Talk:Rape in Islamic law

Reverts

Pathawi there was a sentence, "A woman who has been subject to force and raped is not liable to any punishment." I made it, "Jurists agree that a woman needs four male witnesses who may however, retract their statements about the rape and a woman who has been subjected to force and raped is not liable to any punishment." as that is in the source cited already. Please don't revert it.-Khaanate (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

In the Pregnancy due to Rape section, this article reads, "In Islamic law, if a woman becomes pregnant while out of wedlock and denies committing adultery, claiming she was raped by someone, most jurists of the Hanafi, Shafi'i, and Hanbali school of thought suggest that the excuse of such a woman would be accepted without investigation, while the Maliki school of thought requires that a woman provide additional evidence to support such claims, if not, she is subjected to the stipulated punishment." So is there a punishment for slanderous accusations of rape which can't be proved? Are such women accused of zina and punished for zina?-Khaanate (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

This says, “This means that if a woman accused a pious man of forcing her into adultery and there were no witnesses to prove her claim and she did not drag him by his clothes (to prove the offense), then she should be subjected to the hadd of slander whether or not she is well-known for chastity she should be subjected to the hadd of zina if she becomes pregnant as a result. The same ruling applies if she is proven non-pregnant unless she retracts her claim. If she drags him by his clothes and reports the crime of her own volition, then the hadd of zina is waived from her even if she is proven pregnant given the public defamation that she brought upon herself by reporting the offense. She is still subject to the hadd of slander and has no right to ask the man whom she accused to take an oath and swear to his innocence of the charge brought against him. On the other hand, if she accused a dissolute man of such a crime and she did not drag him by his clothes, then she is not subject to the hadd of slander or zina unless she is proven pregnant. However, if she dragged him by his clothes, then the hadd of zina is waived from her even if she is proven pregnant and the hadd of slander is waived from her as well. Lastly, if she accused a man whose religiosity is unknown and she did not drag him by his clothes, then she is subject to both the hadd of slander and that of zina. If she dragged him by his clothes, then she is not subject for that to the hadd of slander...”. Is that a reliable source?-Khaanate (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, for what kind of claim? It looks at first glance like a reliable primary source on positions of the Ministry of Endowments and Islamic Affairs of Qatar. It's not the kind of source we should generally draw on for more general claims: The ideal is secondary, scholarly sources. EDIT: Check out this short discussion for a look at a previous consideration of the source. I generally agree: The site is particular Islamic scholars' opinions—not a reliable source for statements about Islam in general or the broader community of scholars. Pathawi (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. Check reliable sources. Pathawi (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Khaanate, I do not see this in the source cited at the page cited. I have checked twice. Pathawi (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

On Pg.68, it says, "The Mālikīs have held, on the contrary, that pregnancy in an unmarried woman is by itself a proof of zinā and that the punishment would be due on its basis unless there be evidence to prove that the woman was subjected to irresistible force. When there is such evidence, then the ḥadd of adultery is suspended.

On pg. 69, ".....if the rape victim fails to prove her charge against the rapist by four witnesses, which is the most likely scenario, she is charged with slander (qadhf).'

On Pg. 73, it says, "The majority position—to admit pregnancy as circumstantial evidence—is based on a saying of the Companion (qawl al-ṣaḥābi), a statement in particular of caliph ʿUmar b. al Khattab, who is reported to have said that “stoning is obligatory on anyone who commits zinā, man or woman, provided that they are muḥṣan [lit., guarded, i.e., married] and that it is proven by witnesses, pregnancy or confession.”-Khaanate (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Please note that these are pages other than the page explicitly cited. This makes verification much harder. Probably more importantly, it does not support the claim as worded: There's nothing in what you've cited concerning witness statement retraction. Pathawi (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying your claim isn't true: For all I know ot may well be. I'm just saying that it is not supported by the source in the locations you've cited. Pathawi (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

So, can I add, "If the victim fails to prove that she was raped with four witnesses, she is charged with slander (qadhf)."? -Khaanate (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you'd be wise to add nothing at all to this page, at this point. With this account, you have thus far solely focused on this article, which has a history of controversy. I don't think you're yet familiar with reliable sourcing, given your first edits only a day ago. It's hard to tell what's motivating your edits when the content you're adding doesn't match the source you're drawing from. My honest advice is to read the link I gave you on reliable sources, & start out editing pages that are less controversial. In general, it's best not to start with a page by editing the introductory paragraphs: Check out MOS:LEAD on this, but that section should generally only reflect material that's already present elsewhere in the article. It's not a place to introduce additional stuff, & it's for the most part not a place for the perspectives of individual scholars unless they're meant to represent a broad consensus (or one of a small set of opposing views). I'm not an admin: I can't tell you what you can & can't do. I can just tell you what I'll argue against (or, when appropriate, boldly or procedurally revert WP:BRD).

In this particular case, I do not think that what you're proposing is the sense of what Kamali is saying. If it belongs anywhere, it's not in the lead section, but probably in the pregnancy section. It's very nearly already present in the first paragraph of that section. But Kamali is making a rhetorical argument here: The sense of the paragraph is that this is how some jurists have handled pregnancy as evidence, but he describes it as controversial. We thus should not take his nomic statement out of the context of its paragraph as a general truth, but present it—if we use it at all—as one juristic position. Pathawi (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Please provide translation

This article contains a lot of arabic terms, perhaps familiar to those familiar with Islamic jurisprudence, but not familiar to non Arabic speakers who are not. Please provide translations for these terms. 73.222.34.4 (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Dispute

John Not Real Name This claim is not proven in any source besides this one that hanafis allowed raped outside of Muslim lands? Rulioz (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

John Not Real Name You cannot revert unless the disscusion has been dealt with and no source other then this one says hanafis allowed the suspension of sharia in non muslim lands Rulioz (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

John Not Real Name

The source does not provide proof in page 701 the hanafi school of thought has no such ruling of suspension of sharia in non muslim lands Rulioz (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Your opinion on whether it does is irrelevant. It is a reliable Secondary Source. Furthermore it does have a citation. You have also violated the Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule. John Not Real Name (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Its not a opinion you gave proof that is a single based secindary source of a claim that doesn't use a primary source to back that claim

You have been warned before of edit warring and you still carried on doing this I waan't aware of the rule. Rulioz (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. To Wikipedia it is a Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

So? I did not revert four times. You should undo your revert. John Not Real Name (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Its not you need more sources to prove such a claim As a single source is not considered reliable as the source does not reference a primary text Rulioz (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers Secondary Sources anyway. It is an academic work and is properly cited. It is a secondary source from a well regarded academic press. See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship. John Not Real Name (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I have seen the reference there is several authors listed in that section the author does not provide a source or proof of such claims which is why I removed it and asked for a another source to back it up. Rulioz (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

No, you read the citation which is full of the editors of the encyclopaedia. As I noted, it is a reliable secondary source from a well regarded academic press. There is no requirement for another source to back this source up. I do not need to provide twenty sources for one claim. Furthermore as I already pointed out there is a citation in the original source for the quotation. John Not Real Name (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't ask for twenty sources just a additional source to back it up the source you used doesn't provide a source for its claim which is the issue Rulioz (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

First: It does and I already wrote that it does.

Second: That is still irrelevant. John Not Real Name (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

This is not solving the issue you need proof that such a claim exists quoting a single author is not proof. Rulioz (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Quoting a reliable secondary source is all I am obliged to do. John Not Real Name (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Which the author gives no source from hanafi sources or the actual primary texts Rulioz (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

So what? I am not obliged to give you that. It is in a reliable secondary source. In any case let us wait. John Not Real Name (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

You are if your the one using the source Rulioz (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

No, I am not required to conduct my own academic exercise to use a reliable secondary source. John Not Real Name (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

You are if your source doesn't include the referenced primary source Rulioz (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay now I know you do not understand Wikipedia. The answer is no. I do not need to. Also just wait for the guy. John Not Real Name (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

You do then any unverified text can be used as proof without a primary source being referenced Rulioz (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

A reliable Secondary Source? Yes. Anyway the third-party thing is up just wait. John Not Real Name (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Based of the actual referenced text Rulioz (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

SIGH! Just wait already. John Not Real Name (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok Rulioz (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

@John Not Real Name, you don't have to revert 4 times for it to be an edit war; and with your past history, it doesn't exactly help that cause. Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. veko. (user | talk | contribs) 21:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

It has only been three times. It is not an ongoing matter. I have addressed the issue though. His objection is to the source itself and asserts it is not reliable when it is an academic work. John Not Real Name (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I asked you to discuss you refused and reverted twice after that you only started to join the discussion when you already reverted three times Rulioz (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

The issue is whether the source is reliable and you keep asserting it is not based on your view. That is not true for Wikipedia as I pointed out already in the edit summary. Well I am not going to revert four times. John Not Real Name (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I asked for additional sources wikipedia doesn't say a single source which has no backing is considered reliable either. Rulioz (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

@Veko This is the language and the source in question:

"Leslie P. Peirce writes that "The Ḥanafī school of Islamic law...tacitly sanctioned wartime rape by permitting the suspension of Sharī'a for Muslims outside “the domain of Islam”". Neither the Mālikī nor the Shāfiʿī schools subscribed to this view."

The citation provided in the original text is to "(Sonbol 1997)" which refers to Rape and Law in Ottoman and Modern Egypt (1997) By Amira El Azhary Sonbol. Also a reliable Secondary Source from a well regarded Academic Press. I had already pointed this out to him as well: "If you are wondering she does give a citation for the quotation she uses. In any case it is irrelevant anyway as it is a reliable secondary source. Please do not remove properly cited content from a reliable secondary source." . John Not Real Name (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

This is what is in dispute the author and amira do not list a primary s[urce for such a claim that the hanafis allowed rape if it was done in non muslim lands Rulioz (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

First you assert it is only what the ottomans did, which is wrong.

Then you assert there is no source to back up the claim, which is wrong.

Now you assert there is no primary source which is irrelevant still as they are reliable secondary sources. These are academic sources. John Not Real Name (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I said a primary source is needed to back this claim up the author does not reference from Hanafi sources that it can be done and the author mentioned the ottomans doing it which is why I said that. Rulioz (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I know. That is line three. The author wrote the ottomans subscribed to the hanafi school. John Not Real Name (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

No such source from the hanafis says that the sharia can be ignored or suspended to allow rape which is why I asked for additional proof Rulioz (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

This is a secondary source that states it. That is all I need to provide. John Not Real Name (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Its a singke claim that gives no primary soyrce referencing a author isnt proof Rulioz (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is. That is all that is required. John Not Real Name (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

A single authors claim isnt enough if they don't include the actual source being referenced Rulioz (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay dude we disagree. Just wait for the third-party. John Not Real Name (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok Rulioz (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

@John Not Real Name @Rulioz I'll look at the sources and it's context in a moment, to resolve this dispute, as a third opinion. veko. (user | talk | contribs) 22:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank You. John Not Real Name (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Please do Rulioz (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

References

Dispute resolution (third opinion)

Response to third opinion request:

I took a third opinion request for this page and reviewed the issues. I have made no previous edits on Rape in Islamic law and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. In this case, Brill is a reliable source, and meets Wikipedia's standards. On Wikipedia, we prefer secondary sources over primary sources, per WP:PRIMARY, therefore, the source can be defined as reliable. Nevertheless, I see your point @Rulioz. When talking about a topic as sensitive as rape, it is extremely important that attribute the text properly, and avoid direct generalization, unless other sources can support it as well. Still, as for a source such as Brill, one citation is OK, however more won't hurt. Please let me know if I misunderstood this dispute, I'm a bit tired. veko. (user | talk | contribs) 22:20, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

@John Not Real Name veko. (user | talk | contribs) 22:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

In my mind you did not misunderstand. Both sources are from a reputable academic publisher and my writing did not add to the text. Thank You. John Not Real Name (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of adding text but that the source doesn't provide proof from where such a assertion came from among the hanafi's which I asked for a additional source Rulioz (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I did not write you did. I am not here to provide you with that. You already have a reliable secondary source. I do not need to provide another primary source. John Not Real Name (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

You gave it from the same author who doesn't mention the primary text Rulioz (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

What are you on about? I provided the source I am using and the citation they used. John Not Real Name (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say you didn't I am talking zbout the author you used Rulioz (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree but I would like another source supporting the claim that the hanafis allow suspending islamic law to allow rape in non muslim lands I only asked for a primary source to see where the author got the proof from which is not listed in the source only that the author references another author Rulioz (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

You already got another source. You have two sources. If you want I can also cite the other source. John Not Real Name (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

You gave one source that quotes the other authors work no primary source was given or a source from the hanafis themselves Rulioz (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I do not need to give you a primary source. Do you accept @Veko's view? John Not Real Name (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Give a another citation that says hanafis allow such a thing then the isdue will be resolved I only ask for proof not from a author that gives no primary text on where they got it from and doesn't just links another author as proof Rulioz (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I do not have to provide that on Wikipedia. As you can see above my sourcing is sufficient. Also it is a common academic practice to cite the secondary work so this is redundant. John Not Real Name (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

You do as its a dispute you made a claim by using a source which provides no evidence that hanafis allow sharia to be suspended and that rape is allowed in non muslim lands Rulioz (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

No, I do not. It is in an academic work. I am not required to find the original source for everything I cite. Furthermore the evaluation of the author in the source is also sufficient so your point is again redundant. John Not Real Name (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

If your using it as proof then I can dispute it if you clearly can't find other sources then clearly its not reliable or was misquoted Rulioz (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I did not misquote it if that is what you mean. I write again. I have already provided you with the citation in the book. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say you misquoted it but the author could have possibly misqouted it this is why I asked for additional proof if it is the views if the hanafi then I am happy to revert my edit Rulioz (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

It is not up to me and you to verify that. It is in an academic encyclopaedia! We are not scholars ourselves. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Your using it as a source it is up to us to see if its true or not which is why I ask for another source that says hanafis allow rape in non muslim lands as the sharia is suspended Rulioz (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I have already provided the citation. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Reusing the same author is the issue find another source and I will not dispute it Rulioz (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not reusing the same author. I have so far provided two. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

You are you gave one author who made the claim then you second evidence is the author they quoted it from which the source gives no actual proof Rulioz (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay. How do you know my source's citation does not give proof? I myself cannot access it and if you can feel free to see if it is there and quote the relevant parts but otherwise what you are doing is in ignorance impugning a reliable academic secondary source. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Because the source is available on archive.com and that section was under the ottoman empire section no proof was listed besides another author claims Rulioz (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Just insert the link and I will check out what you mean. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Search the book and then write archive it shows up and I am sure providing links is not allowed Rulioz (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I have already tried that. It does not come up. Just include the link. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

And I am pretty sure its not allowed if you can't find by searching its name and then writing archive then it is your problem as it clearly shows up for me Rulioz (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Dude! Just send me the link so that I can find what you mean?! I cannot find it. Why would it be wrong to send the link? John Not Real Name (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I won't send a link but you can find it in the internet archive website

Encyclopedia of Women & Islamic Cultures, Volume 2 by Umair Mirza Rulioz (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Yep, just as I suspected. You misunderstood what I was referring to earlier. I wrote: "my source's citation". You are pointing me to my source. I keep pointing you to the citation given. My point is that I cannot access the citation. So again: "How do you know my source's citation does not give proof? I myself cannot access it and if you can feel free to see if it is there and quote the relevant parts but otherwise what you are doing is in ignorance impugning a reliable academic secondary source." John Not Real Name (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

You gave a source which references another author as proof how can you claim it reliable and can be used here all I asked was additional oeoof from ths hamafis or another author not connected to the current one which you refused to do Rulioz (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

How can I? It has already been shown to you above that it is reliable. I am not the only one to make that claim. I am not obliged to provide other sources. I have already given you one. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

You failed to provide a independant source your only proof comes from a author quoting another author and listing no primary sources Rulioz (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I do not need to provide an "independent" source. I only need to provide one. It cites a Secondary Source. That is common academic practice. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Well you do as I have disputed it and I am asking for additional citations that arent linked to the same author Rulioz (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

No, I do not. Your asking is immaterial to what I am bound to provide here. I have already shown where you can find the claim. It is cited. You try finding it there if you can as I pointed out already twice:

""How do you know my source's citation does not give proof? I myself cannot access it and if you can feel free to see if it is there and quote the relevant parts but otherwise what you are doing is in ignorance impugning a reliable academic secondary source." John Not Real Name (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

You clearly can't find no sources backing your point besudes this one that in itself is questionable abd a red fkag byt seeing how your edit history I am not surprised Rulioz (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

A reliable secondary source. Even the third-party stated it can be used. You are just randomly impugning it for no good reason. John Not Real Name (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Again that is pointless when the authors reference is just another authors claim which can't be accessed and no other source says what they claim Rulioz (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

So what? You are allowed to cite prior secondary works. They are both reliable sources. Also I have to go now. May pick this up later. John Not Real Name (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

If the source can't be access and no other source claims what they claim why use it as proof? Rulioz (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

That is still irrelevant. It is a reliable secondary source as two people have pointed out to you now. John Not Real Name (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Curbon7 also said that is it due weight which its not you gave proof that the hanafis don't enforce laws in non muslim lands not that its legal to rape Rulioz (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

If islamic laws are unenforceable outside islamic areas then the rape laws are unenforceable. That is what my source states. This is an article about rape so this is due. John Not Real Name (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

No its says the laws cannot be enforced not that irs legal to rape or to commit crimes hanafis also says you have to obey the laws of the land why ignore that view

Furthermore, many scholars have divided non-Muslim lands (dar al-Harb/kufr) into two categories, Dar al-Khawf & Dar al-Aman. The former (dar al-khawf) refers to a land where Muslims are under a constant threat and fear with regards to their religion, life and wealth, whilst the latter (dar al-Aman) refers to a land where Muslims are relatively secure and safe. In Dar al-Aman (such as many non-Muslim countries in the west), many of the injunctions and rulings are very similar to Muslim lands (dar al-Islam), thus the command of following the laws of the land would also apply in these non-Muslim lands. (See: Radd al-Muhtar)https://islamqa.org/hanafi/seekersguidance-hanafi/32500/obeying-the-law-of-the-land-in-the-west-2/ Rulioz (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, islamic laws cannot be enforced during war in foreign lands. This is about soldiers at war. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Your new source doesn't say that and hanafis are obligated to follow the laws of the land Rulioz (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not stating that source does. I am stating what my original two sources as scholars in the field state. In war-time is what the issue at hand is. Specifically the punishment of soldiers. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

No the source you gave sanctions rape which the author then references another author as proof and we cannot access that source you then gave another source that says hanafis cannot enforce laws over lands that are not in muslim rule not that hanafi muslims are free to commit rapes and it being religiously allowed but then you ignore the part where hanafi scholars say you obey the law of the land

Furthermore, many scholars have divided non-Muslim lands (dar al-Harb/kufr) into two categories, Dar al-Khawf & Dar al-Aman. The former (dar al-khawf) refers to a land where Muslims are under a constant threat and fear with regards to their religion, life and wealth, whilst the latter (dar al-Aman) refers to a land where Muslims are relatively secure and safe. In Dar al-Aman (such as many non-Muslim countries in the west), many of the injunctions and rulings are very similar to Muslim lands (dar al-Islam), thus the command of following the laws of the land would also apply in these non-Muslim lands. (See: Radd al-Muhtar) Rulioz (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

My source states wartime rape was tacitly permitted and cites a source for which I have already given the link. The scholarly opinion of that author is that there was no punishment for soldiers outside islamic areas as islamic law is unenforceable there.

Once again, these are the self-same areas where captives were allowed to be taken as slaves in muslim countries. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Slaves aren't mentioned in the sources and bave different rules relating to them your source claims ganafis are free to rape in non muslims lands as the hanafi jurist cannot emforce there laws regardless Hanafi scholars themselves say you ovey the law of the land the second source you gave doesn't say rape or crimes can be dine rather jurist cannot enforce islamic laws in non muslim lands Rulioz (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

"Slaves aren't mentioned in the sources and bave different rules relating to them" I know that and it was permissible during war-time in this very area, the Dur ul-harb, to take captives for slaves according to hanafi scholars! This is the area where you write this: "regardless Hanafi scholars themseoves say you ovey the law of the land"!!! How are you not understanding my point?

"the second source you gave doesn't say rape or crimes can be dine rather jurist cannot enforce islamic laws in non muslim lands" Yes, that is islamic law cannot be enforced outside the Domain of islam! This means soldiers, who operate outside that area, are not under muslim rule and thus they cannot be punished for crimes committed there. My source and the citation thus conclude that this tacitly permitted war-time rape as you cannot enforce a punishment for those soldiers outside the Domain of islam. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Again slavery is not relevant here you have no actual point anymore and are trying to bring other topics in Rulioz (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

"you have no actual point anymore and are trying to bring other topics in" You are the one who brought up the stuff about muslims following laws outside the Domain of islam. I did not. So please take your own advice. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

No my point was outsude the domain of islam did you even read what I had given you? Rulioz (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I wrote: "You are the one who brought up the stuff about muslims following laws outside the Domain of islam." John Not Real Name (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

My point was hanafis are required to kbey the law regardless of where they live you then said slavery is allowed which is a whole other topic which involves the ruler allowing taking of slaves in non muslim lands during war time Rulioz (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Remember this discussion is about during war-time in the Domain of War. John Not Real Name (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I get that but why even mention it its clearly not legal to do Rulioz (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

The scholars in question are the ones making the point about tacit endorsement not me. It is about punishment. That is also important. John Not Real Name (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Which scholars the source doesn't mention if this was ottoman scholars or general hanafi scholars and why mention it in the article they didnt approve of rape either way Rulioz (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Stop obfuscating the issue. This is about the hanafi school which my source and the citation both states. Here is yet another source on enforcement of islamic law outside the Domain of islam: "The bottom line of the Hanafi School’s position is that “Ismah” (used here according to its core meaning of “protection”) guaranteed solely to those who live inside the geographic bounds of the Islamic state, regardless of whether they are Muslims or non-Muslims, according to what we may call, the municipal law of Islam. Furthermore, Islamic law differentiates between various non-Muslim political bodies based on their attitude toward Islam and Muslims. If a non-Muslim country is actively at war with Dar Al-Islam, it is referred to as Dar Al-Harb whilst if it signs a peace treaty with Dar Al-Islam, it is known as Dar Al-Ahd. However, people living in Dar Al-Harb do not enjoy ‘Ismah’ (legal protection) from the standpoint of the Islamic state’s territorial authority and its courts."-  Modern approaches to address the concept of territorial division in Islamic jurisprudence (09 NOV 2023) By Hajed A. Alotaibi, page 7 You keep asking for sources and I keep providing them when you have already accepted the basic premise that according to the hanafi school islamic law is not enforceable outside the Domain of islam: "In contrast to the Hanafi School, the majority of Shafie, Maliki, and Hanbali Muslims believe that Islamic law has no territorial boundaries. As a result, if a Muslim disobeys a Shariah norm, he will be punished not only in the Hereafter but also in this life by the Islamic state’s courts."-Ibidem, page 8

So you accept that the hanafi scholars did not think the punishment of soldiers who commit rape in the Domain of War during War-Time was possible or appropriate and your response is why include it? Are you serious right now? As I have already pointed out numerous times the other schools did not subscribe to this view on the boundaries to the applicability of islamic law and thus the punishment of soldiers who commit rape in the Domain of War during War-Time. John Not Real Name (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

You showned no proof from the hanafis acknowledging and allowing rape of women just because they said islamic laws cannot be applied outside of the domain of islam so can't the punishments as they don't have legal powers to so that doesn't mean rape of women is allowed saying its tactically allowed is undue as that is the authors view not of the hanafis your whole argument is based on they implied it when they clearly didn't otherwise they would have just legalized Rulioz (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

"You showned no proof from the hanafis acknowledging and allowing rape of women just because they said islamic laws cannot be applied outside of the domain of islam so can't the punishments" I have showed now three times that I am correct. You only asked for one source and I have given you three. Do the honourable thing and include the text.

"they said islamic laws cannot be applied outside of the domain of islam so can't the punishments as they don't have legal powers to so" No, I shall now cite a FOURTH article on this point:

"By contrast, Hanafis maintain that if a Muslim or a dhimmi commit a crime in dar al-harb, such as theft or murder, they would not be punished in dar al-Islam."-Territorial jurisprudence, ikhtilaf al-darayn: Political boundaries & legal jurisdiction (01 June 2012) By Samy Ayoub, page 9

"This theory is explicit in their discussions on applying hudud in dar al-harb. For instance, Hanafis maintained that if a Muslim committs adultery (zina), theft, false accusation of adultery (qadhf ), or is involved in drinking alcohol in dar al-harb, the individual would not be liable for any of these crimes....Furthermore, the individual would not be not liable for any punishment upon their return to dar al-Islam as these crimes would have occurred within the context of dar al-harb which does not constitute a valid reason for applying the hadd."-Ibidem, page 12

"its tactically allowed is undue as that is the authors view not of the hanafis your whole argument is based on they implied it when they clearly didn't otherwise they would have just legalized" No, I cited correctly from my source which as I have shown now four times (Technically five.) that it is factually correct. Also it would not have been tacit if it were legal so Thank You for agreeing with me. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Hanafis views were the laws cannot be applied outside of muslim lands they didn't apprive 9f rape and theft it was still sinful neither did they say people can do it Rulioz (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Not my or your place to state that. I have cited four (Actually five.) sources to back up my original source. Now include it. You wanted only one source and I have delivered. John Not Real Name (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Well thats the point we are here then it falls to undue weight the authors opinions are her own not what the hanafis think or believed Rulioz (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I think you have misunderstood the text again. Leslie P. Pierce is writing that they tacitly sanctioned wartime rape by not punishing it (Which I think you concede by now.). I have proven the latter bit and the former is her conclusion. As you noted if it was just approved it would not have been a tacit sanction. So not punishing the act is how it is tacitly sanctioned. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand saying the hanafis implied that its okay isnt true all they said there laws cannot be applied outside of there domain this is the issue Rulioz (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

That word does not appear in the text. You are putting words into it. I agree and I have shown it is true. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

You have said this 5 times now the response is the same lets keep it to one comment moving foward Rulioz (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

You know you could just reply only once right? Okay how about this as a compromise?

"According to the Ḥanafī school, crimes committed within the dar al-harb are not punishable by Islamic courts even if they returned to the dar al-Islam. This includes war-time rape by soldiers. Neither the Mālikī nor the Shāfiʿī schools subscribed to this view." John Not Real Name (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll reply here a single time but this is still not approved by them they didn't imply that rape or crimes were allowed for you to say that Rulioz (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

"this is still not approved by them they didn't imply that rape or crimes were allowed for you to say that" How many times do I have to repeat this point? Nowhere in the above text does it state that they allowed it and nowhere is the word "imply" found. I only mention it was not punishable. Which is correct. Now do what you wrote you would do and include the text. John Not Real Name (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Leslie the author you quoted clearly said its implied or tacitly approved juzt bevause they didn't deem it punishable outside of hanafi lands in war times doesn't mean they were okay with rape or other crimes being done Rulioz (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Either way, a sysop full protected the page due to editing warring for 2 days. You'll have to do an edit request for any further changes. veko. (user | talk | contribs) 22:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Does this mean I am allowed to insert the above text now (Well whenever it can be edited properly.)? John Not Real Name (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

You should first reach an agreement with @Rulioz before changing the text. There's a risk that either, if not both of you, could get blocked from editing if you continue to war. If no consensus is reached, there's other resolution options. veko. (user | talk | contribs) 22:54, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that I simply do not have access to the cited source so I cannot find if there is a primary source there. The other problem is that I am not obliged to do so. This is Wikipedia and as you noted secondary sources are preferred. John Not Real Name (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

If its a well known view you can find it in other works if its only based on this authors then how can you use it here and say its enough? Rulioz (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

"If its a well known view you can find it in other works if its only based on this authors then how can you use it here and say its enough?" Have you not been paying attention?! I already gave you two sources for this claim! I gave you the citation for the claim! Furthermore it is in an encyclopaedia on islam and women. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

You gave a single source the author quotes another author from a book from 1997 which no page number is given Rulioz (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

No page number was given in the source I am quoting. A chapter in an academic book from 1997 by the way. Cited in an academic encyclopaedia on islam and women. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Which only references the author where the claim came from no mention of the primary text or even scholar or fatwa in where it came from Rulioz (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

So what? That is all that is needed. It is common academic practice to cite secondary works. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

But then I can dispute it regardless the author lists no proof I can then dispute it unless you can provide another source which says that then I will happily revert my edit Rulioz (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

You cannot just assert a source is bad when it is a reliable secondary source. That is not how this works. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

If the source shows no actual source or reference then why use it? I only ask for another source to see if it is a actual claim Rulioz (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I already wrote that it does. I have given you the source already. I have already given a reliable secondary source. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

But it doesn't It states that the hanafis allow it with no actual proof then quotes a author where they got it from and thats it.

I only ask for more additional proof Rulioz (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

It is accepted academic practice to cite secondary works. You are allowed to do that.

I gave it already. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

But again I can dispute it if no proof is given the authors only proof is linking another author Rulioz (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

No, you cannot just dispute it. You cannot just state it is wrong. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I can whennthe author lists no proof or source on were the hanafis say this especially since no other sources say this Rulioz (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I already provided the citation for that claim. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

You haven't your reusing the same author Rulioz (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

No, I have given you my source and the citation given by it. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

But the source fails to provide a source quoting another author Isnt enough esorcially when making such a wild claim that isnt found in other sources Rulioz (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is. What you find necessary is irrelevant. It is an academic encyclopaedia. It quotes secondary sources. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Again check it yourself the only reference is to another author Rulioz (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I...when did I state otherwise? John Not Real Name (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

That is the issue find another source and I will end the dispute Rulioz (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Your issue is a made up one. I have already found one source. You already know the citation for that source. Both are reliable as has been shown to you. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

You failed to find a source your only source references another author which you cannot access and no other source says hanafis legalized rale in non muslim lands as the sharia can be suspended Rulioz (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I found one with a citation. Both are academic works. I am not obliged to find multiple sources for this claim. That is not how this works. The third-party already agreed with this. John Not Real Name (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

You are when the authors only reference is from that author whose work cannot be accessed and provides no additional proof and no other sources say what they claim Rulioz (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

No, I am not. They are both reliable sources. As has been shown already I am allowed to include them since they are reliable sources. Our inability to access it is irrelevant. In any case I have to go now. John Not Real Name (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Saying its irrelevant isnt a answer if no other soures say such things and one of the sources can't even be accessed while the other just quotes the other author why then use it Rulioz (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

It is. Two other editors have already stated they are reliable sources. I accessed the other source and it quotes the maxim that outside of islamic areas sharia is not enforced. That thus tacitly endorses wartime rape according to these scholars I have already cited. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Funny you ignore that is was Undue weight and the source doesn't legalize rape where does it say that the hanafi point of view is that idlamic law cannot be enforced in non muslim lands not that they are free to commit crimes your own source says this

"This, according to the Hanafi jurists, means that the rights of those Muslims who live outside the territorial limits of Dar al-Islam will not be enforced by the courts in the Islamic state because these courts can exercise their jurisdiction only over the territory under the effective control of the Imam (ruler) of Dar al-Islam. If the cause of legal action arises outside that territory they cannot take cognizance of it. This raises the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the courts in the Islamic state, which we may call the municipal law perspective of the Sharīʿah. According to the founder of the Hanafi school, Abu Hanifah al-Nu'man b. Thabit (d. 150/767) and his well-known disciple, Muhammad b. al-Hasan al Shaybani (d. 189/805), Muslim courts have no jurisdiction to try a case if the cause of action arises beyond the territorial limits of the Islamic state. In other words, the courts cannot enforce the rights of a citizen beyond the territorial limits of the Islamic state. Hence, from this perspective, persons outside the jurisdiction of the Islamic state are, legally speaking, ghayr ma sum, that is, they are not guaranteed protection of their rights by the Islamic state." Rulioz (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

What? That quote proves, the one you quoted, that islamic law is not enforceable in non-islamic areas. It proves that. The claim about rape is in the citation I already provided to you. John Not Real Name (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't mean rape is legal but that islamic laws can't be emforced in darul harb or non muslim lands either way in the hanafi school you have to obey the laws of the land

Furthermore, many scholars have divided non-Muslim lands (dar al-Harb/kufr) into two categories, Dar al-Khawf & Dar al-Aman. The former (dar al-khawf) refers to a land where Muslims are under a constant threat and fear with regards to their religion, life and wealth, whilst the latter (dar al-Aman) refers to a land where Muslims are relatively secure and safe. In Dar al-Aman (such as many non-Muslim countries in the west), many of the injunctions and rulings are very similar to Muslim lands (dar al-Islam), thus the command of following the laws of the land would also apply in these non-Muslim lands. (See: Radd al-Muhtar)

https://islamqa.org/hanafi/seekersguidance-hanafi/32500/obeying-the-law-of-the-land-in-the-west-2/ Rulioz (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I do not know what hanafi people write about today (Also I am pretty sure that is not a reliable source.) in any case, it is the case that outside of islamic areas according to the hanafi school islamic laws are not enforceable. According to these reliable secondary sources they conclude this tacitly permits rape because anti-rape provisions are unenforceable. John Not Real Name (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Well its a fatwa from the hanafis and from dur mukhtar which is a hanafi law book so it is reliable and you failed to prove with the new source you gave that hanafis are free to commit crimes the point hanafis made that the laws aren't enforceable outside of there control but they still have to obey the laws of the land Rulioz (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, one from whenever it was made recently. Be that as it may the scholarly view of this is that since the laws were unenforceable in these areas (Again, this is in war-time.) that it tacitly permits it. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Thats like saying united states citizens can freely rape in china because usa cant enforce its laws there

And hanafis have a ruling you have to obey the laws of the land regardless

Furthermore, many scholars have divided non-Muslim lands (dar al-Harb/kufr) into two categories, Dar al-Khawf & Dar al-Aman. The former (dar al-khawf) refers to a land where Muslims are under a constant threat and fear with regards to their religion, life and wealth, whilst the latter (dar al-Aman) refers to a land where Muslims are relatively secure and safe. In Dar al-Aman (such as many non-Muslim countries in the west), many of the injunctions and rulings are very similar to Muslim lands (dar al-Islam), thus the command of following the laws of the land would also apply in these non-Muslim lands. (See: Radd al-Muhtar) Rulioz (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

United-States soldiers are under American jurisdiction in war-time and can enforce it's rulings. Not a good analogy.

During war-time these scholars state otherwise. The basis being the lack of enforcement possibility of islamic law thus tacitly permitting it. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

And hanafi muslims are under the ruling to obey the law of the land how are you ignoring that part? Rulioz (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Taking captives during war is the one legitimate way of taking slaves in islam. Again, the source is referring to war-time. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Slavery is not mentioned in any of the sources so its irrelvant to mention Rulioz (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

"And hanafi muslims are under the ruling to obey the law of the land how are you ignoring that part?"

This is why it is relevant to mention. I am not here to debate slavery in islam. However you brought up the above and I am responding by stating that during war-time it was licit to take captives for slaves from these very areas!!!

I am relying on the scholarly opinion of those I have cited. They state that since punishing soldiers is not appropriate or whatever as islamic law does not extend past islamic areas war-time rape was tacitly sanctioned since no-one would be punished for it. That is their assertion. John Not Real Name (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

As I stated this from the disputed source not from the second source you gave which doesn't say at war time you can commit crimes and arent required to follow the laws of the land Rulioz (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

It is from the reliable secondary source I used and the citation provided by it. It states that the hanafi school does state that islamic courts do not have jurisdiction beyond the Dar ul-islam. That is accepted. The sources I cited then draw their conclusion based on that. I repeat the claim is that it is tacitly sanctioned because no punishment can be inflicted.

"arent required to follow the laws of the land" I again repeat and shall cite a scholarly source for this:

"In theory, enslavement could therefore only take place beyond Ottoman borders, in the so-called Domain of War. There, prisoners could legitimately be taken if their city, region, or kingdom resisted surrender to victorious Ottoman force."-A Spectrum of Unfreedom Captives and Slaves in the Ottoman Empire (2021) By Leslie P. Pierce

This is the place where you are making that statement about. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

The topic is not about slavery why are you bringing this up Rulioz (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Also rape not being punished due to laws not being enforced outside the country is not the same to say its legalized regardless the hanafi scholars alreasy has the view obey the law of the land they didnt say even during war times you can reject these laws Rulioz (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

"Also rape not being punished due to laws not being enforced outside the country is not the same to say its legalized" Again the issue is punishment and tacit endorsement. That is missing the point.

"regardless the hanafi scholars alreasy has the view obey the law of the land they didnt say even during war times you can reject these laws"

I once again remind you that during war-time in this region slaving was licit. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Slavery was legalized regardless raping outside of muslim lands wasn't legal Rulioz (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I want you to understand what I am writing:

The issue is the punishment of soldiers. The PUNISHMENT! Since they cannot be punished these scholars draw the conclusion that war-time rape was tacitly permitted. That is their conclusion. Since punishment was not possible as we agree regarding the hanafi school. This is specifically regarding war-time in the Domain of War! John Not Real Name (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

You dudn't say punishment in the article and thrn I woukd agree how do you expect hanafis to enforce there laws outside of there control either way you are required to obey the law of the lands you are in Rulioz (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

"You dudn't say punishment in the article and thrn I woukd agree how do you expect hanafis to enforce there laws outside of there control" I correctly quoted the text. As I also noted, I am specifically referring to the Domain of War during War-Time. The other schools did not agree with this ruling as in fact I explicitly mentioned in the article.

This: "either way you are required to obey the law of the lands you are in" is absurd because of the whole you can enslave people in the Domain of War during war-time bit! John Not Real Name (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Enslaving is allowed doing crimes like rape isnt see the difference and obeying the laws of the land are based on if you live there not if your attacking it which is how slavery is done in islamic when you then take slaves saying rape or theft is legal in non muslim lands is false saying it can't be punished as hanafis have no control there is common sense how do you expect them to punish such people Rulioz (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

"Enslaving is allowed" THANK YOU!

I know this: "obeying the laws of the land are based on if you live there not if your attacking it" which is what I have been pointing out to you for so long. I am referring to the soldier in the Domain of War during War-Time!!!

I know: "which is how slavery is done in islamic when you then take slaves". I wrote that.

Thank You for conceding the entire argument: "saying it can't be punished as hanafis have no control there is common sense how do you expect them to punish such people". Did you miss the part where other Schools DISAGREE?! John Not Real Name (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Its a logical how can the other schools enforce there laws exactly and taking slaves is allowed in the other schools to and hanafis haven't saud duribg war tines rape is allowed either if you can find a sour e saying hanafis allow war crimes outside of muslim lands then I will have no issue bit this again doesn't seem to be a major hanafi ruling Rulioz (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

"Its a logical how can the other schools enforce there laws exactly" How can other schools of islam punish soldiers committing atrocities in a Domain of War in War-Time? Are you sure you follow the conversation?

This: "taking slaves is allowed in the other schools to" is correct. It does not contradict my point though.

"hanafis haven't saud duribg war tines rape is allowed either if you can find a sour e saying hanafis allow war crimes outside of muslim lands then I will have no issue bit this again doesn't seem to be a major hanafi ruling" I once again note that it is the hanafis who rule that islamic law cannot be enforced in those lands not the other schools as I noted. They agree it can be. The scholars draw the conclusion from this lack of punishment in this school that it tacitly endorses war-time rape. I stress once again this is about the punishment of soldiers in the Domain of War during War-Time. John Not Real Name (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Slavery like I said is a seperate issue the hanafis didnt see how emforcing there laws outside of the control made sense still doesn't mean they 8m9lied rape and crimes are legally allowed and are not sinful to do Rulioz (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

"Slavery like I said is a seperate issue"

Like I wrote, I only brought it up because you brought up the foreign laws matter.

"the hanafis didnt see how emforcing there laws outside of the control made sense"

Also I write again they would not punish them even if they had the person in their territory as I have proven already:

"By contrast, Hanafis maintain that if a Muslim or a dhimmi commit a crime in dar al-harb, such as theft or murder, they would not be punished in dar al-Islam."-Territorial jurisprudence, ikhtilaf al-darayn: Political boundaries & legal jurisdiction (01 June 2012) By Samy Ayoub, page 9

"This theory is explicit in their discussions on applying hudud in dar al-harb. For instance, Hanafis maintained that if a Muslim committs adultery (zina), theft, false accusation of adultery (qadhf ), or is involved in drinking alcohol in dar al-harb, the individual would not be liable for any of these crimes....Furthermore, the individual would not be not liable for any punishment upon their return to dar al-Islam as these crimes would have occurred within the context of dar al-harb which does not constitute a valid reason for applying the hadd."-Ibidem, page 12

"still doesn't mean they 8m9lied rape and crimes are legally allowed and are not sinful to do"

The text does not mention implying rape and crimes being legally allowed or not sinful. I have repeated this point ad nauseum but the issue is the punishment of soldiers committing rape in the Domain of War during war-time. Please stop writing "legally allowed" and "sinful". John Not Real Name (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

You have reoeated yourself in several comments the reply is going to be the same Rulioz (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

You have keep adding to what the text reads. Stop replying and insert the text. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The word used means that which is the issue we are having Rulioz (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

No, it does not. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Since @Curbon7 is the protecting sysop, I seek their opinion on this matter; on how to move on. veko. (user | talk | contribs) 23:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Any opinion is useful Rulioz (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Am waiting. John Not Real Name (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Regarding this edit for the Peirce quote. Peirce is a subject-matter expert (), and as such she can be considered reliable. So is the specific quotation that is being pulled (1) relevant to the section, and (2) of due weight? I think it is also important to note that as this is a quotation, it is not being said in WP:Wikivoice but rather is presented as the analysis of a scholar. Curbon7 (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree that she is generally reliable but in this case there isn't much proof the only listed proof from the source is from a another author whose work cannot be accessed by either of us and no other sources make the claims made here about the hanafi schools views Rulioz (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@Curbon7 and @Veko I found the text in question and it can be viewed here at Rape and Law in Ottoman and Modern Egypt (1997) By Amira El Azhary Sonbol, page 218. The claim that islamic law is not enforceable outside of muslim areas is indeed hanafi ruling according to many other sources: "This, according to the Hanafi jurists, means that the rights of those Muslims who live outside the territorial limits of Dar al-Islam will not be enforced by the courts in the Islamic state because these courts can exercise their jurisdiction only over the territory under the effective control of the Imam (ruler) of Dar al-Islam. If the cause of legal action arises outside that territory they cannot take cognizance of it. This raises the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the courts in the Islamic state, which we may call the municipal law perspective of the Sharīʿah. According to the founder of the Hanafi school, Abu Hanifah al-Nu'man b. Thabit (d. 150/767) and his well-known disciple, Muhammad b. al-Hasan al Shaybani (d. 189/805), Muslim courts have no jurisdiction to try a case if the cause of action arises beyond the territorial limits of the Islamic state. In other words, the courts cannot enforce the rights of a citizen beyond the territorial limits of the Islamic state. Hence, from this perspective, persons outside the jurisdiction of the Islamic state are, legally speaking, ghayr ma sum, that is, they are not guaranteed protection of their rights by the Islamic state."-The Notions of Dar Al-Harb and Dar Al-Islam in Islamic Jurisprudence with Special Reference to the Hanafi School (2008) By MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ AHMAD, page 8-9 John Not Real Name (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't legalize crimes only that the punishment cannot be enforced in non muslim lands you source said hanafis allow sharia to be suspended and allow rape when that is not whats written above Rulioz (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Which means it is tacitly permitted. Did you actually read any of the sources? My source's citation clearly refers to punishment of soldiers for committing rape. You are literally agreeing with the point. It means there is no enforcement of islamic law outside of islamic areas. You are not allowed to just state their interpretation is wrong. That is not how this works. John Not Real Name (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Did you it just says they dont have legal powers to emforce the laws in darul islam not that they are free to commit crimes and why ignore the part hanafis have to obey the laws of the land regardless? Rulioz (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Given that I have quoted two scholarly sources to you on the topic already yes. That is their conclusion on the topic. This is also specifically about soldiers in war. Not muslims abroad. John Not Real Name (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

You gave one source that requires more proof as there is no proof if it being allowed and the source you gave doesn't even say hanafis can commit crimes during war times only that the hanagi jurust won't be able to enforce islamic law in non muslim lands I then gave you proof hanafis also say obey the law of the land Rulioz (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

No, it does not require more proof. I have also provided a citation for my source. Both of the editors reviewing this agree they are reliable sources.

"I then gave you proof hanafis also say obey the law of the land" This is the same area where islamic law permitted taking captives for slaves!!! During war-time! John Not Real Name (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Taking slaves is another thing saying you can freely commit crimes is another and no you cannot even access the source where the author quotes the other author for you to judge its reliable or not This is why I said find a source that backs your claims up which you can't and now you have ran to the slavery topic Rulioz (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I am responding to your claim about following foreign laws! YOU BROUGHT IT UP NOT ME!!! I have sent you the link twice. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Your bringing up slavery which was a entirely different issue which was the ruler allowing it to be done and that it was legal to do rape wasn't allowed in hanafi fiqh regardless Rulioz (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Then do not bring up the nonsense about foreign laws. You did that first. There is a record of this. Okay. Now you are switching up the criterion: "and that it was legal to do rape wasn't allowed in hanafi fiqh regardless". As I have already noted. The issue is that punishment of stuff is not possible by an islamic court outside the Domain of islam, this tacitly endorses war-time rape as there is no punishment for it. PUNISHMENT!!! This is according to the reliable sources I have produced for you. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Which is why I said you obey the law of the land just because it can't be punished doesn't mean its legal and slavery had its own rulings and justifications you can't munddle the two as it can only be done through the leader or caliph allowing it and that those nations were enemy nations saying hanafis allowed rape just because they can't enfore there laws outside of muslim lands are not the samething Rulioz (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

You are missing the point again. My source stated it was tacitly allowed. The other one specifies it is about the punishment as you accept: "just because it can't be punished doesn't mean its legal". Yes. Oh my...as I have already noted slavery was ONLY allowed in the Domain of War (I have already cited this.) during war-time. Sot it is insane for you to bring up the point about following foreign laws. Do you not see how that contradicts?

"that those nations were enemy nations saying hanafis allowed rape just because they can't enfore there laws outside of muslim lands are not the samething" Okay so you accept they cannot enforce their rulings there. That is all the sources are stating. They draw the conclusion from that. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Your source implies crimes are then legalized as long as the hanafis don't have control which is false no country can apply its laws outside of its lands in the general sense it makes no sense to even mention it I even said hanafis are required to obey the law if the land they live in then you mentioned slavery which isnt even relevant here as they have different rules Rulioz (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

NO IT DOES NOT!!! IT REFERS TO TACIT ENDORSEMENT!!! IT NEVER MENTIONS LEGALISATION!!! STOP CHANGING WHAT IT STATES!!!

This is in the Domain of War during War-Time: "no country can apply its laws outside of its lands in the general sense it makes no sense to even mention it"!!! During War-Time. As the muslim state is expanding. This is the same area where slaves were legitimately allowed to be taken. In this area as in fact I already cited for you above it was permissible to take captives as slaves. This was permitted so stop bringing up the point about foreign laws. It is non-sensical. John Not Real Name (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Then why mention it in the article how do you expect hanafis To enforce there laws if the person is living there they are required to obey the laws while attacking a non muslim nation and taking slaves is another topic entirely Rulioz (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay. From this: "while attacking a non muslim nation and taking slaves is another topic entirely" I can tell you have no idea what this conversation is about. I repeat again! We are writing about tacit endorsement of war-time rape because the punishment of a soldier outside the Domain of islam, that is within the Domain of War during war-time, is not possible according to this school. The scholars draw the conclusion that this is a tacit endorsement. Other schools of islam do not accept this. I included this in the article as well. John Not Real Name (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I know which is why I said before why mention it its clearly not legal to do or even religiously allowed the only issue is thst it can't be punished which I need proof of as this doesn't seem to be a major hanafi view Rulioz (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

You have already accepted that enforcement of islamic law outside the Domain of islam according to the hanafi school is not possible. You have already accepted that. We are referring to punishment. As for why we include it, because this is in the scholarship. I am not the one who made the point about tacit endorsement remember. I am quoting someone. John Not Real Name (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I said its only logical the kaws can't be applied if they have no control you cant then say they allowed rape due to a lack of control as the rapist can't be punished and this again doesn't seem to be a major hanafi ruling either Rulioz (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

"I said its only logical the kaws can't be applied if they have no control" HOW MUCH CLEARER DO I HAVE TO MAKE IT?! A SOLDIER IN THE DOMAIN OF WAR DURING WAR-TIME!!!

I have already cited a source for: "due to a lack of control as the rapist can't be punished and this again doesn't seem to be a major hanafi ruling either" and you have already accepted that punishment was not in view in this school. John Not Real Name (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

You said they approved of rape not that they said there laws can't be applied outside of there rule and do you have proof this is a hanafi view and not ottoman based who followed hanafi laws Rulioz (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

No, I quoted exactly what Leslie P. Pierce wrote. Yes, I just quoted you Leslie P. Pierce on the matter, her citation I have sent you and I have shown you that islamic law is not enforceable according to the hanafi school. Here is yet another source: "The bottom line of the Hanafi School’s position is that “Ismah” (used here according to its core meaning of “protection”) guaranteed solely to those who live inside the geographic bounds of the Islamic state, regardless of whether they are Muslims or non-Muslims, according to what we may call, the municipal law of Islam. Furthermore, Islamic law differentiates between various non-Muslim political bodies based on their attitude toward Islam and Muslims. If a non-Muslim country is actively at war with Dar Al-Islam, it is referred to as Dar Al-Harb whilst if it signs a peace treaty with Dar Al-Islam, it is known as Dar Al-Ahd. However, people living in Dar Al-Harb do not enjoy ‘Ismah’ (legal protection) from the standpoint of the Islamic state’s territorial authority and its courts."-  Modern approaches to address the concept of territorial division in Islamic jurisprudence (09 NOV 2023) By Hajed A. Alotaibi, page 7 You keep asking for sources and I keep providing them when you have already accepted the basic premise that according to the hanafi school islamic law is not enforceable outside the Domain of islam: "In contrast to the Hanafi School, the majority of Shafie, Maliki, and Hanbali Muslims believe that Islamic law has no territorial boundaries. As a result, if a Muslim disobeys a Shariah norm, he will be punished not only in the Hereafter but also in this life by the Islamic state’s courts."-Ibidem, page 8

The hanafi school is the one who promulgated this. John Not Real Name (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

If that is the case then where did they say rape can be allowed unofficialy thats purely the view of leslie not of the Hanafi scholars who only saud islamic law and punishment cannot be applied as they have no power there they didn't say you tactically due to it or that its not a sin to do so Rulioz (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The conclusion from that reliable secondary source written by a scholar expert in the field is drawn from this fact:

"By contrast, Hanafis maintain that if a Muslim or a dhimmi commit a crime in dar al-harb, such as theft or murder, they would not be punished in dar al-Islam."-Territorial jurisprudence, ikhtilaf al-darayn: Political boundaries & legal jurisdiction (01 June 2012) By Samy Ayoub, page 9

"This theory is explicit in their discussions on applying hudud in dar al-harb. For instance, Hanafis maintained that if a Muslim committs adultery (zina), theft, false accusation of adultery (qadhf ), or is involved in drinking alcohol in dar al-harb, the individual would not be liable for any of these crimes....Furthermore, the individual would not be not liable for any punishment upon their return to dar al-Islam as these crimes would have occurred within the context of dar al-harb which does not constitute a valid reason for applying the hadd."-Ibidem, page 12

This is how according to Leslie P. Pierce wartime rape was tacitly sanctioned. Note the term "tacitly":

"The Ḥanafī school of Islamic law...tacitly sanctioned wartime rape by permitting the suspension of Sharī'a for Muslims outside “the domain of Islam”".

You asked me for one source for the claim and I have now provided four (Actually five.). Since you wrote you would include it if I found just one source to back me up you must now do what you wrote you would. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Still doesn't mean they approved of it or that was there purpose behind the ruling saying that it was implied tacticaly is leslies own view not that the habafis were okay with theft and rape etc outside of muslim lands in war tines there reasoning was simply that they cannot enforce islamic laws outside of there lands Rulioz (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

1. "they would not be punished in dar al-Islam."-Territorial jurisprudence, ikhtilaf al-darayn: Political boundaries & legal jurisdiction (01 June 2012) By Samy Ayoub, page 9
2. "the individual would not be not liable for any punishment upon their return to dar al-Islam"-Territorial jurisprudence, ikhtilaf al-darayn: Political boundaries & legal jurisdiction (01 June 2012) By Samy Ayoub, page 12

Even if they returned to islamic jurisdiction they were not liable for any punishment for actions taken outside. From this fact Leslie P. Pierce (A reliable scholar who is an expert in the field.) draws her conclusion which I quote. As both of the other editors have shown I am allowed to include it. Now, do what you wrote you would do and include it. John Not Real Name (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Again there is a difference between not applying punishments and saying its tenchinally allowed to rape and kill during war hanafis religiously did not approve of it saying that they did is false and purely the view of leslie Rulioz (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The word implicitly is not found in the text as you seem to keep repeating elsewhere. You keep using it for some reason. As you note if they were to just sanction it they would have just approved of it. That is not the matter at hand. The issue at hand is the lack of punishment or the suspension of Sharī'a for muslims outside the Domain of islam. This point has been proven to you.

"hanafis religiously did not approve of it saying that they did is false and purely the view of leslie"

Leslie P. Pierce does not write that, rather her conclusion is that allowing there to be no punishment for the act is a tacit sanction since during war-time in the Domain of War the soldiers are not liable for any punishment for their acts even upon return to the Domain of islam. It is the lack of punishment for these acts even when they return to the Domain of islam which means they were tacitly sanctioned and even you accept by now that there was indeed no punishment for them. So now do what you wrote you would and include my proposed text. The claim is not undue and we are allowed to put scholarly viewpoints forward in Wikipedia and you accept Pierce is a reliable source. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

But thats her opinion just because the hanafis issued no punishment doesn't mean they implied it was okay and muslims or hanafi muslims should go and do it Rulioz (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

She never wrote it was "implied". She wrote that there was no punishment which is the tacit sanction. The lack of punishment is the tacit sanction. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

tacit does mean implied or a approval from silence Rulioz (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Well it is a sanction inasmuch as there is no penalty for doing it. However as you note they were not "allowed" to do it hence it is tacit. The tacit sanction is the lack of a penalty. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank You. You are the second (Excluding me.) to point this out to him. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't dispute its reliability but that its not backed by a primary source you just gave a source that says islamic law cannot be enforced in non nuslim lands not that rape can be made legal have you read your source:

This, according to the Hanafi jurists, means that the rights of those Muslims who live outside the territorial limits of Dar al-Islam will not be enforced by the courts in the Islamic state because these courts can exercise their jurisdiction only over the territory under the effective control of the Imam (ruler) of Dar al-Islam. If the cause of legal action arises outside that territory they cannot take cognizance of it. This raises the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the courts in the Islamic state, which we may call the municipal law perspective of the Sharīʿah. According to the founder of the Hanafi school, Abu Hanifah al-Nu'man b. Thabit (d. 150/767) and his well-known disciple, Muhammad b. al-Hasan al Shaybani (d. 189/805), Muslim courts have no jurisdiction to try a case if the cause of action arises beyond the territorial limits of the Islamic state. In other words, the courts cannot enforce the rights of a citizen beyond the territorial limits of the Islamic state. Hence, from this perspective, persons outside the jurisdiction of the Islamic state are, legally speaking, ghayr ma sum, that is, they are not guaranteed protection of their rights by the Islamic state." Rulioz (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

It does not need to be backed by a primary source. How many times do I have to state this? According to my source: "islamic law cannot be enforced in non nuslim lands not that rape can be made legal" is why it is tacitly allowed. Since islamic law is not enforceable outside of the islamic areas.

Yes, exactly. That is what I quoted. John Not Real Name (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

You then gave a source thats says hanafis cannot enforce islamic laws in non muslim lands not that rape is legal and hanafis have to obey the laws of the land

Furthermore, many scholars have divided non-Muslim lands (dar al-Harb/kufr) into two categories, Dar al-Khawf & Dar al-Aman. The former (dar al-khawf) refers to a land where Muslims are under a constant threat and fear with regards to their religion, life and wealth, whilst the latter (dar al-Aman) refers to a land where Muslims are relatively secure and safe. In Dar al-Aman (such as many non-Muslim countries in the west), many of the injunctions and rulings are very similar to Muslim lands (dar al-Islam), thus the command of following the laws of the land would also apply in these non-Muslim lands. (See: Radd al-Muhtar)https://islamqa.org/hanafi/seekersguidance-hanafi/32500/obeying-the-law-of-the-land-in-the-west-2/ Rulioz (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay that is not a reliable source for starters. What reliable sources have stated already regarding the hanafi position on the application of islamic law outside islamic areas is what I wrote. John Not Real Name (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The source you gave now does not say hanafis can commit crimes only that they can't enforce there laws in lands they have no control over sp how can you claim rape is allowed?

Furthermore, many scholars have divided non-Muslim lands (dar al-Harb/kufr) into two categories, Dar al-Khawf & Dar al-Aman. The former (dar al-khawf) refers to a land where Muslims are under a constant threat and fear with regards to their religion, life and wealth, whilst the latter (dar al-Aman) refers to a land where Muslims are relatively secure and safe. In Dar al-Aman (such as many non-Muslim countries in the west), many of the injunctions and rulings are very similar to Muslim lands (dar al-Islam), thus the command of following the laws of the land would also apply in these non-Muslim lands. (See: Radd al-Muhtar)

https://islamqa.org/hanafi/seekersguidance-hanafi/32500/obeying-the-law-of-the-land-in-the-west-2/

Radd muhtar is a hanafi law book I can find a actual soyrce but its only to show how one sided you are being Rulioz (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. The sources I have already provided show that during war-time for soldiers, since as you accept, there is no obligation to follow islamic laws rape is not punished and thus tacitly permitted.

Cool. Still got reliable secondary sources stating this. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

No it doesn't the first source just links another author whose work cannot be accessed while the newer source just Hanafi jurist cannot emforce thete laws outside of muslim lands not that rape is legal and hanafis even say you ovey the law of the land

Furthermore, many scholars have divided non-Muslim lands (dar al-Harb/kufr) into two categories, Dar al-Khawf & Dar al-Aman. The former (dar al-khawf) refers to a land where Muslims are under a constant threat and fear with regards to their religion, life and wealth, whilst the latter (dar al-Aman) refers to a land where Muslims are relatively secure and safe. In Dar al-Aman (such as many non-Muslim countries in the west), many of the injunctions and rulings are very similar to Muslim lands (dar al-Islam), thus the command of following the laws of the land would also apply in these non-Muslim lands. (See: Radd al-Muhtar) Rulioz (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

No, I found my source's citation and provided it for you and the other editors here. How did you miss the link? It clearly states that the punishment of soldiers was not in view because as you then cite muslims are not obliged to follow islamic law in non-islamic areas. According to these scholars this tacitly permits wartime rape.

Again, these are the same areas where taking captives for slavery was permitted. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

No the second source you gave just says hanafis can't enforce the laws not that it because legal to commit crimes as regardless hanafis gave to obey the law of the land your first source is the one up for dispute and you need to prove rape is allowed which you haven't so far Rulioz (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I write once again. I am referring to my source's citation. I shall even repeat the link: Rape and Law in Ottoman and Modern Egypt (1997) By Amira El Azhary Sonbol, page 218. I do not need to prove anything. I am merely citing a reliable secondary source. That is all I am required to do. I have provided the citation right here.

Okay I repeat again these are the same areas during war-time where muslims were allowed to take captives for slaves. John Not Real Name (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The authors work cannot be accessed so we cannot know the source she is referring to as even hanafi scholars says you follow the law of the land even if they don't have the power to enforce there rulings in non muslim lands Rulioz (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I not only gave you the link to my source's citation I repeated it and clearly stated it is my source's citation and gave the title for it! How are you unable to realise this? Just click the link!

"as even hanafi scholars says you follow the law of the land even if they don't have the power to enforce there rulings in non muslim lands" Stop writing about other things this is about war-time outside the Dur al-islam and secondly this is the very place during war-time that the same hanafi sources stated that taking captives for slaves was permissible. Stop repeating irrelevant points. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I have and the source can't be accessed as it has a paywall which is why I said if this is a hanafi view then other sources would talk about it which you failed to bring you then brought another source about hanafis not being able to enforce there laws outside of muslim lands which doesn't mean crimes are legalized as hanafis are still required to follow the law of the land even in war times.

Now you switched topics to slavery. Rulioz (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

"I have and the source can't be accessed as it has a paywall" THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME IN THIS THREAD I HAVE STATED THAT I HAVE INDICATED WHERE THE SOURCE IS!!! CLICK THE LINK!!!

"you then brought another source about hanafis not being able to enforce there laws outside of muslim lands which doesn't mean crimes are legalized" The claim is that they were tacitly endorsed since PUNISHMENT was not possible. The sources claim this. Both are reliable according to both editors who have come here. You concede the point about lack of punishment and these sources draw the conclusion from this fact.

You brought up this point: "as hanafis are still required to follow the law of the land even in war times."

I pointed out how absurd this is because in these self-same areas the taking of captives for enslavement was allowed!!! That is why I: "Now you switched topics to slavery."

Please actually read what I write. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I have and I can't seem to progress its a paywall https://books.google.fr/books?id=5Nz7EAAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA218&hl=en&source=gb_mobile_entity&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=fals

e

I never said the author is not reliable as they generally are but that doesn't mean they are right either and the other person said it can be undue which it is if this was a hanafi view then it woukd easily be seen and ve available

Like I addressed before slavery was done through the leaders premission and was legalized in islam rape however was not nkt even among the hanafis Rulioz (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I can clearly see the link from where I am. I have the text. Switch to this: ( https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Women_in_the_Ottoman_Empire/5Nz7EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA218 ).

Both @Rulioz and @Curbon7 agree it is a reliable source and the latter also wrote: "I think it is also important to note that as this is a quotation, it is not being said in WP:Wikivoice but rather is presented as the analysis of a scholar." The punishment point is as you accept since islamic law does not extend.

I know. I stated that already. See the previous point about punishment. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Curbon also said undue weight can apply which it does this doesn't seem to be a major hanafi view besides this source no other hanafi source says it legal to rape outside of hanafi land as it can't be punished and I agreed the author is generally reliable but that doesn't mean she is right either Rulioz (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I quoted to you what he stated immediately afterwards this is reporting what she wrote. This: "no other hanafi source says it legal to rape outside of hanafi land as it can't be punished" is not what either source states stop changing it. I did not refer to whether it was legal. I referred to tacit endorsement due to lack of punishment. The scholars draw the former conclusion from the latter fact. The latter is not something you even dispute! John Not Real Name (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Then why place it in the article how can hanafis apply there laws in lands they don't have control over it one thing if they legalized its not another if they can't apply punishment Rulioz (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I included in the text in the article that the other schools disagree with this ruling. I am specifically referring to the soldier during war-time in the Domain of War. During war-time! John Not Real Name (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand but that what I am disputing this doesn't seem to be a major hanafi ruling or a consensus among hanafis that they can rape and not be punished as taking slaves is another issue altogether which even the other schools of thought allow Rulioz (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

This: "or a consensus among hanafis that they can rape and not be punished" is a consensus as you have already accepted. According to this school of islam islamic law is not to be enforced outside the Domain of islam. The other schools I mentioned disagree with this.

"as taking slaves is another issue altogether which even the other schools of thought allow" This does not contradict my point. It was allowed in all schools. John Not Real Name (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Based on what that its a consensus among hanafis but the ottomans I don't where south asians and central asian hanafis allow it? Hanafis don't say its allowed to raoe during war times your issue is with punishment but again how do you expect them to enforce punishment if these rapist are not in hanafi ruled lands Rulioz (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh my...I am specifically referring to the soldier the SOLDIER IN A WAR IN THE DOMAIN OF WAR!!! The hanafis disagree with punishing them according to islamic law as they reckon islamic law does not extend there. The other schools I mentioned disagree with this as I already noted numerous times. John Not Real Name (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I know but then why mention it its clear tbey saud this as the laws can't be enforced they didn't say its allowed or legal to do and can you show me its a actual major hanafi ruling and not just based on what the ottomans thought Rulioz (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank You for once again conceding the entire argument: "it its clear tbey saud this as the laws can't be enforced". The reason is that according to the scholars in question this was a tacit endorsement as punishment was not possible. These scholars state that. You already accept punishment was not in view.

I already gave you a link to the point about punishment in the hanafi school which by the way you have already accepted. John Not Real Name (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

This is not the dominate hanafi view do you have a source to prove it otherwise its undue and why mention it its clearly not allowed its only that they can't enforce there laws Rulioz (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I have already given you a source that the punishment according to islamic law was not possible. Here is yet another source: "The bottom line of the Hanafi School’s position is that “Ismah” (used here according to its core meaning of “protection”) guaranteed solely to those who live inside the geographic bounds of the Islamic state, regardless of whether they are Muslims or non-Muslims, according to what we may call, the municipal law of Islam. Furthermore, Islamic law differentiates between various non-Muslim political bodies based on their attitude toward Islam and Muslims. If a non-Muslim country is actively at war with Dar Al-Islam, it is referred to as Dar Al-Harb whilst if it signs a peace treaty with Dar Al-Islam, it is known as Dar Al-Ahd. However, people living in Dar Al-Harb do not enjoy ‘Ismah’ (legal protection) from the standpoint of the Islamic state’s territorial authority and its courts."-  Modern approaches to address the concept of territorial division in Islamic jurisprudence (09 NOV 2023) By Hajed A. Alotaibi, page 7 You keep asking for sources and I keep providing them when you have already accepted the basic premise that according to the hanafi school islamic law is not enforceable outside the Domain of islam: "In contrast to the Hanafi School, the majority of Shafie, Maliki, and Hanbali Muslims believe that Islamic law has no territorial boundaries. As a result, if a Muslim disobeys a Shariah norm, he will be punished not only in the Hereafter but also in this life by the Islamic state’s courts."-Ibidem, page 8

Are you seriously asking why war-time rape being unpunishable and thus tacitly permitted (Per Leslie P. Pierce.) according to a school of islam is not relevant to a Wikipedia page on rape in islamic law? John Not Real Name (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

You haven't given proof that this was a consensus among the hanafi rather how ottoman courts eho applied the hanafi law and even then you cannot say habafis themselves implied rape is allowed just for saying islamic law and its punishments cannot be carried outsude the domain of islam saying its implied is undue weight that is just the authors opinion not of muslim scholars Rulioz (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I have. I have done it four, technically five, times. All my sources refer to the hanafi school. Stop flailing and accept you are wrong.

My source stated it was tacitly sanctioned which I can cite as I am quoting her view. That is allowed in Wikipedia.

"By contrast, Hanafis maintain that if a Muslim or a dhimmi commit a crime in dar al-harb, such as theft or murder, they would not be punished in dar al-Islam."-Territorial jurisprudence, ikhtilaf al-darayn: Political boundaries & legal jurisdiction (01 June 2012) By Samy Ayoub, page 9

"This theory is explicit in their discussions on applying hudud in dar al-harb. For instance, Hanafis maintained that if a Muslim committs adultery (zina), theft, false accusation of adultery (qadhf ), or is involved in drinking alcohol in dar al-harb, the individual would not be liable for any of these crimes....Furthermore, the individual would not be not liable for any punishment upon their return to dar al-Islam as these crimes would have occurred within the context of dar al-harb which does not constitute a valid reason for applying the hadd."-Ibidem, page 12 John Not Real Name (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Hanafis reasonings were based on applying there laws outside of there domain not that they implied that you can go and commit crimes during war times and that it was religiously allowed Rulioz (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Stop changing what the sources mean. I have repeatedly quoted sources on this point. You seem to even accept the point. Rape by soldiers in the Domain of War during War-Time was not punishable by islamic courts according to the hanafi school as indeed for any crime. From this fact Leslie P. Pierce draws her conclusions (A reliable scholar, expert in the field.). I have provided you with enough sources (More than you asked for.) now include the text I proposed. John Not Real Name (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

What did I change ypur own sources say hanafis didn't apply hudud punishments outside of there domain not they approved rape coukd be done other crimes its leslie who only said that rape and crimes were "tactically" allowed when the hanafis did not Rulioz (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, exactly! That is exactly what Leslie P. Pierce is writing!!! Pierce is writing that soldiers raping people during war-time outside of islamic areas being unpunishable is the tacit sanction. It has been proven to you that punishment was not possible by numerous sources and you accept that. That lack of punishment is the tacit sanction. I also wish to note that this was not something the other schools accepted. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

But thats not what the hanafis thought they didn't imply people could go and commit war crimes either Rulioz (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I write again. The word "imply" does not appear in the text. That is not what Leslie P. Pierce wrote. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

She does use the word tacitly which means its Implied by or inferred from actions or statements or a silent approval Rulioz (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

No, she does not write that. You yourself wrote that sanctioning it would just be allowing it. So not punishing the act is a tacit sanction. She is writing about what it is. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@Curbon7 and @Veko I have now gotten four more sources (Other than the citation included in my source.) that attest to the facts as presented by Leslie P. Pierce. I was only asked to get one more so I have met my burdens. I propose the wording be thus:

"According to the Ḥanafī school, crimes committed within the dar al-harb are not punishable by Islamic courts even if they returned to the dar al-Islam. This includes war-time rape by soldiers. Leslie P. Peirce writes that "The Ḥanafī school of Islamic law...tacitly sanctioned wartime rape by permitting the suspension of Sharī'a for Muslims outside “the domain of Islam”". Neither the Mālikī nor the Shāfiʿī schools subscribed to this view."

The punishment of war-time rape is obviously relevant to this page, the claim made in my source is not singular and is accepted by many others and I quote her view. Please weigh in now on whether I can include it. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Besides leslie's source none of the hanafi sources say they approved of rape or implied its okay outside of muslim lands in war times the position the hanafi school took is that islamic laws cannot be applied outside of muslim lands not that they implied rape and theft during war times is allowed or that its religiously allowed Rulioz (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Once again not your or my place to state that. By writing what you just did you admitted the basic point of Leslie P. Pierce's argument that war-time rape was not punishable even once the soldiers returned to the Dar al-islam. Furthermore as has already been shown to you twice, the source is reliable and can be included (This was before I provided the other sources as well.). Both editors stated that. Pierce is drawing her conclusion from hanafi rulings which she is entitled to do as a scholar and I am entitled to include as a result. I have proven it is due. I have given you numerous reliable secondary sources to prove a point that you only asked one source for. Now as you promised include the text. You stated you would if you got evidence and I have given you it. Furthermore I accurately quoted the reliable secondary source. The explanation of the reasoning is also provided for the reader above. Now include it. John Not Real Name (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Leslies views are her own to say the hanafis approved of raoe just because they said there rules cannot be applied outside of islamic lands abd tgat sins no longer counted saying they tactically agreed meabs just that they approved of rape and crimes during war times just because they believed islamic law hudud punishments cannot be applied outside of there domain but what about taz'ir punishments Rulioz (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Leslie P. Pierce does not write that. She writes that the suspension of the punishment is the tacit sanction. You accept that now. So do as you wrote you would and include the text. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

She says its tactically allowed which is not true the hanafis didn't say that or say hanafis should do war crimes Rulioz (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

She is not writing that. She is writing they suspended punishment. The suspension of punishment is tacitly sanctioning it. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Either way shes saying they allow it in a implied way which is her own beliefs Rulioz (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

No, she never wrote that. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

She clearly says they implied that it can be done which the hanafis themselves don't say that Rulioz (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Curbon7, @John Not Real Name, @Rulioz and @Veko. This discussion has now gone for 230 comments without resolution (correct me if I'm wrong, but I wasn't going to read all of that per WP:TLDR). I'd suggest a WP:RFC may be in order. TarnishedPath^talk 11:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I have already put it for a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. John Not Real Name (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

|}

A quote where the source says this was done explicitly to allow rape? Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I am unsure what you are referring to but the claim is that the hanafi school would not prosecute or punish soldiers in the Domain of War during War-Time. That is true. This is what Leslie P. Pierce is stating (A tacit sanction being the lack of punishment for perpetrators.). I have provided a number of sources on that point and they confirm it. Even upon return to the Domain of islam they could not be prosecuted. The other two schools do not accept this. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

We cannot say it unless RS say it. So, we could (for example) say that Rapoe was not prosecuted, not that it was allowed. Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!! That is exactly what I have been trying to include. This is what I proposed:

"According to the Ḥanafī school, crimes committed within the dar al-harb are not punishable by Islamic courts even if they returned to the dar al-Islam. This includes war-time rape by soldiers. Leslie P. Peirce writes that "The Ḥanafī school of Islamic law...tacitly sanctioned wartime rape by permitting the suspension of Sharī'a for Muslims outside “the domain of Islam”". Neither the Mālikī nor the Shāfiʿī schools subscribed to this view."

All of this information is sourced from reliable sources. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Zina is adultery, not rape. So this seems to be an opinion, not a fact. I am not going to get dragged into another wall of replies that bedevils this thread. As written I cannot support inclusion. [User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Zina is a category of sexual sins which includes rape: Zina#Rape. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Zina al jabr is separate from zina Rulioz (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@John Not Real Name: I have no idea why you ignored the above comments (especially, the last three, excluding yours), but it's obvious to anyone who reads them that you don't have consensus to add the content. M.Bitton (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

You seem to not be following the issue. See: ( Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Third statement by moderator (Rape in Islamic law) ). John Not Real Name (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

You haven't addressed what I said. Also woeth noting, that a) DR is not a RfC, b) the other editor hasn't responsed yet and c) "Slatersteven" didn't take part in it. M.Bitton (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I have. We are waiting to see what the consensus is. You cannot just object for them. If they do that they can but he is trying to find out if anyone does. As it stands no-one is turning up. John Not Real Name (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

That's because you cherry picked who to invite to that DR. Editors don't have to repeat themselves ad nauseam just to satisfy you. If you don't like their replies or they stop responding, then you start a RfC. M.Bitton (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I did not cherry-pick. It was not intentional. I will try adding him now. They could join in the process. Ummm...okay. John Not Real Name (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

You most definitely cherry picked who to invite and who to leave out (an editor who disagrees with you). Don't bother inviting them now (it's too late). M.Bitton (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

It was not intentional. What? Why not? I just did anyway. John Not Real Name (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

If this exchange is about adding another user to the DRN, don't bother to do that. I have failed the DRN because the dispute is now also being discussed at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

References

Arbitrary break

Noting that a more frequent use of outdenting could have made this thread more readable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I added outdenting with a script, using a max level of 6. There are places where the outdent level should have been less than 6, which someone could fix manually if they really want to. Xan747 (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I undid my change based on concerns raised at Village Pump that some responses got pointed to the wrong antecedent. Xan747 (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, you tried. Hopefully the enthusiastic indenters will make a note of this for future discussions, or discuss in such a way that the issue doesn't come up. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

For the interested, discussion now at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Rape_in_Islamic_law. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah, of course I only saw this after I made the change, but I went ahead and manually outdented a... few things (−4,821 bytes, holy moly). Pretty sure it didn't introduce any indent ambiguity. Perryprog (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

all this back and forth and only a couple of sources? Why not try to see if this interpretation is supported by more than one source? (t · c) buidhe 05:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

To be clear I have. I actually offered to get rid of the quote itself and he refused twice. John Not Real Name (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Coming here from WP:ANI, I'll repeat the comments I made there.

The additions by John Not Real Name are WP:OR:

• They are adding a source about something historical about Ottoman Empire worded as something similar to a present-day understanding , in a section that seems to be about present day: Rape_in_Islamic_law#Definition. At best, their addition is quite vague.
• OR should be obvious in edits like this . Added text says: This includes war-time rape by soldiers in present tense. The source is about past, in Ottoman Empire . This is being added into Rape_in_Islamic_law#Prosecution_of_rape this time. Again, it's not a section about history. The wording doesn't specify that it is historic. There are also WP:NPOV issues. The issue may also be something such as Territorial principle vs. Universal jurisdiction (source that was added by John Not Real Name). This is not explained. Nor there are any sources about present-day understanding and application.
• There are no sources about the current views of the schools. Concepts like dar al-harb seem largely defunct The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, Dar al-Harb entry:

  • Like other classical legal concepts, dar al-harb has been affected by historical changes, and with the fragmentation of the Muslim world into numerous states, the concept has little significance today

• John Not Real Name admitted that they are unaware of present views on the topic Bogazicili (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Rape in Islamic law

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Rape in Islamic law's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto1":

• From Hirabah: Iran: Kurdish Activist Executed 10 November 2009
• From Women in Islam: Iman Mohammad Kashi; Uwe Hideki Matzen; Online Quran Project. "The Quran". The Quran. Archived from the original on January 29, 2009. Retrieved June 13, 2017.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)