Talk:Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The section on Nikah Muta is a mess

Look at the formatting and wording. It is a mess. I don't even know what was originally written in this section. Xareen (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

New section at the bottom, please. Unflavoured (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the talk page is a mess now, I kindly ask involved users, Unflavoured, Xareen and Suenahrme to resume discuccing Muta here, and all are welcomed to continue any other topic in a separate and new section. Thanks to all.--Aliwiki (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your latest edit, in which you reverted the section back to a previous version. I feel that that version is completely inappropriate, and quite NPOV. I had had edited the section before, with edit summaries, pointing out various issues. Unflavoured (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

And you reverted me. BTW, you could try and make the first sentence in your version to make sense. Currently it is grammatically unsound. I want to assume good faith, but it seems that you are just reverting without checking what you are reverting to: "Pleasute" ?! Unflavoured (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your precipitation. I reverted your edit because you have changed the content of the sources. Now let's discuss what are the problems of the paragraph one by one and have a conclusion all together.I am sory for grammer and I will fix it now. thanks for that.--Aliwiki (talk) 10:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is about Criticism of Shiite Islam. One of the criticisms is mut'a marriage. The section should tell the reader what mut'a marriage is ( the current first sentence does not, it does not even make sense ), then proceed by explaining why it is criticized, and then end the section by detailing the Shiite response to the criticism. That would be fair and NPOV. Agreed ?! Unflavoured (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I changed the first sentence according to its source. The current paragraph explains what is Muta, then what is the soure of disagreement and its criticism, then what is the content of criticism (a cover for prostitution), and finally answers. This is in complete agreement to Wikpedia policies. Now if you have disagreement with this structure (which seems you also agree), tell me. Else if you have problem with any of the sentences, again report it here to discuss more about it. Thanks.--Aliwiki (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not at all in agreement with one of the central tenets of Wikipedia: NPOV editing. The current paragraph poorly describes what nikah mut'a is. The sentence describing mut'a as prostitution begins with the POV phrase: "Despite its religious legitimacy" which I had taken out, and you put back in. Two of the last sentences in the paragraph have nothing to do with Shiite mut'a, and I had taken them out out as well, but they were put back in. Lastly, nearly 3/4th of the paragraph is given to the Shiite response, while the actual criticism is barely a few words. Too pro-Shiite POV, and not balanced or informative to the general reader. Unflavoured (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, good to see your points. It's always good to discuss your points before making changes. Let's g one by one to be more focused. Here in Wikipedia, we don't write by our mind, but from the sources. Description of Nikah Muta is given by Encyclopedia Iranica, not me. For your convenience, I am reporting description of Muta by Encyclopedia of Islam and Encyclopedia Iranica:

• Encyclopedia of Islam: MUT'A (A.), literally, "enjoyment", used in Islamic law in the sense of temporary marriage, a marriage which is contracted for a fixed period on rewarding the woman.
• Encyclopedia Iranica:MOTʿA (lit. “pleasure”), in Islamic law the word used as a technical term in the sense of a marriage contracted for a definite period of time.

legitimacy of Muta is also discussed in the given source (it's the exact wording of Iranica). Now if you believe these two highly recognized encyclopedia have made mistakes, I suggest you to contact them. WP:Criticism don't mentioned any volume content for criticism articles, and more over the given explanation in the paragraph is just Nikah Muta itself, not something outside the topic. That nikah Muta is a means of eradicating prostitution is also discussed by many scholars, which I have cited two of them. Any other problem or suggestion?--Aliwiki (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Here in Wikipedia, we do not copy/paste from other websites, but instead rephrase in order to make it easy for the reader to understand, and also to avoid copyvio. I like the way you casually dismissed everything I said, so I am just going to repeat myself:

1- Mut'a is not properly defined.

2- Criticism is given but a passing mention, while the Shiite POV is detailed and fleshed-out.

3- "something outside the topic" is still there. Two of the last three sentences are unrelated to Shiite mut'a.

4- Section is still far too much pro-Shiite POV, contrary to the policies of Wikipedia.

So all the issues that I mentioned previously... are still there. Any other edits coming from you ?! I do not want to disturb/revert your editing while you still have any improvements to make to the section, so I will wait till you are done before I add my own edits so you can discuss them. Unflavoured (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

In Wikipedia there is nothing in the name mine or your, because we are not owner of articles.

1- We have both definitions by the two reliable encyclopedias. I wrote the exact sentence of Iranica just to make the atmosphere here more calm, else I know that we need to re-word it (of course not distort it.). Now it seems it's calm. Is this good? Mut'a (lit. Pleasure) used in Islamic law in the sense of temporary marriage, which is contracted for a definite period of time.[1][2]

2-Criticism is written by Suenahrme not me.

3-What is your logic that it's outside the topic? The references OBVIOUSLY mention Misyar is a temporary marriage.

4-Please give detail instead of keep repeating POV. Tell me exactly which sentence is POV. Write it here please and mention how it is a POV.

I will be better that you also give your suggestions. --Aliwiki (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

1- The definitions given in your version is not adequate, and not clear. It does not matter if it was used elsewhere: It was unclear there and it is unclear here. I prefer the definition in the current version.

2- You reverted it. More than once.

3- Misyar marriage is not temporary.

4- I SPECIFICALLY pointed out phrases like "Despite its religious legitimacy," but you keep ignoring me. It is a bit difficult to reach a consensus when you ask me to point out details, then ignore me when I point out details. I am willing to discuss things to reach a consensus that satisfies both sides, but you seem to want things to go exactly the way you want, and not give in or try to present both sides of the issue. I suggest that we have three small paragraphs: 1- intro to Nikah Mut'ah, 2- criticism, 3- Shiite response. That way, we can get things done easier, one step at a time, without reverting whole sections all at once. Agreed ?! Unflavoured (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

AliWiki, thanks for improving the section by filling in the gap. It reads better right now than it did yesterday. Since you are working on this section right now, I will work on other section first. Xareen (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you too. It's good to see instructive parcipitation of you and Unflavoured. Indeed the article needs lots of improvements. And hope Suenahrme also stop his behaviour and join us. Let's all together keep the atmosphere calm and discuss every matter and improve our article. Thanks to both of you friends. --Aliwiki (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

@Unflavoured. As you desired, I summarized answer section. Is that OK now? or need to be more summarized?--Aliwiki (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

AliWiki, Can you please ask the admin to block Suenahrme. He is not wiling to discuss here but has gone ahead and removed all your editing. The admin stated that the editor need to discuss and agree to the editing. But he removed your changes without any discussion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xareen (talk • contribs) 01:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Admin, can you please revert the version of the page before the user Suenahrme. He has been given warning not to start edit warring. He broke the rule by removing changes made by other editors. Please help us. Xareen (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I am going to state all the reasons why the current mutah section should be kept rather than the version proposed by some other editors. Reasons to keep current version:

• the layout is more appropriate. The first paragraph gives the distinguishing background of mutah i.e. that it is a fixed term marriage. The second sentence of this 1st paragraph states concisely the criticism of mutah (i.e. it is cover for prostitution) and is very straight-to-the-point. It is un-emotive and does not go into theology or seek to push a specific sectarian agenda. The second paragraph very generously states the Shia view. The 2nd paragraph is more than twice as big as the first paragraph- all this in an article called “criticism” of twelver shi’ism.
• Both paragraphs accurately portray the conflicting views and opinions.
• the Shia view is fully represented. What more would a Shia want?

Now, reasons to reject the other version:

• the layout is inappropriate. The defining condition of mutah, the criticism, and the Shia view are all represented in 1 paragraph.
• it has numerous obvious errors. 1.it mentions that Umar forbade mutah and this is why Sunnis reject mutah. It mentions this as though Sunnis also hold this view- clearly false. 2.it equates mutah with Sunni misyar marriage even though misyar is permanent marriage. How can misyar even be mentioned when mutah is criticized because of its temporary nature? Another clear error.
• the article is called “criticism”, yet their version reads like a Shia defence one views on social media sites. The Shia view completely dominates and suffocates the section. this is not in keeping with the articles purpose.

In conclusion, the current version should be kept because it fairly expresses BOTH the criticism and the Shia view, has acceptable information and has an appropriate layout. Hope that covers everything.Suenahrme (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The current version is completely unacceptable to me. You reverted the page after being given warning not to start edit warring war. Please revert the page to the original version before you remove other editors’ changes. We’ll go through it line by line on all the issue that you don’t agree. Don’t just remove other people changes and then state your reasoning why it should be removed. The original page should be returned before we can address your concern.Xareen (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not revert. If you recall, yesterday the current blocked version was what was shown. Remember v discussion between us and unflavoured and drmies? If not then you should reread the history. So i did not restart the edit war. I simply reverted it to this last version. Plz refer to why it should be kept and why the other should be rejected above- starting with the bold intro.Suenahrme (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Honestly, I think both of you are incompetent. Both of you keep asking administrators to revert to the version they prefer (it doesn't work that way), and both of you accuse each other of edit warring. You're both doing it. Yesterday, Xareen seemed unable to follow a simple argument about adjectives. Today, Suenahrme says "I did not restart the edit war--I simply revert it to its last version." Fool! That is the very definition of edit warring.

  As far as I can tell, neither of you have the knowledge or the neutral disposition to edit an encyclopedia. You are both lucky that Salvio protected the article, because continuing this behavior will get you both blocked. Maybe you should both be blocked, or banned from this article, so that other editors can whip this into shape. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "new" and "inexperienced" would be more appropriate, not "incompetent." Clearly, there are two contrasting POVs here, and each side wants to push one to dominate the section. On the other hand, even though there is a revert war, neither side is acting maliciously. They are just... unaware that they can reach a higher level of maturity than what they are at now. Perhaps, now that the article is locked, there is no choice but to discuss things. Unflavoured (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope so. I can't even figure out what the POVs are since the arguments are not very clearly worded. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Me and Unflavourved discused manu useful points, step by step yesterday, and today suddenly Suenahrme again arrived and repeated his previous behaviour. This is an obvious disrespecting everybody involved here. Again, I ask all involved users keep discussing and the base of or discussion must be Reliable Sources, not desire of people.

@Suenahrme; I can discuss you every single sentence. Just mention your problems by giving REFERENCES, not your own words. Read my discussion with Unflavoured and let's all resume it. Thanks.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I reject being called incompetent. Stop insulting me. I followed the proper procedure. I started this section to discuss the articles. I expressed my opinion. The page history clearly shows that Suenahrme (who was given a warning yesterday) again went and made the same editing that got him warned without consulting with us. He posted his reasons explaining why he had to do it. I had no choice but to contact the admin again (and this is the second time I was forced to do this). Maybe locking this page is the best way to move forward with the discussion on how this page can be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xareen (talk • contribs) 13:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Resuming Nikah Muta discussion

Dear everybody. I am opening this section, to resume our yesterday discussion which was interrupted. Hope to see all here and hope to be adhere to WP:RS instead of personal desires.

I post the yesterday paragraph which was base of our discussion and keep talking about it.

1-Definition section:

Mut'a (lit. Pleasure) in Islamic law used as a technical term in the sense of a marriage contracted for a definite period of time.[1]

2-Criticism section (background of criticism and disagreement and content of disparagement and criticism):

According to a number of traditions, it was outlawed by the second Caliph, Umar ibn Khattab, therefore, it is forbidden among Sunni Muslims, but Shia Muslims continues to consider Umar's account as legally and religiously invalid, as they argue it's legimitated by Quran 4:24.[1][2][3] Muta has remained a point of chronic disagreement, passionate dispute between Sunnis and Shiis.[3] Despite its religious legitimacy, Muta has been criticized, viewed as a cover for prostitution.[4][1]

3-Answer section:

Shiis have systematically contested this criticism, and argue their rationales regarding the legal uniqueness of temporary marriage, which distinguishes Muta ideologically from prostitution.[1][5] Children are legitimate and do inherit from both parents. Women must observe a period of celibacy and can only be married to one person at a time. Although theoretically forbidden for Sunni Muslims,in reality Muta is still in practice by them.[4][1] Some scholars also view Muta as a means of eradicating prostitution from society.[6] Additionally, Nikah Misyar which is a similar style of temporary marriage[7][8][9] is recognized and practiced by Sunni Muslims.

me and Unflavoured discussed calmly and usefully yesterday. Unflavoured gave a suggestion that I am going to copy/paste it here now and continue discussing. He said: I suggest that we have three small paragraphs: 1- intro to Nikah Mut'ah, 2- criticism, 3- Shiite response. That way, we can get things done easier, one step at a time, without reverting whole sections all at once. Agreed ?!

My Response:

Of course your suggested structure is good. So we agree to have three section: 1- Nikah Muta (definition) 2- Criticism (What is base of disagreement about Nikah Muta and what is the content of this disagreement and criticism) 3- Answers; Now let's go one by one.

1- Definition: I gave definition by to highly recognized reliable source. We can reword them in a beautiful way.

• Encyclopedia of Islam: MUT'A (A.), literally, "enjoyment", used in Islamic law in the sense of temporary marriage, a marriage which is contracted for a fixed period on rewarding the woman.
• Encyclopedia Iranica: MOTʿA (lit. “pleasure”), in Islamic law the word used as a technical term in the sense of a marriage contracted for a definite period of time.

What is other suggestion for intro and definition? --Aliwiki (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not in Islamic law. If it was, it would not be a source of criticism from other Muslims, would it ?! It is a Shiite practice. I have no problem with the definition as it is now in the locked article: "Nikah mut‘ah (lit. "pleasure marriage"), is a temporary, fixed-term marriage practised by Shiites." Simple, short, un-confusing, informative. Adding the phrase "in the sense of a marriage" is ambiguous. What does "in a sense of a marriage" mean, anyway ?! If that is ok with you, then you can add some neutral, non-controversial info to that ( stuff everyone agrees on: it was permitted in early Islam, but Sunnis believe it was abolished by the the Prophet, while Shiite believe it was abolished by the Caliph ), before proceeding to the next paragraph: Criticism. Unflavoured (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Please keep adheing to sources, not personal thoughts. Agree? I am not editor of Iranica or Enc. of Islam, those are not my wording. Both sources call it Islamic and later I have gave references that says it is still in practice by some Sunni Muslims. Now, what is your suggestion for definition? Please re-word them in a way you suggest and let us know.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not quite sure that you understand what I am saying. If a source uses an ambiguous term, we do not have to follow it. As for my suggestion for a definition, I have re-worded it ( right above ) to the following: "Nikah mut‘ah (lit. "pleasure marriage"), is a temporary, fixed-term marriage practised by Shiites." Unflavoured (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this good? If not, advise. Mut'a (lit. Pleasure) used in Islamic law in the sense of temporary marriage, which is contracted for a definite period of time. --Aliwiki (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Once more, the phrase "in the sense of a marriage" is not very informative or clear. Unflavoured (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, so suggest a suitable phrase.--Aliwiki (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well. I will try and use something more clear, perhaps a simple description. What do you think of this: Nikah mut‘ah (lit. "pleasure marriage"), is a temporary, fixed-term marriage practised by Shiites. Is it clear and simple ?! I think that this sentence: Nikah mut‘ah (lit. "pleasure marriage"), is a temporary, fixed-term marriage practised by Shiites. is easy to understand for the normal, average reader. So I am going to suggest that we use something like: Nikah mut‘ah (lit. "pleasure marriage"), is a temporary, fixed-term marriage practised by Shiites. as the first sentence in the section. Do you agree with Nikah mut‘ah (lit. "pleasure marriage"), is a temporary, fixed-term marriage practised by Shiites. ?! Also, in conclusion ( just in case you missed it ), I suggest the following sentence: Nikah mut‘ah (lit. "pleasure marriage"), is a temporary, fixed-term marriage practised by Shiites. Sorry if I repeated it a few times, ( I am a little bit frustrated ), I just want to make sure you see it this time. Unflavoured (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

First btry to behave in a civil way. Your comment is an example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. We are only and only using Reliable Sources; Sources says it is Islamic. Clear? Later it is explained that is forbidden for Sunni Muslims but not for Shiia. Haven't you read? Also at the end, I have gave references that Muta is still in practice by some Sunnis. If you still believe the two encyclopedias have made mistakes, I strongly suggest to contact them. If you don't have anything more, I consider this section as finished, and going to start the next paragraph discussion.--Aliwiki (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Once you start listening to what I am saying, I am sure we can get along very well, my friendly brother. I am very happy to see that you linked to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, as it shows that I will not need to repeat myself multiple times in the future. Now, multiple sources have stated that mut'a is a Shiite practice. You can take a look at the relevant article for nikah mut'a, where multiple sources state that it is a Shiite practice. Pretending that it is not a Shiite practice will not really help much, and there are multiple Sunni religious authorities that confirm that nikah mut'a is forbidden, so saying that it is practised by Sunnis does not carry much water. Now, if you have nothing more to add then we can consider the matter of the introduction closed, and I would be very happy to proceed with next section as you suggested. Unflavoured (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

After reading the bickering over terminology and sectarian responses over what constitute Shia practice and what constitute a Sunni practice, I say we move forward with looking at the bigger picture. I have proposed a write up below, where we will be able to accommodate both of you (Ali Wiki and Unflavoured). I will write my paragraph in a way to accommodate both of your concerns? How does that sounds? Xareen (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I welcome all the parties that is working hard towards improving this page. Lets work together and write a more comprehensive article with strong consensus from everyone. I am going to start by explaining how I see the general structure of this section. To introduce the topic at hand, one or two sentences must be written to introduce the section, such as “The most common form of marriage in Islam is the Nikah” ...(brief explanation here)”. Then the discussion should go towards making the reader be aware that this isn't the only form of marriage in Islam. So, the follow-up section should read “This isn't the only form of marriage that exits in Islam. Both the Muta in Shia and Misyar in Sunnism sharing many similar properties with slight differences is an alternate to the Nikah. And both has been heavily criticized by proponent of Nikah on the issue of validity and practices by those who believe that Nikah is the only legitimate form of marriage.” With this sentence you can start with an indepth look at why people are rejecting all the alternates to Nikah. The follow-up to this would be to answer the criticism and explain the point of views from the supporters of Misyar and Muta. I will be back to answer questions and elaborate on this idea. Please take a look and let me know if this introduction with proper sources would be acceptable to all. Thank you for reading.Xareen (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no similarity between misyar and mut'a. Mut'a is temporary and fixed-term, misyar is not. And this is the Shiite criticism page, if you want to criticise misyar, do so on the Sunni criticism page. Unflavoured (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This kind of the attitude is the one that started the edit warring. I have said before and I am going to say it again that Shia and Sunni are Islamic sects. The big umbrella is Islam. The Nikah is one form of marriage accepted by many while the alternate form of Nikah is rejected by the proponent of Nikah. The writeup needs to include views from both sides. And I am trying to consolidate both views here (yours and also AliWiki). Thanks for giving me a suggestion. After this I am going to write a Criticism page on Sunnism. But before that lets come to an agreement. The only way I see now is to include everyone's opinion. And to do that you would need to be less sectarian and stop bickering over terminology and look at the bigger picture.Xareen (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It has been mentioned several times already: Misyar is not similar to mut'a. Mut'a is temporary, fixed-term. Misyar is not. You are more than welcome to criticise Sunni practices in the proper place, but this is the Shiite criticism article. Not the Criticisim of Islam article. Not Criticism of Wahhabism article. Criticism of Shiites and Shiite practices. Misyar is not a Shiite practice, and is not similar to mut'a. One gets really tired of repeating oneself over and over and over again, only to have one's words ignored. Unflavoured (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It has also been mentioned several times that your arguments are not very solid. Why do you keep on insisting being sectarian. I have already accommodate your point of view by mentioning slight differences in the practice of Misyar vs Muta. And I am also wiling to include a great deal of explanation from your side. But you also need to be open to Ali Wiki point of view. Ali Wiki should be allowed to state the similarity in practices for both the alternate form of Nikah. To make the article more comprehensive, we need to include views from all the editors. You can say what you want to be included in the article but you cannot deny other editors right to include their writing. Xareen (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that is what consensus-building is about. People do not agree, and they can either have a revert war ( as you did with Suenahrme ), or they can discuss things first, as we are doing now. I think I have mentioned this about 5 times now: Mut'a is TEMPORARY and FIXED-TERM. Misyar is NOT TEMPORARY and NOT FIXED TERM. And another thing: Misyar is a SUNNI practice ( and even then: An extreme minority, and some Sunni scholars have outlawed it ), while mut'a is a SHIITE practice. You say that those two arguments are not solid !? Then refute them. You have not done so, so far. I am giving you reasons why misyar should not be included, and your response has been: "No, no, they are similar because they are similar." Where is the logic ?! Why do you keep ignoring my argument ?! How many times do I have to repeat myself before you answer the point I am making, instead of talking about something else that is not relevant ?! Please note that I am really trying to work with all the other editors here, but if you keep ignoring my arguments and forcing me ( or other editors ) to repeat things over and over, then no consensus will be reached, and the result will be a stalemate. So please, PLEASE, when you are replying to this message: I have made two arguments on why misyar should not be included, and I want you to respond to that, as I still assume good faith on your part. Thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting to note how you keep on accusing that I started an edit war with another editor. Open your eyes and see the history of the page before it was locked. In addition, you must have also missed my note that it was I who contacted the admins twice in two days to resolve this dispute. On the top of this section, you can see my name calling all the editors to disscuss this section. I wonder how you missed all this. What I find more interesting is that you actually consider yourself an innocent victim of this war when the page history has enough evidence to show that you are also a big party of this revert war. Moving on, evidently you see what you want to see. And you accuse me that I only see what I want to see. I have seen how they resolve edit wars. They take consensus from all the editors. You need to work on building the consensus. You cannot dictate what you don't wanna see on wikipedia. One example I can give you is about people who didn't want to see [Muhammad] images on Wikipedia because their religion forbid it. They lost the argument because they are denying the rights of other editors. I see the same game being played here. I urge you again to re-read the proposed section. It is going to be comprehensive which would include your view, Ali Wiki view and my view. You can say what you need to be included but you cannot deny the rights of other editors. The proponent of Nikah would reject every alternate form of marriage. That is exactly what you are doing here. Xareen (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I asked you ( I said "please, PLEASE" ) to address my arguments. You did not. Ok. Unflavoured (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

As I have written in the introduction section that the general consensus in the Muslim community is that the only form of marriage or the most preferred form of marriage is the Nikah. Read again what I writing here. I use the word Muslim community because it would include everyone (Sunni, Shia, Salafi and all the rest of Muslim sects). The reason I am including all the Islamic sects is because we need to look at the bigger picture here on what is the most acceptable form of marriage in Islam. And the reason I am starting in this manner is to show and make a case on why the proponent of Nikah, reject every other forms of marriage (be it Muta, Misyar etc). People who believe that Nikah is the only valid form of marriage rejects every other form of alternate marriages. In that way, I don't see this debate in a sectarian manner. The two opposing side of this debate is between the proponent of Nikah and the other side is proponent of alternate form of marriages. Some of your views will fit nicely under the proponent of Nikah. Now my position will be opposing to yours. I don't necessarily believe that the only form of marriage is Nikah. As a proponent of alternative form of marriage I may want to include the common practice from an alternate to the Nikah, misyar or muta. You are free to include some of your views and I would include some of my views to support my stance. The main goal here is build a strong consensus by include your side and my side. And this is what I mean by being comprehensive. Xareen (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a Criticism of non-standard-Nikah. This is criticism of Shiite practices. For the bigger picture, there is already a Criticism of Islam article. This article is about the smaller picture: Criticism of Shiites practices. Misyar is NOT a Shiite practice. This article is about the things that set Shiites apart from Sunni Muslims. The two opposing sides of the criticism is not standard nikah and non-standard nikah: It is Shiite practices, those who support them and those who oppose them. I am not interested in being in a position with you or against you or whatever, as this is not a debate to be "won." Try and focus on the fact that you came here to help edit an article about Criticism of Shiites. This is not a "debate" to be "won" by one sides and "lost" by the other. What we want is to write a good article. So what do you suggest for the first paragraph to the section ?! Unflavoured (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself again and again. You mention a few post above that Misyar is not even a Sunni practice. I am not able to understand why do you keep on going on and on about what you think is the correct position and what is not. And how come you get to decide that? You don't get to dictate what should be included and excluded. We all have a saying on this. AliWiki presented amply evidence to support his stance yet you keep on rejecting because you don't see any merit on his writeup. This discussion will not progress much if you refuse to see views from other editors. If I respect your views and accept your writeup then you should also be fair and respect mine. You get to write your paragraph and I will write mine. And Ali Wiki will have his. We need to include everyone's views here. Xareen (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I am going to ask you a few questions. Feel free to answer or ignore.

1- Is article about Criticism of Shiites ?!

2- Is misyar a Shiite practice ?!

3- Is mut'a temporary and fixed term ?!

4- Is misyar temporary and fixed term ?!

Answer... ignore... talk about completely irrelevant things... the choice is yours to do as you please. Unflavoured (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you accuse me of ignoring you? I am not the one who is ignoring other editors' view. Your questions are very simple to answer. But you need to explain to me what you are getting at first. Xareen (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Very simple to answer ?! That is good. Proceed. Unflavoured (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Please proceed by explaining what these questions are for. What are you trying to get out by asking these questions. Thank you. Xareen (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I want to know what you think, so we can build a consensus. Unflavoured (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Great. Here is my response to your questions. On question 1, Wikipedia has a npov policy where article can be written to include all the significant views. I am willing to consider all the arguments from your side but you must also be willing to listen and consider my point of view. Eventually I see us writing this article to include every editors point of view. On question 2, Misyar is an alternate to Nikah. Question 3, Muta is also an alternate to Nikah. Proponent of Nikah is rejecting both of these marriages on the same ground that they only accept Nikah as a valid form of marriage. I want to include opinions that support alternate marriage to Nikah. These opinions would include a variety of scholars that held a minority views among the Shias and Sunnis. On question 4, the man who contracted the misyar or muta can ends the marriage at any time, including after 3 or 5 days. Both in the Misyar and muta marriage, the spouses waives a lot of rights, mainly the right of housing or maintenance. Apart from the differences that you mention in your question, I also want us to focus on the similarity. Xareen (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I am very happy that your responded, but unfortunately, you did not answer even a single one of my four simple questions.

1- Is article about Criticism of Shiites ?! I want to include all POVs like you said, of course, but is the article about Criticism of Shiites ?!

2- Is misyar a Shiite practice ?! Alternate to normal nikah is not an issue here. Is misyar a Shiite practice ?!

3- Is mut'a temporary and fixed term ?! You did not even attempt to answer this at all. So is it temporary and fixed term, or not !?

4- Is misyar temporary and fixed term ?! You did not, in any way at all, answer this question either. It is very simple: Misyar marriage is temporary and fixed term, or not temporary and not fixed term !?

You surprise me. You asked me why I want you to answer these questions, and I answered you with a clear, simple easily understood answer. But... you did not answer any question that I asked. How am I to understand this ?! I cannot keep assuming good faith forever, you know, especially if you keep ignoring my arguments and evading my simple questions. If you want to try again, I would welcome it. If you do not want to answer my questions, then I cannot do anything. Cheers !! Unflavoured (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for opening up and considering my answers. I did answer all of your questions. Maybe now you should try to answer some of my questions since we are not getting anywhere closer to solve this dispute. With this questions, you will realize that my point of view should also be represented and wikipedia already has npov.

1. Don't some Muslims hold the views that there is only one valid form of marriage which is Nikah and reject all the alternate to Nikah?

2. Isn't Misyar an alternate to Nikah?

3. Isn't Muta an alternate to Nikah?

4. Can the man who contracted the misyar marriage not end the marriage at any time he wants, say after 5 days?

5. Can the man who contracted the muta not end the marriage at any time he wants, say after 5 days (even if he fixed the marriage to some later date?

6. Does not people in misyar marriages waived their spousal rights as I mention to you above?

7. Does not people in muta marriages waived their spousal rights as I mention to you above?

I want us to look at this issue comprehensively and not make this into word game. Ask you can see, I can ask any number of question to support my point of view. Both your views and mine can be supported so why not try to write an article that would include both our views.Xareen (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I will be happy to answer your simple questions after you answer mine. If you do not want to answer my simple questions, that is fine too. The choice is yours, if you are interested in consensus. By the way, they are simple yes or no questions. If you wish, I will copy/paste them for you:

1- Is this article about Criticism of Shiites ?!

2- Is misyar a Shiite practice ?!

3- Is mut'a temporary and fixed term ?!

4- Is misyar temporary and fixed term ?!

Cheers !! Unflavoured (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to answer my question by asking your question again and again. I already answer your questions. Here I am copy pasting my answers again.

1, Wikipedia has a npov policy where article can be written to include all the significant views. I am willing to consider all the arguments from your side but you must also be willing to listen and consider my point of view. Eventually I see us writing this article to include every editors point of view.

That is nice, but does not answer my question. Is this article about criticism of Shiites ?! Yes or no ?! Unflavoured (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

On question 2, Misyar is an alternate to Nikah.

That does not answer my question. I am asking whether misyar is a Shiite practice. I am not asking if misyar is an alternate to nikah. Can you please tell if misyar is a Shiite practice ?! Yes or no ?! Unflavoured (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Question 3, Muta is also an alternate to Nikah. Proponent of Nikah is rejecting both of these marriages on the same ground that they only accept Nikah as a valid form of marriage. I want to include opinions that support alternate marriage to Nikah. These opinions would include a variety of scholars that held a minority views among the Shias and Sunnis.

That is 100% unrelated to my question. I just want to know if mut'a is temporary and fixed term, or not. Either it is temporary and fixed term, then the answer is yes, or it is not temporary and not fixed term, then the answer would be no. So is mut'a temporary and fixed term ?! Yes or no ?! Unflavoured (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

On question 4, the man who contracted the misyar or muta can ends the marriage at any time, including after 3 or 5 days. Both in the Misyar and muta marriage, the spouses waives a lot of rights, mainly the right of housing or maintenance. Apart from the differences that you mention in your question, I also want us to focus on the similarity.

That is 100% unrelated to my question. I just want to know if misyar is temporary and fixed term, or not. Either it is temporary and fixed term, then the answer is yes, or it is not temporary and not fixed term, then the answer would be no. So is misyar temporary and fixed term ?! Yes or no ?! Unflavoured (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If you don't like my answers then stop asking questions. You said you are trying to build consensus. Well that didn't work out. How about answering my questions now.Xareen (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to answer simple questions with irrelevant material, then consensus will be impossible. Answer my questions, and I will answer yours, I will answer directly, will answer simply and will answer without trying to weasel out of it. Cheers !! Unflavoured (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You accuse my material of being irrelevant. What kind of tone is that? Is this how you seek to build a consensus? By accusing my material of being irrelevant? By ignoring me and considering my views as irrelevant? I have spent the whole day addressing your concern in good faith. I have show you plenty of times that I am wiling to consider your views. I have reassure you that we will write an article reflecting all our views. Can you honestly show me where you have shown me the same level of respect? First, you accuse that I started the edit war. Now you again accuse me of my material being irrelevant. How do you hope to build a consensus by accusing other editors of being irrelevant. I hope you take this time to reflect of your words written here. You reject every single of my proposal. You reject all my explanations. You reject text written by Ali Wiki. And when we address your questions, you accuse others of being irrelevant. This is the strongest evidence that you are not discussing to resolve the dispute but stiffing all the other editors write to express themselves. Tell me how I can contact the admin to resolve this dispute. I am not able to make you accept my point of view here. And I think its time to have a mediator. Xareen (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a wikipedia policy called Wikipedia:The duck test. I am calling your material irrelevant because that is what it is. I ask you if misyar is a Shiite practice, and you answer me with irrelevant material. If you are angry that I am calling your material irrelevant, then perhaps you should have just answered my question directly from the start. I also did not accuse you of starting the edit war, nor did I call any editor irrelevant. If you scroll up, you will find that it has been mentioned already: You can check how to contact an admin from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Cheers, and good luck !! Unflavoured (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I also don't see your arguments as passing duck test either. Anyway, I have contacted the admin on their page to resolve this dispute. I'll wait and see what they have to say. Xareen (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot really help you, here: admins do not adjudicate content disputes – and even if we did, I must admit I really know nothing about this issue –. But I can give a piece of hopefully good advice: if you can't reach a compromise here, then it's pointless to keep arguing until protection expires and then edit war some more. Just follow Wikipedia's methods of dispute resolution and try, for instance, this noticeboard.

But everyone must also be willing to accept whatever consensus emerges from the discussion, even if you disagree with it. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear all involved users. Thanks to Xareen for useful comments and notes. Since Unflavoured seems no to be persuaded and insisting on his point of view, I am opening the below section to put and end to this long discussion and have our conclucion.--Aliwiki (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Conclusions

Normal discussion and brainstorming will be continued above, and a short summary on behalf of each party will be reported here and finally intervention of a third party or admin can put an end for each section.

As me and Unflavoured agreed yesterday, the section will have 3 section:1-Definition;2- Criticism (base and content of disagreementt abd criticism of Muta), 3- Answers. Below is the paragraph which was base of edit-warring and block of article. I post it here to be a base of discussion.

1-Definition section: Mut'a (lit. Pleasure) in Islamic law used as a technical term in the sense of a marriage contracted for a definite period of time.[1]

2-Criticism section (background of criticism and disagreement and content of disparagement and criticism):

According to a number of traditions, it was outlawed by the second Caliph, Umar ibn Khattab, therefore, it is forbidden among Sunni Muslims, but Shia Muslims continues to consider Umar's account as legally and religiously invalid, as they argue it's legimitated by Quran 4:24.[1][2][3] Muta has remained a point of chronic disagreement, passionate dispute between Sunnis and Shiis.[3] Despite its religious legitimacy, Muta has been criticized, viewed as a cover for prostitution.[4][1]

3-Answer section:

Shiis have systematically contested this criticism, and argue their rationales regarding the legal uniqueness of temporary marriage, which distinguishes Muta ideologically from prostitution.[1][5] Children are legitimate and do inherit from both parents. Women must observe a period of celibacy and can only be married to one person at a time. Although theoretically forbidden for Sunni Muslims,in reality Muta is still in practice by them.[4][1] Some scholars also view Muta as a means of eradicating prostitution from society.[6] Additionally, Nikah Misyar which is a similar style of temporary marriage[7][8][9] is recognized and practiced by Sunni Muslims.

Definition.

• Unflavoured's suggested sentence:

Nikah mut‘ah (lit. "pleasure marriage"), is a temporary, fixed-term marriage practised by Shiites.

References: Not given

Reasons: (to be written)

• Aliwiki's Suggested Sentence:

Mut'a (lit. Pleasure) used in Islamic law in the sense of temporary marriage, which is contracted for a definite period of time.

References:

Encyclopedia of Islam: MUT'A (A.), literally, "enjoyment", used in Islamic law in the sense of temporary marriage, a marriage which is contracted for a fixed period on rewarding the woman.

Encyclopedia Iranica: MOTʿA (lit. “pleasure”), in Islamic law the word used as a technical term in the sense of a marriage contracted for a definite period of time.

Reasons: My sentences is based on two highly reliable sources. In addition, in the next sentence it's mentioned it is now forbidden for Sunni Muslims, but not Shiis (which is main concern of Unflavoured). At the end also references are given that Muta is still in practice by some Sunnis. So usage of the word Islamic instead of Shia is more appropriate.

A third party will give his/her opinion to have a conclusion and go to next section.--Aliwiki (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

AliWiki, your writing is fine. I have written the following introduction paragraph. After the introduction, we can eloborate using your write-up. Please see my writing below.

The most common form of marriage in Islam is the Nikah. This isn't the only form of marriage that exits in Islam. Other alternative marriages, such as the Nikah mut‘ah and Nikah Misyar has been practiced in certain communities and regions. Some proponent of Nikah, rejects every other form of alternate marriage and maintain that Nikah is the only legitimate and acceptable form of marriage in Islam. Xareen (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding my source here –– <ref name="mideastnews">{{cite news |author=Fakih, Hassen |date=April 25, 2006 |title=Misyar marriage enrages Gulf women |newspaper=Middle East Online |url= http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=16308 |accessdate=January 27, 2012}}</ref>
Xareen (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I am going to state again all the reasons why the current mutah section should be kept rather than the version proposed by some other editors. Reasons to keep current version:

• the layout is more appropriate. The first paragraph gives the distinguishing background of mutah i.e. that it is a fixed term marriage. The second sentence of this 1st paragraph states concisely the criticism of mutah (i.e. it is cover for prostitution) and is very straight-to-the-point. It is un-emotive and does not go into theology or seek to push a specific sectarian agenda. The second paragraph very generously states the Shia view. The 2nd paragraph is more than twice as big as the first paragraph- all this in an article called “criticism” of twelver shi’ism.
• Both paragraphs accurately portray the conflicting views and opinions.
• the Shia view is fully represented. What more would a Shia want?

Now, reasons to reject the other version:

• the layout is inappropriate. The defining condition of mutah, the criticism, and the Shia view are all represented in 1 paragraph.
• it has numerous obvious errors. 1.it mentions that Umar forbade mutah and this is why Sunnis reject mutah. It mentions this as though Sunnis also hold this view- clearly false. 2.it equates mutah with Sunni misyar marriage even though misyar is permanent marriage. How can misyar even be mentioned when mutah is criticized because of its temporary nature? Another clear error.
• the article is called “criticism”, yet their version reads like a Shia defence one views on social media sites. The Shia view completely dominates and suffocates the section. this is not in keeping with the articles purpose.

In conclusion, the current version should be kept because it fairly expresses BOTH the criticism and the Shia view, has acceptable information and has an appropriate layout. And if still unconvinced then go to the article edit history and see the last change i made before the article was protected by Salvio. You will see the 2 conflicting section versions being discussed.Suenahrme (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I side with Suenahrme's version more than the alternative, as I see the alternative as being a far too much pro-Shiite POV version. However, I also agree with Aliwiki on having three short paragraphs: Intro, criticism and Shiite response. The intro should introduce/define what nikah mut'a is, and state some of the non-controversial, agreed-upon facts (it was allowed in very early Islam, Sunnis believe it was prohibited by the Prophet, Shiites believe it was prohibited by Caliph Umar). The the criticism paragraph explains why nikah mut'a is criticised, then the Shiite response paragraph to detail the Shiite response to the criticism. Unflavoured (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

@Suenahrme and Unflavoured; Why you keep repeating useless points which are IN CONTRADICTION TO REFERENCES? Sources says it is Islamic, you keep repeating it is Shiite (Muta existed in a time when there was not Shia/Sunni!!!). Sources says it is still in practice by some Sunni communities, but you say it's only for Shiite. Why? I told you, if you believe that Encyclopedia of Islam and Iranica have made mistakes, contact them ASAP. Clear? --Aliwiki (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to help edit Encyclopedia Iranica, 'contact them ASAP. But on Wikipedia, we follow consensus and logic. Mut'a is a Shiite practice, not a Sunni practice, not a Muslim practice. Clear ?! Unflavoured (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:Consensus. Consensus can't change references and fcats; You can not have consensus that Paris is capital of Japan!!. --Aliwiki (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

And Iranica cannot change mut'a from a Shiite practice into an Islamic practice. Facts are facts. Unflavoured (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Everyone please bring facts to support your position. No personal feelings, no original research please. Let's keep this discussion moving with everyone bringing their facts. Since AliWiki has already brought his fact to support his position. So let's move along in writing this up. Type out the paragraph. Xareen (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This is really quite ridiculous. It's like talking to a brick wall. The same errors are recycled time and again. We are only going around in circles. The sunni consensus and belief is that mutah is forbidden. You cannot use a minute minority who say otherwise to imply it is practiced or allowed in sunni islan. Every religion will have those who oppose consensus. I have read shia that even oppose mutah. Should we then mention that shia their are shia who also forbid mutah? No of course not because this is not the consensus belief. Remember as well this article is criticisn of twelvers. It is not the business to go into peculiarities in sunni islam. For my above reasons i still uphold that my version is the fairest, most accurate and best expressed. But i hope we can have some outside neutral POV because this discussion is ridiculous, repetitive and getting nowhere.Suenahrme (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Suenahrme and Unflavoured, me and Xareen get tired of repeating in Wikipedia decisions are based on sources not your feelings. You can add anything that you find a reliable source for it. And if a source is wrong according to you, it is not our job to correct it. I can't spent several months for a paragraph. Below is the last. A thrid party will give final decision.

Give your final sentence for definition of Muta including references and a short reason. I will do same and ask the admin Silvio to decide. Agree? If yes, go on. --Aliwiki (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Going to have to agree with Suenahrme here. AliWiki's insistence that mut'a is a Sunni/Islamic practice is quite baffling. Mut'a is a Shiite practice. If it was purely an Islamic practice and not a Shiite one, then the entire section has to go, as criticism of an Islamic practice belongs in the Criticism of Islam page, and not here. We have Shiite sources that clearly say that Mut'a is allowed, and Sunni sources that say it is forbidden. Thus it is a Shiite practice. What is the problem ?! Unflavoured (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Three easy statements. Muta is older that Shia/Sunni. In the beginning of Islam it was free to ALL MUSLIMS, later disputed (If we consider all early Muslims as Shia, then you are right!). It is still in practice by some Sunnis. Clear? Plase fill out the reason section devoted to you below.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It is NOT in practice by Sunnis as a rule, and many Sunni authorities have explicitly banned it and criticized it as being similar to prostitution. NPOV means not lending too much weight to a minority view: The same logic that dictates that just because some Muslims still drink alcohol, it does not mean that alcohol is allowed in Islam. Clear !? As for it being allowed in early Islam, like alcohol, then that is fine by me. Unflavoured (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

My sayings is based on sources not personal desires. Sources say it is still in practice by some Sunnis despite being forbidden theoretically.--Aliwiki (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out the reason section below. I am going to ask Silvio to decide. If you don't write means it's empty on behalf of you. Thanks.--Aliwiki (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

What part of "FALSE" and "INCOMPLETE" did you not see ?! You cannot use your personal desires to turn a Shiite practice to a Sunni one. You are just pushing your POV and not in any way all acknowledging ANYTHING I have said so far. Consensus does not mean that you ignore everything I say. Iranica specifically mentions that it is a SHIITE INSTITUTION and Encyclopedia of Islam uses a definition that is very similar to the one I proposed. That is your two sources strengthening my argument. It is not logical to keep ignoring sources and other editors as you have been doing. We do not go by our own personal desires and wishes here: Sources state that it is a Shiite institution. If that is enough to consider this part done, I am ready to discuss the second paragraph: The criticism. Thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I have filled up the section with sources. Feel free to contact Silvio if you wish. Personally, I do not see the need, as we can work it out amongst ourselves in a friendly, polite manner. Unflavoured (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Just can you be kind and remove your writing from our proposal section? You can write it here or in your proposal. You have deleted something from encyclopedia of Islam and I am going to add it. thanks in advance.--Aliwiki (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. However, I am afraid that misrepresentation of sources is unacceptable, so I will not delete what I added. Thanks. Unflavoured (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You have deleted the first phrase of IOS. This is called misrepresentation. So please move your edit in section of proposal 2 here or to proposal 1. Anyway, I am happy to see you know talk with reference. And also I prefer to finish it by ourselves. But let's discuss here and keep below for the time we can't get result by ourselves. --Aliwiki (talk) 10:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid I do not quite follow. I copied the reference exactly as I found it. What phrase did I delete ?! Unflavoured (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You are a good and valuable user and I am pretty sure it was an unintentional mistake by you. The EOI definition of Muta starts with Muta used in Islamic law in the sense of temporary marriage.....--Aliwiki (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just checked EI2, and the definition given by Aliwiki is correct (although when quoting from the Encyclopedia of Islam, it's rather important to distinguish between the 1st and 2nd editions). That said, it seems that the EI2 gives multiple definitions of what Mut'a is. For instance, the end of the "Mutʿa" article includes the following: "Finally, it should be noted that mutʿa is used in Islamic law in a quite different sense from that of 'temporary marriage' for the indemnity a divorced wife where no mahr or dowry has been stipulated." We should make this distinction clear in our definition. Also the Glossary volume (which is more recent compared to some of the other volumes) gives yet another definition: "mutʿa (A) : lit. enjoyment; in law, temporary marriage, also called nikāh al-mutʿa, a marriage which is contracted for a fixed period. It was authorized at the beginning of Islam but forbidden later by the SUNNA; shīʿism tolerates it, however. VI 476a; VII 757a; VIII 28b; also, the indemnity payable to a divorced wife when no dowry has been stipulated. VII 759a; X 154a." Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 14:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much brother Wiqi for your explanation. Indeed I didn't mean any accusation against Unflavoured since I know him for a long time.--Aliwiki (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Unflavoured and Suenahrme why have you left the discussion?--Aliwiki (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

Still here, but the discussion has died down. There is little attempt to reach a compromise here, do you not agree ?! Unflavoured (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You suggested to solve it together instead of third party and I agreed. Then you disappeared. Anyway, let's start now. Since you agreed on Iranica and EOI, and since both have used the word Islamic for Muta seems that now you don't have disagreement to the usage of word Islamic. Right? If yes, let's go on to the next section.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You will please note that both were careful in specifying that it is a Shiite (not Sunni) institution. As long as that is very clear, we can continue. Writing "Islamic" and leaving out "Shiite" is unacceptable and a breach of NPOV. Agreed !? Unflavoured (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have bot gone anywhere. This discussion is simply going nowhere. It has mushroomed into more than what it should have. I still believe only third party neutral arbritraters should be brought in to resolve it. Otherwise this discussion is going to go on forever and stall the develipment and expansion of the article.Suenahrme (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

@Unflavoured. I have no problem to use the word Shia. My main points are: 1- Usage of the word Islamic. 2- It is theoretically forbidden for Sunnis but not for Shias. 3- Keep in mind that it is not only Shias who practice it but also some Sunnis do it. now go on brother.--Aliwiki (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

@Unflavoured. Again, since you didn't start, I am starting; The problem of your sentence is that first it doesn't have the word Islamic and second it has the misguiding phrase of practiced by Shias while we know it's in practice also by some Sunnis. So if we want to be correct we must say Islamic...which is in practice by Shias and some Sunnis. Now tell me please what is your problem with this sentence? Mut'a ( literally Pleasute) used in Islamic law in the sense of temporary marriage, which is contracted for a definite period of time.According to a number of traditions, it was outlawed by the second Caliph, Umar ibn Khattab, therefore, it is forbidden among Sunni Muslims, but Shia Muslims continues to consider Umar's account as legally and religiously invalid, as they argue it's legimitated by Quran 4:24. It is clearly mention Muta is islamic, and theoretically forbidden for Sunnis but not for Shias and explains why it is so.--Aliwiki (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I urge you to read what NPOV means (to clarify: not giving disproportionate weight to a minority view). Alcohol is not allowed in Islam, even though a few Muslims do drink. Mut'a marriage is not allowed in Sunni Islam, even though a few Sunni Muslims do do it. I have stated this over and over and over and over. We have Sunni authorities STRONGLY condemning mut'a marriage and forbidding it. Please try to understand this point. If you keep insisting on your POV in the face of all the evidence you are presented with, then there cannot be a consensus. Mut'a is allowed by Shiites, forbidden by Sunnis. If you understand this point, then we can move forward. If you insist on refusing to get it, then I am afraid we are going to get stuck. Unflavoured (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I am almost disappointed with this discussion. I have written clearly that Muta is theoretically forbidden for Sunnis and don't know why you don't want to see it. It is sources that gave weight to its practice by Sunnis not me. I just and just follow sources. That you don't like it is not my fault. So, Muta is theoretically forbidden for Sunnis[Ref], but still in practice by some of them [Ref]. Is it ok?--Aliwiki (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Because there is a wikipedia policy called: NPOV. Having one reference does not mean that it is a majority view. Do you or do you not understand this ?! Unflavoured (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please define for me the majority view. There is no NPOV because sources have mentioned this fact that you don't like.--Aliwiki (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The majority Sunni view is that nikah mut'ah is prohibited. The majority Shiite view is that nikah mut'ah is permissible. There is no disagreement about this. Unflavoured (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That you want to make question about reliable sources and make your idea equal to them has no weight here. I declared that it is for bidden for Sunnis but in practice by some (not all), but you want to remove what you don't like. If you want to continue your view, we must find another solution. Please remove your wrong citation from EOS from proposal 2 to proposal 1 in below, then the admin will decide what would be the final wording. thanks--Aliwiki (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The citation is as I found it according to your link. Unflavoured (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

EOI has used the phrase used in Islamic law in the sense of .... which you were informed above but you are avoid hearing.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This is what I see when I click the link given by you earlier: "MUT'A (a.) temporary marriage (according to the Arab lexicographers "marriage of pleasure"), a marriage which is contracted for a fixed period on rewarding the woman." If you made a mistake and gave the wrong link, please post the correct one. Thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Read comment of wiqi55. He has corrected you.--Aliwiki (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but no one posted any new links, and I could not find any on my own either, so I only have the links that you posted. BTW, I have thought of a compromise intro, if you are still interested in compromise. Unflavoured (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

EOI is not online. That's why you don't find it. Go on with your new suggestion.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

You insist on using the term "Islamic", and I oppose it. Perhaps a compromise would be: "Nikah mut'a is a temporary marriage that was allowed in early Islam. Sunnis believe it was abolished by the Prophet Muhammad, but Shiites believe that is was abolished by Caliph Umar." By specifying "early" with Islam, we can continue, yes ?! Unflavoured (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a problem. You know better than me that Muta is forbidden by who is disputed in Islam. In my opinion the wording of Iranica could be the best since it is in agreement to both Shia and Sunnis beliefs. I say, let's use the word Islamic and later say, the base of disagreement is a number of traditions which shows Muta was outlawed by Umar; therefore, it is forbidden among Sunni Muslims, but Shia Muslims continues to consider Umar's account as legally and religiously invalid, as they argue it's legimitated by Quran 4:24. By this way we have used a reliable source for our wording (Iranica) and simultanously inform the reader about the base of disagreement. What do you think? --Aliwiki (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I am trying my best to come to a compromise, since you seem to want to work with me. As mentioned earlier, saying it is Islamic is a major problem, since 90% of Muslims disagree. But saying it is allowed in early Islam means you get to keep the term Islam but without implying that it is 100% acceptable by all Muslims. Unflavoured (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

An Islamic topic, and what is Muslims view on it are two different subject. I strongly agree to add a sentence about Muslims view (as I have already did, some shia/sunni criticize it, some sunnis still practice it and ....). We must go step by step ACCORDING to sources, not synthesizing materials by ourselves. We have good sources, and just we need to re-word it (not distort it) in a suitable way.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the no-distortion part. That is why I suggest that if you insist on having the term Islam in the definition, that you use a qualifier early Islam, so as to keep things NPOV. Unflavoured (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV is not what users like or dislike. Fortunately we have very good references. So, we must discuss how to re-word it. We are just normal users, not scholars. When sources declare it is Islamic, means it is; so adding early, later and and so on is WP:SYN. Suggest a re-wording, as I did, which is in complete agreement with sources. Thanks.--Aliwiki (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am going by the sources, as given by Wiki55: "Glossary volume (which is more recent compared to some of the other volumes) gives yet another definition: "mutʿa (A) : lit. enjoyment; in law, temporary marriage, also called nikāh al-mutʿa, a marriage which is contracted for a fixed period. It was authorized at the beginning of Islam but forbidden later by the SUNNA; shīʿism tolerates it, however." No mention of Islamic there. NPOV is NPOV, you cannot simply pick and choose to fit your POV. Unflavoured (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

All the 3 sources are reliable. Two of them have used the term Islamic and it is enough to be used in the article body. Anyway, I believe we have discussed enough about this topic, and good to see now you use sources. Let's go on to the next section and discuss Criticism and Answer section, then we'll ask third party to decide. I will open a new section for it.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Final decision by third party

'Please avoid discussing details here

A third party will decide to choose among the proposed sentences below. Discussions about details must be done above, and just a short summary be reported here. Starting from definition section:

Definition

• Proposal 1:

Nikah mut‘ah (lit. "pleasure marriage"), is a temporary, fixed-term marriage practised by Shiites.

References:

1a- Encyclopedia of Islam: MUT'A (a.) temporary marriage (according to the Arab lexicographers "marriage of pleasure"), a marriage which is contracted for a fixed period on rewarding the woman. (Unflavoured (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC))

1b- Encyclopedia of Islam (Glossary volume): mutʿa (A) : lit. enjoyment; in law, temporary marriage, also called nikāh al-mutʿa, a marriage which is contracted for a fixed period. It was authorized at the beginning of Islam but forbidden later by the SUNNA; shīʿism tolerates it, however. Unflavoured (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

2- Encyclopedia Iranica: MOTʿA (lit. “pleasure”), in Islamic law the word used as a technical term in the sense of a marriage contracted for a definite period of time. It is a complex Shiʿite institution with which historically much cultural and moral ambivalence has been associated. (Unflavoured (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC))

Reason of Unflavoured: Nikah Mut'a is a Shiite practice in which a man marries a woman for a temporary period for a fixed term. The sources back this definition. Unflavoured (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Reason of Suenahrme: This is ridiculous. The current definition is more than adequate for the context of the article. This isn't getting anywgere. We need a neutral arbitrator/s to finally settle this. The same problems keep being recycled and it's wasting time and space.Suenahrme (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Proposal 2:

Mut'a (lit. Pleasure) used in Islamic law in the sense of temporary marriage, which is contracted for a definite period of time.

References:

Encyclopedia of Islam: MUT'A (A.), literally, "enjoyment", used in Islamic law in the sense of temporary marriage, a marriage which is contracted for a fixed period on rewarding the woman.

FALSE: The actual definition given in EoI is: MUT'A (a.) temporary marriage (according to the Arab lexicographers "marriage of pleasure"), a marriage which is contracted for a fixed period on rewarding the woman. (This is is an agreement with my definition.) Unflavoured (talk) 07:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Iranica: MOTʿA (lit. “pleasure”), in Islamic law the word used as a technical term in the sense of a marriage contracted for a definite period of time.

INCOMPLETE: It says: MOTʿA (lit. “pleasure”), in Islamic law the word used as a technical term in the sense of a marriage contracted for a definite period of time. It is a complex Shiʿite institution with which historically much cultural and moral ambivalence has been associated. (Again: Specific mention of it being a Shiite practice.) Unflavoured (talk) 07:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Reason: The sentences is based on two highly reliable sources. In addition, in the next sentence (see paragraph above) it's mentioned it is now forbidden for Sunni Muslims, but not for Shiis (which is main concern of Unflavoured and Suenahrme). At the end also references are given that Muta is still in practice by some Sunnis.

Reason of Xareen: (written): My response is here. As far as I see, the proposal by AliWiki is in agreement with reliable sources. He has showed the usage of the terminology being applicable as Islamic practices (both for the Shia and Sunnis). It makes no sense to exclude his point of view when his source is clearly showing the usage. I am completely in agreement to include his writing (in the proposed format) in the article section since it is appropriate (per the MoS). Xareen (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible Question(s) of third party: (to be written)

Result of the decision by third party: (to be written)

Introduction to the section

Can an independent third party please evaluate my writing also. Here is an introduction to this section. Thank you. Xareen (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The most common form of marriage in Islam is the Nikah. This isn't the only form of marriage that exists in Islam. Other alternative marriages, such as the Nikah mut‘ah and Nikah Misyar has been practiced in certain communities and regions. Some proponent of Nikah, rejects every other form of alternate marriage and maintain that Nikah is the only legitimate and acceptable form of marriage in Islam. The following is my source

<ref name="mideastnews">{{cite news |author=Fakih, Hassen |date=April 25, 2006 |title=Misyar marriage enrages Gulf women |newspaper=Middle East Online |url= http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=16308 |accessdate=January 27, 2012}}</ref>

Criticism section discussion

I am opening this section to separate criticism and into sections.

In my opinion, it will be good to give a sentence about what is the base of disagreement, and then write about criticism content.

Here is my suggestion for the disagreement: According to a number of traditions, it was outlawed by the second Caliph, Umar ibn Khattab, therefore, it is forbidden among Sunni Muslims, but Shia Muslims continues to consider Umar's account as legally and religiously invalid, as they argue it's legimitated by Quran 4:24.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable. Try the following: According to the major Sunni references Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, nikah mut'a was forbidden by the Islamic Prophet Muhammad after the battle of Khaibar. Shiites disagree, and believe that it was the second Caliph Umar who forbade it, and they hold Umar's account as legally and religiously invalid, as they argue it's legimitated by Quran 4:24. Reference: Bukhari [1], Muslim: [2] If you do not know Arabic, I would be happy to translate for you. Please provide your sources for the Shiite view, however. Unflavoured (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

::Thanks. Read WP:OR. Citing Sahih Bukhari or Muslim, which are primary sources, is an example of Original Research. If you tell me what is your main hesitation and problem about my sentence, I can help.--Aliwiki (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the third party is going to decide, not me and you, no problem with your proposal. So go on please with the criticism sentence(s) and suggest your proposal. --Aliwiki (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Suenharme have already gave the sentence For this reason, nikah mut‘ah has been widely criticised as the religious cover and legalization of prostitution. If you agree on it, we can go to the next section, which is Answers to criticism.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not forget to provide sources for the Shiite view that Umar forbade it, before we continue, thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't do original research like you. So I don't care a source is Sunni/Shia/Western or..... the important point for is reliability.

If you don't have anything more to be added to Your suggested sentences about criticism, let's go on to next section.InshaAllah we will close this discussion by next week.--Aliwiki (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Do not be childish. I did no original research. I asked you nicely to provide sources for the Shiite POV, so have a little bit of decorum and provide some sources. And do not imply things like you did with this sentence: "I don't do original research like you." I feel that it is snide and immature, and poisons the atmosphere instead of helping. Thank you very much. Unflavoured (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Every user know using primary sources such as Sahih Bukhari and Muslim is original research. But no worries, because neither me nor you will decide the final version. Please give your proposal for below section too. Thanks. --Aliwiki (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Please read up on what ORIGINAL RESEARCH is, so that you do not falsely accuse people of it in the future. FYI, Sahih Bukhari is not a primary source, and it is used as a source in multiple articles on Wikipedia. Unflavoured (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I said several times, no problem with Sahih bukhari or any other source you suggest since another person is deciding not me. Sorry if you have been offended. I just want to finish this discussion after 4 month. Go on with out worries.--Aliwiki (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add a very short phrase in few words about the legitimacy of Muta according to Sunni's sources in this section. Here is my references: Evidences From Quran and the Sunni CommentariesEvidences From Quran and the Sunni Commentaries, Evidences From the Sunni Hadith Collections, Evidences From the Sunni History/Fiqh/Misc. Books, Some Contradicting Reports of Muta in Sunni's books, Purpose of Muta, Debate on the Legitimacy of Muta. The articles are provided by Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project and Here you can verify the reliability of the sources. Any comment? How about your proposal for the below section (Answers)?--Aliwiki (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a Shiite website, with Shiite references. Unflavoured (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Priority of sources is with reliability (which I approved) not Shia/Sunni.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you just said. I understand English is not your first language, but you are going to have to try again. By the way, I would like to remind you that you still have not provided any sources for the Shiite POV, as requested by me earlier. Unflavoured (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Really sorry for my bad English. Two points; first, here you can verify the reliability of the sources. Second, I don't understand what you mean by Source for Shia POV; If you mean a primary Shia source (as you did by Sahih Bukhari), there is no need because it is original research; moreover I have cited reliable references for every single phrase or sentence I have used. Now if you need more reference, just please be more specific and tell me for which sentence you need source; I will add a reliable one for it.--Aliwiki (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You are using a Shiite site to say the Sunnis allow mut'a, against the words of ALL prominent Sunni scholars and Sunni references such as Sahih Bukhari and Muslim. That is just ridiculous, and there really is no need to say anything further about it. As for sources for the Shiite POV, I mean to back up this sentence: "Shia Muslims continues to consider Umar's account as legally and religiously invalid." Unflavoured (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

And one more thing: You cannot use a section on Wikipedia, written by a pro-Shiite editor with no references, to prove that a pro-Shiite site is reliable. If you actually took the trouble to read the articles that you linked to, you will find that they are very biased, and the English is quite shaky, using lots of "appeal to emotion" fallacies. Not reliable at all. Unflavoured (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding reliability of Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project: Open the links given there, then you can see it's reliable. Content of that library has been widely used in Wikipedia as reliable source which is confirmed by admins. Here you can see an example and if you need more, I can give you. (it's interesting that you consider Sahih Bukhari as Reliable but scholarly-written reliable tertiary source of mine unreliable!!!). See here too.

Regarding the reference you asked for the sentence Shia Muslims continues to consider Umar's account as legally and religiously invalid. I gave the ref. but you didn't pay attention. For your convenience Ia am providing excerpt of the book for you:

The custom of Muta of women, as it has been call, was outlawed in the seven century by the second Caliph, Umar, who equated it with fornication. Among the Sunnis, therefore, temporary marriage is forbidden and in theory they do not practice it, although in reality some do. The Shiis, however, continue to consider Umar's command as legally and religiously invalid. They argue temporary marriage is legitimated in the Quran 4:24 and it was not specifically banned by the prophet Muhammad himself.

Anything more?--Aliwiki (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

I opened the links in that article. Half of them were false and I deleted them. I also opened the links you provided here: The articles were terrible: Biased, bad English, and full of logical fallacies. Thank you for the excerpt, but may I ask what book it is ?! Unflavoured (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I updated the links for you. The book is: Erika Friedl, Mahnaz Afkhami (1994) In the eye of the storm: women in post-revolutionary Iran, Syracuse University Press.--Aliwiki (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Answer section discussion

This was mu suggested answer paragraph:

Shiis have systematically contested this criticism, and argue their rationales regarding the legal uniqueness of temporary marriage, which distinguishes Muta ideologically from prostitution.[1][5] Children born of temporary marriages are considered legitimate, and have equal status in law with their siblings born of permanent marriages, and do inherit from both parents. Women must observe a period of celibacy (idda) to allow for the identification of a child’s legitimate father, and a woman can only be married to one person at a time, be it temporary or permanent. Although theoretically forbidden for Sunni Muslims,in reality Muta is still in practice by them.[4][1] Some scholars also view Muta as a means of eradication prostitution from society.[6] Additionally, Nikah Misyar which is a similar style of temporary marriage[7][8][9] is recognized and practiced by Sunni Muslims.

Please provide your suggestion too. Thanks.--Aliwiki (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a problem with this: "Although theoretically forbidden for Sunni Muslims,in reality Muta is still in practice by them." Do we do this for alcohol as well ?! NPOV is a pillar of Wikipedia, and this breaks NPOV. Also, the nikah misyar part has already been repudiated earlier in the discussion, so there is no need to go over this again. Unflavoured (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. I will consider you points. Ih you have anything more for each section, don't hesitate to propose.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Usuli vs. Akhbari

The section has multiple issues. To begin with, this article as the lead section suggests is about criticisms mentioned by outsiders of this religion. The Usuli vs. Akhbari debate however, is an inside discussion, i.e. both Usulis and Akbaris were devout twelver shiis. Therefore, unless there is a source explicitly mentioning this specific debate as a criticism of twelver shiism, it is irrelevant to include it in this article.

Another problem I find is the opening sentence of the section.

"Twelver Shia of the Akhbari and Usuli branches have for centuries fought, including both theologically and physically,"

It misrepresents the sources it cites[3] [4] since the sources talk about use of force only in the period when Behbahani was in power. --Kazemita1 (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)