approval for marriage is compulsory but her silence is also considered as approval.^[30] Underage marriage continues among Muslims today.^[31]

12. The Quran says that in money and loan cases, two men should be witnesses. If two men are not there, one man and two women are enough. The reason given is “so if one woman forgets, the other can remind her” (Quran 2:282).^{[32][33][34][35]}

13. The Quran says both sons and daughters must get a share when parents die (Quran 4:7). But a daughter's share is usually half the share of a son.^[36]

14. A woman keeps everything she owned before marriage. Her husband gives her a gift called mahr (dower) when they marry. That money belongs only to her. Any money she earns after marriage is also only hers.^[37]

15. Zina means sex between people who are not married to each other. This includes adultery (when a married person has sex with someone else) and fornication (when unmarried people have sex). The Quran says the punishment is 100 lashes for unmarried people and stoning to death for others.^[38]

Old books say married people who do zina can be stoned, but four good men must see the act at the same time, or the person must say four times that they did it. Because it is almost impossible to find four eyewitnesses, almost nobody was ever punished for zina in the past. Today a few countries have brought the old punishments back, but they are still very rare.^[39]

16. The Quran and the oldest Islamic books do not have the modern idea of rape. Old scholars treated rape as a kind of violent crime (hirabah) or as forced zina (sex outside marriage).^[40][41]

17. Some important points in traditional Islamic law includes the woman (the victim) is never punished, only the man (the rapist) gets the punishment, most scholars say the woman's own words are enough to start a case if there is other evidence (for example, injuries or witnesses who heard her scream), the rule about four men seeing the act is only for normal zina (when both people agreed) and it is not needed for rape.^[42][43]

18. The Girl of Qatif was sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in prison for reportedly being attacked and raped by a number of other men when she was alone in a car with a man to whom she was not married. This was a crime in the tightly gender segregated nation of Saudi Arabia.^[44][45] The Hudood Ordinances of Pakistan included the crime of rape, known as "zina-bil-jabr" (zina by force), as a subset of zina. As a result, four eyewitnesses were needed to prosecute this crime. Because there were no four eyewitnesses to demonstrate that the sexual encounter was not consenting, this law tragically led to rape victims being pyunished for Zina.^[46] After reporting the rape to the authorities, a rape victim who had been raped by a cousin was charged with "adultery" and given a 12-year prison sentence in Afghanistan.^[47] Every year, laws prohibiting consensual sex outside of marriage, known as zina, result in the punishment of rape victims in the United Arab Emirates.^[48] Some countries (including the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan) punished women who reported rape but could not bring four witnesses.^[49] Now the law in Pakistan, Dubai and the UAE has changed, rape victims are no longer charged with zina or adultery if they cannot prove the rape.^{[49][50][51][52][53]}

19. A Muslim woman must grant her husband sex-on-demand whenever and wherever her husband seeks it^[54][55] - it is unlawful for the woman to refuse to come to her husband's bed.^[56] She can however refuse if she is having a period, is on an obligatory fast or is sick.^[16] A man should also satisfy the physical needs of his wives.^[16]

20. A Muslim woman is entitled to compensation if she is harmed during sex - some say that this applies to rape by the husband also.^[57][58]

21. Conventionally, this verse emphasizes male dominance and female obedience.^[59]

According to verse 4:128 of the Quran, it is not sinful for a woman to seek peace if she believes her husband will ill-treat her or forsake her; in fact, peace is preferable.^[60][61]

In real life many Muslim women suffer violence at home (the numbers are high in some countries). In some countries the law still says a husband may “lightly” hit his wife. In other countries it is now against the law. In the United States, domestic violence happens to Muslim families about as often as to other families, but Muslim women tell a religious leader more often.^[62]

Domestic violence is however still a problem in Muslim-majority cultures, where women face social pressures to submit to violent husbands and not file charges or run away.^[63] - ~2026-39756-57 (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

1. My edit is fine and is the majority view. There is no need to change it; go and read the source you used its a minority view that divides it based on urban and bedouin women.
2. Women’s travel is not simply a madhhab or school-of-thought issue. The ruling depends on differences in scholarly opinion and interpretation of the relevant hadith, including whether the journey is considered safe and whether the restriction applies only to journeys lasting three days or more.
3. I do not see any need to add this. The article already says something very similar. All you are doing is repeating existing content.
4. That is not what the website you provided says. You altered the quotation quite significantly. It actually states: "A 2013 global study by the Pew Research Center, based on over 38,000 in-person interviews across 39 such countries revealed issues of women’s rights in the Muslim world (Lo and Seltzer, 2015). Gutmann and Voigt (2015) contribute to the scholarly discourse on gender equality within Islamic contexts by developing an Islamic State Index. They evaluate women’s rights through both legal (de jure) and practical (de facto) frameworks. Legal metrics encompass economic, employment, inheritance, and property rights, whereas practical rights are assessed utilizing the CIRI Human Rights Dataset. Their research indicates that a heightened adherence to Islamic principles is associated with increased discrimination against women, particularly in relation to social rights. The study encompasses both nations with Muslim majorities and those wherein other faiths, such as Christianity, predominate (Gutmann and Voigt, 2015). The discourse surrounding women’s rights within the framework of Islamic law has garnered significant attention in contemporary society, reflecting a complex interplay between tradition, interpretation, and modernity. As societies evolve and the role of women continues to expand across various spheres, the principles of Islamic jurisprudence emerge as a critical lens through which to examine gender equity and rights. The interpretations of Islamic texts have, at times, contributed to disparities in legal and social status between men and women. The challenge lies in discerning between cultural norms that have been historically associated with Islam and the divinely ordained principles themselves (Meidina, 2022). Contemporary Islamic scholars and activists are increasingly engaging in critical analyses of traditional interpretations, advocating for a re-evaluation that prioritizes gender equity. This involves revisiting classical texts with an eye toward contextual understanding and emphasizing the spirit of justice and compassion inherent in Islamic teachings. The ongoing dialogue concerning women’s rights in Islam highlights the dynamism of Islamic jurisprudence and its capacity to adapt to evolving social contexts. By critically examining traditional interpretations and prioritizing the principles of justice and equality, Muslim societies can strive to create legal and social frameworks that empower women and uphold their fundamental rights within the framework of Islamic law (Panjwani, 2020). The subject of women’s rights within the context of Islam necessitates comprehensive scholarly inquiry intended to reinstate justice and counter unfounded allegations. The objective is to elucidate that Islam does not serve as a system that subjugates women; on the contrary, it bestows upon them the rights conferred by Allah. The primary objective of this research is to elucidate the role and rights of women from an Islamic perspective. The article identifies and analyses the challenges and obstacles that women continue to face in accessing equal educational opportunities. These obstacles are shaped by a complex interplay of social norms, conservative religious interpretations, and socio-cultural and structural challenges. To achieve complete gender equality, it is imperative to address these impediments and dismantle the structural barriers that impede women’s advancement. The paper addresses the evolving roles and rights of women in the modern era, particularly from an Islamic perspective. It highlights that, despite advancements, women often face social injustices and are sometimes viewed as inferior beings in various societies."
Why did you select only certain parts of the source and then misrepresent its overall argument? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12848632/
5. I do not see any need to add this. The article already says something very similar. All you are doing is repeating existing content.
6. We already agreed to add part of this, provided that the complete ruling is stated. This includes the husband’s duty to have sexual relations with his wife, the wife’s right to refuse intimacy when she has a valid reason, and the fact that refusing intimacy without a valid reason may be considered sinful for either spouse. The verse is also already included in the article. The verse and the hadith concern two different rulings. The verse concerns the permissibility of sexual relations and describes wives as a place of cultivation, which is already adequately explained in the tafsir, which can be provided and the verse itself doesn't say her purpose is to have kids continuously you even altered primary sources.
7. There is no need to add material about concubines here, as it is not directly relevant to Muslim women and concerns a historical practice.
8. This is country-specific Indian law, not a general explanation of divorce in Islam. The article already explains Islamic divorce law in depth. Detailed information about how Muslim personal law operates in India would be more appropriate in an article such as Muslim personal law in India or Islam in India.
9. Nikah misyar is not the same as temporary marriage. A source stating that misyar is permitted in Sunni Islam does not support replacing a sentence about temporary marriage with a claim that temporary marriage is permitted. They are distinct forms of marriage and should not be conflated and should be placed separately.
10. This raises the same issue as point 8. Maintenance following divorce under Indian law is country-specific legal information and is not necessary in a general article about women in Islam, particularly when the general rules concerning divorce and maintenance are already explained in the article.
11 to 21. These topics are already in the article. All you are doing is restoring an old edit for some reason. Beatrack (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I think I'm going to try to prepare a thing for either the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard or RFC. Do you think you or someone else involved in the discussion could help provide a brief neutral summary of the argument at hand for the post in accordance with Wikipedia:RFCNEUTRAL? Also please collaborate with some of the other users to make sure it's unbiased if you do. I'm going to go double check with some people to ensure I do the process right (since this will be my first time/I don't know if I can make an RFC if I'm not involved in the argument) and I'll try to leave a notice on every involved parties user page if I make an RFC or dispute resolution board post. Everyone is fine with an RFC or dispute resolution right?Wik206 (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes.-~2026-39629-36 (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The RfC should be about the draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Women_in_Islam#Draft_of_points_to_edit_or_raise_valid_objections_to -~2026-39629-36 (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Alrighty then. Thanks for the info. I've spoken to one editor at the tea house who advised me I should either not get involved if I don't understand the dispute or learn about it if I want to help(I might have to end up backing out if it's too much for me to be of help, sorry). They also recommended a DRN over an RFC but also seemed to suggest there still could be more places for it to go. Are you ok with a DRN or do you think it should be an RFC or some other place? Wik206 (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

An RfC drafted neutrally is best since we need comments.-~2026-39629-36 (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you think you could help provide a summary of your position? I'll get one from the other side as well then try to put together a neutral statement both sides agree on. Wik206 (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

There can be no summary. The neutrally worded RfC should ask to comment how this draft can be improved.-~2026-39629-36 (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

But from points 11 to 21, you’re not making improvements—you’re restoring older edits that you didn’t even make and that were removed by other users. Your argument only applies to points 1 to 10, where you’re discussing possible improvements.. Beatrack (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I have improved upon those also with reliable sources.-~2026-39629-36 (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

You kept the text the same from points 11 to 21 those topics are already in the article but for some reason you prefer to restore a much older version? Beatrack (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Some editors seem to have removed sourced content earlier. Now, I have added many reliable sources and improved it, so we have to add all the points mentioned in the draft above.-~2026-39629-36 (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Those still exist and are actually much better in terms of wording. Changing the sources does not mean the content you’re restoring is better, especially the phrasing. Even the ayah you want to restore has been heavily altered, and its meaning is changed by what was added in brackets, even though neither the verse nor the tafsir says that. Beatrack (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Summaries can work I agree Beatrack (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Could you provide a summary of your position then I'll try to convince @~2026-39629-36 for one of theirs as well since we need a neutral summary if were submitting to either rFC or the content dispute notice board. Sorry for asking again. Thanks! Wik206 (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Is this okay I try to condense each point they made and the changes they want't as they gave a list from 1 to 21:

1. My edit reflects the majority view the source you cited presents a minority opinion that distinguishes between urban and Bedouin women most scholars say its not a women's duty to do household chores.

2. Women’s travel is not simply a madhhab issue. The ruling depends on different interpretations of the relevant hadith, including the safety of the journey and whether the restriction applies only to journeys of three days or more.

3. This material is unnecessary because the article already contains similar information about old customs snd views and that aren't linked to Islam.

4. The cited study was selectively quoted and its overall argument misrepresented. The full source discusses both discrimination linked to certain interpretations of Islam and efforts by scholars to distinguish cultural practices from Islamic principles and promote justice and women’s rights. The quotation should accurately reflect the source’s complete argument.

5. This is also repetitive because the article already covers the same point.

6. We agreed that part of this could be added only if the complete ruling is presented. This includes the husband’s marital obligations, the wife’s right to refuse intimacy for a valid reason, and the possibility that either spouse may be sinful for refusing without justification. The verse and hadith address different rulings, and the verse does not state that a wife’s purpose is continuous childbearing. Primary sources should not be altered.

7. Material about concubines is not directly relevant to Muslim women in this section and concerns a historical practice.

8. The information concerns Indian law rather than Islamic divorce in general. It would be more suitable for an article about Muslim personal law in India, especially since the existing article already explains Islamic divorce law.

9. Nikah misyar is not temporary marriage. A source permitting misyar in Sunni Islam cannot be used to claim that temporary marriage is permitted. The two should be discussed separately.

10. Post-divorce maintenance under Indian law is also country-specific and unnecessary in a general article that already explains divorce and maintenance in Islam.

11–21. These topics have not been removed from the Wikipedia article. They are still present, but with different wording and sources. Restoring an older version does not automatically improve the article, particularly where the current wording is clearer or more accurate. There is therefore no justification for removing the existing material and replacing it with outdated edits. Beatrack (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

1. The sources used do say exactly what the sentences say but I have paraphrased the sentences.

2. In the second sentence, I have mentioned a reliable secondary source which says that the Hanafi school believes that travel is allowed without a mahram if it is for less than 3 days.

3. This is reliably sourced and needs to be restored

4. I believe it is summarised correctly.

5. These sentences are reliably sourced and need to be restored.

6. I have included the valid reasons due to which a wife can avoid intimacy already.

7. The Wikipedia article about Slavery in 21st-century jihadism proves that it persists.

8. This is about the Islamic laws of India. I see that other articles also contain country specific sentences.

9. The term, "temporary marriage" can be dropped but all the rest is reliably sourced and ought to be restored.

10. This is about the Islamic laws of India. I see that other articles also contain country specific sentences.

11 to 21. All these points are reliably sourced. I have added reliably sourced sentences and added secondary reliable sources to primary reliable sources. Point 19. incorporates the point that the wife can refuse intimacy if she is having a period or is on an obligatory fast or is sick.--~2026-39629-36 (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Wik206: An RfC seems best for a consensus, please create one.-~2026-39629-36 (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Please review the discussion we had on the tea house. Similar to other editors I do not understand the argument so I cannot create an RFC. I have offered to find the proper place for dispute resolution if you and @User:Beatrack can create a Wikipedia:RFCBRIEF you both agree on. Remember that other users seeing this dispute will have no context for it and will need a brief neutral explanation of it. At this time however other editors at the tea house have advised against an RFC so I intend to follow their advice. An RFC is best if we can come up with a clear and concise question we want answered. Wik206 (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't see that chat I don't think the ping worked properly. I open to anyway to sort this out. Beatrack (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

In case you can't find it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#h-Creating_an_RfC-20260714121000 Wik206 (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Wik206: Please go through the 21 points in this draft, you will understand what we want..-~2026-39629-36 (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I did. I do not understand much of the context behind the argument you two have had on these points. Wik206 (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

1. No scholarly view cited here says that this is the majority opinion. You selected fatwa websites that favour the minority view, yet even those websites acknowledge that most scholars do not consider housework mandatory for women my edit already makes this clear.
2. This is not simply “the Hanafi view.” It is the opinion of certain Hanafi scholars, and the conclusions can vary depending on the scholar and their interpretation. Even fatwa websites present differing Hanafi opinions on this issue.
3. The article already mentions general cultural customs. Since these customs are not based on Islam, why should this material be added here?
4. I provided the full quotation, so how can you say you were right? The authors did not blame Islam or Islamic teachings. The article itself was written by Muslims. Did you read the source in full, or only the selected portions that appeared to support your position?
5. The same point is already stated in the article. Adding it again merely repeats existing content.
6. The wording you proposed is itself problematic and one-sided. Both sources also discuss the husband’s duties and state that he is sinful if he refuses to fulfil them that information should not be omitted.
7. This does not specifically concern Muslim women, and ISIS was militarily defeated years .
8. Islam and divorce are already discussed and addressed in the article. There is no need to add unrelated Indian social views and legal provisions to this section.
9. That was not the issue. You treated nikah mutʿah and nikah misyar as though they were the same practice, when they are not. Nikah mutʿah is a temporary marriage with a predetermined time limit, whereas nikah misyar is a marriage in which both spouses agree that certain marital rights or obligations will be waived.
10. This information would be more appropriate in articles specifically concerning India. This article concerns Islam and women, and Islamic divorce is already discussed and explained.
11–21. You changed the sources but retained essentially the same wording. I explained why restoring the older edits would be inaccurate. Instead of responding to those specific concerns, you have merely repeated the same arguments.
Beatrack (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey Beatrack. Sorry but it doesn't appear I'll be able to be of much help. I am still willing to help if you or @~2026-39629-36 can provide a brief neutral summary of the argument outlining key policy issues that could be understood to any editor unfamiliar with Islam or the underlying subject matter. At this time however there is a lot of complicated context and material behind these arguments that I do not understand and it seems this dispute may be to complicated to simplify. But for instance much of the content in the dispute is unfamiliar to me so I really can't comment on the claims if I'm unclear what your talking about. Best of luck. Wik206 (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Beatrack (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help Wik206. Beatrack, I have added the points you wanted (see point no.19) and removed the term, "temporary" from temporary marriage. Please go through the entire draft once again. I have added secondary reliable sources for all the sentences.-~2026-39629-36 (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I still do not understand why you want to include nikah misyar and nikah mutʿah here. Both concern forms of marriage entered into by men and women through mutual agreement.

They are not exclusive to women, nor are they specifically about women.

The discussion of Indian laws is also unnecessary here.
Divorce rights for women in Islam are already mentioned and explained in the article.

There is no reason to restore older edits when the current wording is already accurate and appropriate.

These issues will not be resolved unless you address them properly and explain your reasoning clearly. Beatrack (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, please suggest what points from 1 to 21 you want to omit; we can add the rest.-~2026-39629-36 (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The hadiths concerning sexual intimacy towards her husband and women travelling are directly related to women and to Islamic rulings applied to them, so there are valid reasons to include these topics here. However, the wording may be problematic, especially depending on which scholarly views are presented. The remaining material is either not directly relevant to women and Islam or is already covered elsewhere in this wikipedia page. Beatrack (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing! Now please go through points 11 to 21, you will observe that I have added reliable secondary sources to some sentences (like ToBeFree wanted) and some reliably sourced sentences. Which among those can we add to the article?-~2026-39629-36 (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Beatrack: Plasticwonder has created an RfC below correctly, please comment on each point there. You need to comment on each of the points from 11 to 21 separately also - you will observe that I have added reliable secondary sources to some sentences (like ToBeFree wanted) and some reliably sourced sentences (so please comment on each of those points separately also). I have incorporated your suggestions in point no.19.-~2026-39629-36 (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

The issue is with the wording you want to restore to not just the sources. Beatrack (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

My issue is with the points through 11 and through 18. They are not needed because these topics already exist. You are simply trying to restore older versions which is not necessary. Beatrack (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Beatrack: I have deleted all repetitive text, so please go through all the points (none are repeated). Some sentences are unsourced (in points 13 and 14), do you want me to delete them?-~2026-39802-40 (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, that is repetition as these topics are already covered in the Wikipedia article and are fine as they are ans he issue is that you want to restore older edits and slightly rewrite them to fit your own agenda or viewpoint. Beatrack (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Beatrack: The draft does not repeat existing content, add irrelevant material, or restore older content that previous users removed. Please go through it now, once again.-~2026-39802-40 (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

The topics already exist that’s the issue and you’re simply changing what has already been written, even though the current content is fine as it is. Beatrack (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

All the points in my draft are new. I just want to add them to the article in the relevant places. This is allowed because all the sentences are reliably sourced (secondary sources have been used).-~2026-39802-40 (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Beatrack

I have closed the RFC as it didn't follow proper format. At the time the arguing between you two appears to be largely unproductive respectfully. Dispute resolution through RFC cannot proceed as it's unclear to other editors what you two are arguing about, and you have been unable to produce a concise neutral summary due to the conflict being over a long list of edits simultaneously whose context is often unclear. I initially said I wouldn't help anymore but now I'd like to try again under the following proposal. I will meditate as a third editor. Instead of addressing all 21 edits at the same time we will address a chunk that are all disputed for the same reason.@User:Beatrack Will provide a list of edits and cite the policy they are disputed under and provide a brief argument.@~2026-39629-36 Will provide a reason why they think the edits don't violate this policy. I will evaluate each edit and provide a recommendation (keep edit, delete edit, unsure). We will then move on to the next group of edits. Please address your arguments towards me and not each other. We will move through each point quickly. This will be non-binding. At the end I will collect a list of my recommendations. If you are both interested to start @Beatrack please provide a list of the edits you dispute on the grounds of being repetitve of other information. Please link to the spot in the article you believe repeats each edit. @~2026-39629-36 pleas provide a simple rebuttal. I will only be addressing edits over policy issues only and will not address ones I do not have sufficient knowledge to cover. Please do not try to argue every little point simply provide an argument to me for or against. Wik206 (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Wik206: That is not how to close an RfC, please leave it someone experienced.-~2026-39629-36 (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

is your opposition to my closing of the RFC or the way in which I closed it? At any rate I will not close it again but would like you to know you should've discussed it with me before reopening. I closed it after talking to editors along with based of some talk on the treehouse on the previous opening. I also listed my reasons for closing in a message. The main point I want to draw your attention to was the closure I made was based off editor feedback and you should've talked with me and other editors and addressed the reasons behind the closing when you reopened it. I will not touch it again unless if there's reason again too (In which case I'll be sure to loop you into the conversation this time). Wik206 (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! If Beatrack mentions any policy my new reliably sourced content (with secondary sources) violates - as mentioned in the draft, I will not ask to add it to the article.-~2026-39629-36 (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

You need consensus before adding anything, and I oppose your additions and revisions to the existing topics. Beatrack (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Beatrack: You have to mention policies that my reliably sourced content violates, if not, you should stop objecting to the addition of the same.-~2026-39629-36 (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

No I am free to object to the content and purpose of it or if its a improvement. Beatrack (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. However, as you can see, the user was still adding and revising the material they wanted to include. They also asked what I would like to add, which I did—for example, the ruling on sexual intimacy, including the full ruling and the man’s responsibilities.

I object to the rest because some of it is already covered in the existing Wikipedia content, but they want to rewrite it and add their own material. Other changes appear to restore old edits or reintroduce their previous edits, many of which concern Indian laws and customs rather than Islam itself.

These are my objections in full I believe there are 21 points in total but to keep the discussion simple, let us begin with the first five epoints which the temp.account can present there arguments for those edits, and then I will respond. Beatrack (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Beatrack: All the sentences are new and reliably sourced. You have to let us know what policies my sourced content violates, if not, you cannot object to the addition of the same.-~2026-39629-36 (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Am I right in saying that Beatrack has to show what policy my sourced content violates and if he cannot, he should not object to the addition of the same?-~2026-39629-36 (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

You were not truthful about this, because you restored the old edits and merely reworded them. Changing the sources does not make a significant difference. Those edits had already been replaced with better versions.

You are simply repeating points that are already covered in the article. Only a few of your proposed points were not previously mentioned, and I object to there inclusion. Beatrack (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Beatrack, you cannot object to the addition of sourced content unless it violates some policy which my points don't. If they do, please mention which. You should read WP:IDONTLIKEIT - you can't object to adding sourced content simply because you don't like it.-~2026-39629-36 (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually I can if I feel the wording is wrong or it shouldn't be there or doesn't fit the topic. Beatrack (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

ToBeFree Hi another user added one of the points still being discussed and I removed it until the discussion has finished does that violate the rules if so I will revert my edit. Beatrack (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe they also banned the editor you were arguing with, citing disruptive editing and abusing account creation User:~2026-39629-36. I have no clue how the argument gets resolved in that case. Do we default to you if the other editor has been banned and is no longer around to argue their case? Or do we allow the flawed RFC to run it's course. Wik206 (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it can be closed since it was only that account who wanted to add those edits I am not sure. Beatrack (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I'd like a more experienced editor to weigh in but most of the RFC seems to oppose the changes and I think it was just you and them in disagreement which would technically leave us with no conflict and you'd be free to do what you want??? I honestly have no clue though. Wik206 (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

There is no harm in waiting, either for the RfC to expire or for an experienced user to close it early. You are not required to spend time on this specific page here, you are not required to take any action and you can simply wait if you don't know what to do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello Beatrack, it's complicated. As This is Turkey turned out to be a sockpuppet of someone previously-uninvolved, you have accidentally reverted block evasion, and reverting block evasion is almost always fine. If it had been ~2026-39629-36, that would have been block evasion as well. If you had no suspicion of block evasion, reverting to your preferred state as a participant of the previous edit war about the same content would have been somehow problematic and wouldn't have been justified by WP:ONUS alone. This is because edit warring is prohibited even if you are right, and there's no exception in the edit warring policy for enforcing WP:ONUS in non-biographies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, if this happens again, I won’t revert the other user’s edit and reinstate my preferred version. From what I understand, this would normally be considered edit warring. I wasn’t aware of that before, but I understand it now and won’t do it again in the future. Beatrack (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2026 (UTC)