Talk:Triple talaq in India

Lead

@Omer123hussain: you have been edit-warring over the lead. Your rewrite seems to be WP:OR and pretty incomprehensible due to poor grammar. Please explain here what you are trying to do and provide your sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Kautilya3: Thanks for you understanding and bringing it on talk page instead of initiating e/w. As "Triple Talaq" do not have any Main article, we will have to specify it here in the lead (asper WP Lead) other wise it will have to be merged with divorce in Islam, and lead shall not contain citation as per WP:Lead, comprehensiveness and grammar correction can be attained during c/e review in later stages and after the article tone is finalized. I am looking for more reliable citation (rather than news) to expand the article, please share if you know any access to read online comprehensive books on the subjects such as "Bakhtiar, Harald, etc... Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Triple talaq is a section in an article, and it seems clear enough. This article should be on the present controversy in India, not on Islamic laws. It is fine to cover the 'jurisprudence' stuff in a background section, but that is not the point of this article. I don't think the lead should be devoted to it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I also take strong exception to you labeling my revert as "initiating e/w". As recommended at WP:BRD, any editor is free to revert content that he/she disagrees with, and you are expected to discuss and reach a consensus. That is not "edit warring". Reinstating your edit without discussion is. I suggest you self-revert your reinstatement. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Being Bold does not mean reverting every work. Sorry will not agree with you for reverting work on article as its in good faith to expand the article. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

You can use your sandbox to make drafts. But please be sure to maintain the scope of the article as currently defined. You cannot unilaterally alter it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:LEAD clearly says, the lead should summarise the body. It should be first described in the body, what is the actual practice according to the interpretation(s) of Fiqha, what are its different interpretations based on the Madhhab, and how the actual practice has been misused by the Indian Muslims. The same thing with the mention of Shah Bano case in the lead. It needs to be explained in the body how that case is "most debated" in relation to the Triple Talaq controversy, before taking it to the lead. As far as I know, Shah Bano case is debated mainly for the alimony issue, though Triple Talaq is involved in it. In any case, please cite WP:RS for the content while adding to the body, to avoid WP:OR. Also, please take care of the grammar and make sure not to use poor choice of words like "invented the Act". Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I think I can help adding some fiqh context here. I read some of the news coverage of this topic and what's striking is that it seems to exist in its own conceptual world. "Triple talaq" isn't a traditional legal category. It falls into two very different cases. The first one is called talaq al-bid'ah, whose distinguishing characteristic is the immediate dissolution of a marriage, without the required waiting period. This has been done through a triple declaration or through other formulas, and no madhhab considers it to be valid. On the other hand, a triple declaration with the required waiting period is more controversial. Traditionally, it was disapproved of but considered legally valid. In that case, madhhabs differ on the possibility of remarriage if the declaration becomes irrevocable after expiration of the waiting period. This is why in Muslim-majority countries triple talaq in itself has never been a focus of public controversy such as this, as far as I know. Where talaq has been restricted, the reform centered on introducing administrative and financial hurdles for talaq in general. I will add a section on talaq al-bid'ah to Divorce in Islam and it can be adapted here. Eperoton (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I would resist turning this article into one on Islamic jurisprudence. Reliable sources tell us that the practice exists in India. The current debate is about whether it is constitutional. Whether it is Islamic or not doesn't really concern us, i.e., it is a social issue here, not a religious one. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3 I disagree with you a bit here. The article should also cover about the Islamic aspect of the practice, how far it is Islamic, through which interpretation and all. Triple Talaq did not originate out of the blue in India. It came as an Islamic practice. The 'practice' section or some other new section has to cover this background to an appropriate length. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I've added a background section, keeping Kautilya's concerns in mind. I'll leave it up to the regulars here if you want to borrow any other details from Divorce_in_Islam#Talaq_al-bid.27ah_and_triple_talaq. It turns out I was wrong about the status of triple talaq in traditional jurisprudence. Eperoton (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Tyler Durden, I am afraid you have no idea what you are talking about. Do you know the difference between the Shari`a and the Shariat, to start with? Islamic jurisprudence is terribly complicated, incredibly opaque, and poorly sourced. The British tried for a hundred years to codify it and finally gave up. This article is about the practice in India. What happens elsewhere can be alluded to it, but no detailed comparisons please. You will tie yourself up in knots. I am ok with the section contributed by Eperoton. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I thought you were altogether opposing the addition of that 'Background' section. Your words seemed that way: "Whether it is Islamic or not doesn't really concern us". My knowing or not knowing about any Islamic laws has got nothing to do with this. I am only concerned with the necessity of that Background section in the article. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

My point is there are 4 forms of divorces and it has to be specified in the article, will need to work on citation part. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see all the concerns raised in the above discussion, and address them. And please use sandbox while finding citations and developing content. Also, kindly gain consensus here for disputed additions in the article. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Renaming

As it is currently in practice in India so no need to rename it. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, the title "Triple Talaq debate in India", accurately reflects the scope of the article that was present before you came on the scene. I see that you are constantly trying to change its scope. That doesn't have my agreement. You are welcome to do an RfC if you want. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that your move reflected the scope of the article when it was made, Kautilya. However, with the recent expansions, it seems that the article now also has a decent coverage of the practice itself. Great addition, btw. Eperoton (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge

I propose to merge Shayara Bano to this article since that does not have enough scope of expansion. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support Not sure a formal discussion is needed, but yes, there isn't sufficient material for a standalone article. WP:BLP1E also applies. Vanamonde (talk) 08:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support. No discussion needed. 2 line article not needed. Merge it. -Nizil (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Agree. Absolutely needs to be merged. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:BLP1E; subjects are not notable for a single event. --Joshualouie711^talk 17:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - per reasons discussed above. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - both the topic of triple talaq and this woman can be better covered at this article (Triple talaq in India).  Seagull123  Φ  22:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Shayara Bano initiated the court case against triple talaq as she herself was a victim. --Dhana1975 " 10:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhana1975 (talk • contribs)
• Support per BLP1E as everyone else said. It is like a textbook example of that rule unless there is something else notable about her that doesn't involve the court case. AgnosticAphid talk 17:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support No evidence that there will ever be enough unique info about her to justify a separate article. -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

"not in source" removed

The sentence stating that 3 of the 5 judges had ruled it unconstitutional and the other two, while saying it was constitutional, asked for a law prohibiting it, was tagged "not in source cited". It is in the source, at least now:

While Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice S Abdul Nazeer were in favour of putting on hold for six months the practice of triple talaq and asking the government to come out with a law in this regard, Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman and U U Lalit held it as violative of the Constitution.

--Thnidu (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Arsi786's edit

Hello, Arsi786. I'll copy below the message you left on my talk page, so we have this discussion here. You wrote:

Yahyaa ibn Sa’eed said: “I heard al-Qaasim ibn Muhammad said: ‘ ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab had a wife from among the Ansaar who bore him ‘Aasim ibn ‘Umar, then ‘Umar divorced her. ‘Umar came to Quba’ and found his son ‘Aasim playing in the courtyard of the mosque. He took him by the arm and seated him in front of him on his riding-animal, but the child’s grandmother caught up with him and fought with him over the child until they went to Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq. ‘Umar said, ‘(He is) my son!’ and the woman said, ‘(He is) my son!’ Abu Bakr said: ‘Leave them alone,’ and ‘Umar did not answer back.” (Narrated by Maalik in al-Muwatta’, 2/767; al-Bayhaqi, 8/5). Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said: this hadeeth is well known with a variety of isnaads, complete and incomplete, and is accepted by the scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsi786 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This is in response to my edit summary restoring the content you had removed and now removed again.

It sounds like you may be unfamiliar with our policies. Like me explain why your edit violates them. First, the content your removed appears to be properly sourced, and thus complies with WP:V. We can't remove it without good reason. Removing it just because an editor thinks it's wrong violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR. The quote you provided is from a WP:PRIMARY source, and as explained in that link, editing based on an inference drawn from a primary source also violates WP:OR. If you do find a non-primary reliable source which provides a different view, then we need to reflect both these viewpoints per WP:NPOV. We still can't remove the first one as you did. Eperoton (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Link not working

I observed that the link at the top of the "Practice" sub-section was not working and so I edited it as can be seen here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/911940140 However, it is still not working, please make it work (it should deep link and lead to that particular sub-section). Thanks!

It should be fixed now. decltype (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Decltype I wanted you or someone else to make it link to that particular sub-section but now it links to the top of that article. Please fix it. Thanks!

It is working, as far as I can see. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

It is not linking to that particular section. I want it to link to that particular section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:282F:2179:0:0:0:1 (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I checked it on my laptop and it is working, but it is not working on my mobile!

Unjustified reversion

The last sentence of this article reads, "The bill will now go to the president of the India Ram Nath Kovind for his assent." I changed it to say that it has received his assent, but it has been reverted. I believe these reversions are unjustified: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/912462479 and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/912457515 Please restore those sentences citing the same reference. Thanks!

Thanks for your edit. Can you please let me know where you read this information (e.g. was it in a newspaper article or news site?) Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Both. I subscribe and read that newspaper and I cited its online version as a reference!

I think my sentence was better than the one added by User:Advjuvairianv sometime ago (see it here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/912544543), but I will wait for someone else to make the changes as I am new here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:2819:E32E:0:0:0:1 (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Useful references for further article expansion

• https://zeenews.india.com/india/atiya-sabri-the-triple-talaq-petitioner-from-up-wins-alimony-battle-urges-more-women-to-join-fight-2352206.html
• https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/up-triple-talaq-petitioner-atia-sabri-wins-alimony-battle-in-family-court-thanks-pm-modi/740477

Bookku (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Altaaf Khan

altaaf Khan samini 2409:408D:9E:6687:0:0:D6F:30B0 (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Altaaf Khan

altaaf Khan samin 2409:408D:9E:6687:0:0:D6F:30B0 (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)