Talk:Sharia

• Archive1 (27 Dec 2001 - 1 Feb 2006)

PLEASE READ: This talk page was too long. I've archived everything in Archive1 above. If you think there are important discussions missing, copy them from the archive back to this page (but please don't make the page too long). Thanks. Aucaman^{[[User_talk:Aucama}

NPOV issues

Could those of you who had claims against the neutrality or factual accuracy of the article restate your concerns below? Thank you. Aucaman^Talk 21:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

-Parts of this article read like an opinion piece rather than an encyclopedic article. Some entire sections(such as the non muslim treatment) lack any citations whatsoever, and offer a very limited view on the issue.

What is Sharia/Islamic Law anyway

Some people here talk about Islamic Law/Sharia as if it was one well-defined entity (such as when they say: Sharia says this about ...). I suggest we rewrite the entire article recognizing that there are several versions of what is often referred to as the Sharia/Islamic Law:

A. The actually applied law

• 1. The historical application of orthodox Sharia before the 19th century, mostly case law
• 2. Codified and reformed application of Sharia from the 19th century until today

B. Legal Theory

• 1. The orthodox legal Sunni and Shia schools (Shafii, Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, Jafari, Ibadi, Dhahiri, etc) until 19th century
• 2. Divergent developments since 19th century:
  • a) Neo-orthodox
  • b) Salafi
  • c) Wahhabi
  • d) Various reform theories

And for the section B.2.d I want to add one very important link:

• Islamic Law: An Ever-Evolving Science Under The Light of Divine Revelation and Human Reason

CuriousOliver 23:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oliver, I reformatted your suggestion so that it showed up as I think you intended it. I think the re-org is a good suggestion. However, I haven't had time to look at the link, have no opinion now on inclusion or exclusion.

We might also want to reference historical conflicts between the schools. They co-exist peacefully today, but I'm continually astonished, reading Islamic history, by the sharpness of the conflicts in the past. Riots, murders -- in one case, IIRC, the gates of a city opened to invaders by supporters of one madhab, as a way to attack the other madhab. Zora 23:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Mike18xx requested unprotection on WP:RFP. Are we ready to go with that yet? howcheng {chat} 18:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

What is the validity of the claim that 'Shariah' translates as 'path to the watering hole'? Is there an etymological connexion with 'Syria'? Thanks.

Fanshawe 14:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sharia means "path" and does not mean "path to watering hole". No connection to "Syria". Farhoudk 06:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Myths and Realities" - POV

The above-mentioned text basically claims that if Westerners knew more about the Sharia they wouldn't find it objectionable. Quote:

Contemporary treatment of Islamic Law and "Radical Muslims" is filled with stereotypical characterizations. Some in the Western media have used the "New York City bombings" as a way to increase hate and prejudice. They have taken the views of a few radicals and projected them onto all Muslims. This action has done a great disservice to the Muslim world.

However, all that the article says about adultery, for instance, is:

The usual number of witnesses is two, but in the case of adultery four witnesses are required. The media often leaves the public with the impression that all are punished with flimsy evidence or limited proof. Islamic law has a very high level of proof for the most serious crimes and punishments.

So, the authors agree that Sharia law sees adultery as a "most serious crime". An issue that they carefully side-step, of course, is the prescribed punishment. Fortunately, it's easy enough for us to figure it out, because it's right there in the Qu'ran, An-Nur 24:2:

The woman and the man guilty of illegal sexual intercourse, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allâh, if you believe in Allâh and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. (This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime but if married persons commit it, the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allâh's Law).

No wonder they prefer to beat around the bush! But is a judge really bound by Sharia law to uphold this punishment? Well - the article itself says that no judge can alter this punishment, for better or for worse.

So, to sum it up, we ignorant and hate-inciting Westerners are supposed to believe that Sharia law is a-ok, and just like our law, because, well yes, married people who have sex outside of marriage are considered most severe criminals, and yes, they do get stoned to death for it, but actually only if there are four credible witnesses, so it's not that bad after all! Never mind that any sort of collective punishment for consentual sex between adults, even outside marriage, let go one of the cruelest forms of execution ever invented, is utterly incompatible with concepts tremendously popular in the West, such as personal liberty and dignity, abstinence from unnecessary cruelty, and the respect for universal human rights. The truth is, no amount of wisdom found in other parts of Sharia law can cancel out this indelible stain in the eyes of any compassionate person, whether Christian or secular humanist. Don't let the apologetics fool you - the problem with Sharia is not in our perception, even if we may not know all there is to know about it. What we do know - that it prescribes "cruel and unusual punishments" (to put it in the language of the Eighth Amendment) for a deed that isn't considered punishable by state in any Western country at all - is enough to know that Sharia law in its present form and basic and universal human rights can never be reconciled. Aragorn2 00:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: With "whether Christian or secular humanist", I was referring to two schools of thought dominant in Western countries. I do not in any way intend to suggest that human compassion is limited to members of those groups. In effect, I believe that compassionate Muslims who dare to examine the issue even at the risk of defying religious authorities will agree with me that this part of Sharia is unacceptable. Aragorn2 00:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You are referring to a part of your quote which is in parenthesis, because it is actually not a translation, but a comment which has been added to mislead people. The Qur'an does not prescribe stoning. CuriousOliver 19:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"The Koran does not prescribe stoning" is a dubious comment.It suggests that Sharia does not enjoin barbaric practices. Sharia law is not exclusively derived from the Koran.

It is drawn in addition from from the Sunnah (the life example of the imagined prophet), of which the Hadith (sayings attributed to 'Mohammed')are an integral part.

I am aware of several hadith entries which refer to homosexuality: "When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes"; "Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to." ; and "Cursed are those men who wear women's clothing and those women who wear men's clothing." It would be risible, were it not for the hordes of solemn neurotics who actually believe that this ranting warlord conversed with angels.

You compare Islam unfavorably to Christianity, but until recently, there were laws with quite severe punishment for homosexuality--not just for engaging in homosexual sex, but for being homosexual--based on Christianity. No hypocrisy, ok? Alethiophile¹2₃ 03:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Koran explicitly endorses mutilation for theft, in the 5th Sura (The Table). The first line of the 'holy book' reads as "This book is not to be doubted" -one can scarcely expect a scientific outlook from 'believers', can we?

Finally, I am surprised to note no mention of the charming Mr Ashraf Choudhary MP, a New Zealand politician and apologist for the stoning to death of homosexuals. See "Some Stoning OK Says Choudhary" - OK that is "In those societies - not here in New Zealand". http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10334250 Fanshawe 13:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ack, the religion of peace has a remarkable and pronounced attitude towards homosexuality, speaking of which is missing here ...completely. The topic had been mentioned earlier (*), but somehow it shows a tendency to get lost, as this other issue has too. Should we really fight loathsome, ignoble islamophobia with despicable, horrid homophobia? That's not befitting either, or is it? Fortunately administrators are watching the article with the hawkish attention of wikipedic righteousness, highly and meritedly rewarded with barnstars by their like. I'd be more than happy seeing them exercising their benignant powers fighting POV from all sides.

* These victims of -err, fundamental?- deletionism were, possibly, slightly to verbose and suffered a sympathetic but unacceptable slant, but, presuming some good willing, this could be remedied. How come this things always get nixed out of existence, but never just shortened to their essentials? --tickle me 15:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Major rewrite

I am going to start a major revision of this article, because most of it is POV ignoring reformed Islamic legal theory and on top of that reeks of ignorance. CuriousOliver 19:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIV before contributing and refrain from smearing the work of other editors. During your rewrite you have failed to cite reliable sources as per WP:CITE and WP:RS. Furthermore, you have confused Islamic law with secular legislation of predominantly Muslim countries. Pecher ^Talk 09:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Everything you say is a lie. Revert me once more and I will report you for vandalism CuriousOliver 12:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of the material you add is unsourced and those that are sourced come from a highly dubious site. On top of that, your edits are concerned essentially with secular legislation of predominantly Muslim countries, not with Sharia, so they fall outside of the scope of this article. Please stop your personal attacks against me and other editors. Also, please do not try to portray a content dispute as vandalism. Pecher ^Talk 12:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You are vandalizing. Nowhere I am confusing Sharia with secular law. On the contrary, I am the only one who clearly distinguishes it. You are just waffling. You don't like my citations? That's really your problem. Who has better ones? I haven't seen any citations for any of the other authors' work, but appearently, that was no problem to you. You have so far been unable to name one disputable statement I wrote. The problem is that people like you and Mike18xx (assuming you are not sockpuppets) are vandals who want to make sure that everything written about Islam conforms to the stereotypes in their heads. Everything I wrote is true and accurate, and you could not refute anything so far. 128.103.187.231 12:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I added some references, hope that solves the problem. You know Pecher, if references was your only problem, why didn't you say so immediatelly, instead of calling my contribution "nonsense". I did not mean to offend anybody when I said that the article reeks of ignorance, but some sentences clearly reveal that the person who wrote them does not fully understand the issue. And isn't it telling that we used to have a long article about Islamic law without ever refering to its origins, history, the orthodox legal schools, and new approaches of legal theory? It is like writing about apples without ever refering to apple trees. CuriousOliver 17:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

With your permission, I will stick to the way I termed your contribution. The whole section that you created mixes secular and Islamic law together. totally confusing the reader. For example, the entire first paragraph is talking about how legislation in Muslim countries has changed beginning from the 19th century under the Western influence. That's germane information and may be added in a separate section, like "History of application of sharia", but it has nothing to do with developments within sharia. Or you say "Secularists believe the law of the state should be based on secular principles, not on Islamic legal theory." and "Traditionalists believe that the law of the state should be based on the traditonal legal schools." Here you are again mixing together two distinct concepts: sharia itself and implementation of sharia in national legal codes. You're essentially saying that some people want to see sharia implemented, while others oppose it. That's not a disagreement between legal scholars regarding the norms of sharia; that's a disagreement on the implementation of sharia.Pecher ^Talk 18:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I still think the sections I added are clear and accurate, and that theory and application should be mentioned together, because one can not be understood without the other. Nothing had greater impact on Islamic legal theory than the fact that it was not being applied in some areas any more. I am merely mentioning some basic points which are necessary to understand Islamic law. Feel free to edit, and as long as you don't remove essential points or introduce bias, I will not object. CuriousOliver 19:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

So, you have conceded that you're describing applications of sharia to national legal codes, not developments of sharia. From this point of view, your edits belong to the section on contemporary applications of sharia. Pecher ^Talk 14:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding references, you did not give a single precise inline citation. How can other editors know where you took your ideas from? Do you suppose we must look through all the books that you have listed? Pecher ^Talk 18:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, in order to make use of citations, you actually have to do some reading. Not the whole book, since most books have a table of contents and an index. My citations, as far as I can see, are exactly according to Wikipedia policies. And don't you find it mightily ironic, that you point your finger at the only two sections that actually have proper citations, while none of the other sections has? CuriousOliver 19:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Your citations are utterly unhelpful because you essentially want readers to ramble accross five books to find the idea that you have expressed in the article. Please provide specific reference with page numbers. Unless you are able to do that I will consider your edits to be original research. Pecher ^Talk 14:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The citations are unhelpful to you, because you are not an expert on the subject. You should not be editing this article. CuriousOliver 23:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

ROTFL "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which everyone can edit." Pecher ^Talk 09:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Editors ^(*), and much less readers, are not required to be knowledgeable, and let's suppose you know that, ok? A good article "shall be comprehended by laymen" and be "nearly self-contained ...such that someone could completely understand the subject without having to read many other articles" ...or books - is this inference admissible? So please add page numbers to make it plausible that at least you read the books in question, else plastering these edits with {{fact}} is an option.

"...because most of it is POV ignoring reformed Islamic legal theory and on top of that reeks of ignorance": The article is bad, true, but who is to blame? I'd say, more often than not it's the faithful, eager, but, err, not to inquisitive mind that adds gems like "its more of a tradition" or "and the list goes on as there are countless examples". Besides, there is POV, and boy, has there been POV. As for "theory", keep in mind that "practice" is elementary as well when describing a subject.

* Though wikipedia certainly doesn't mind. --tickle me 01:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted paragrpah

I have deleted the following paragraph: "Some people claim that Muslims who convert to Christianity can be at risk. See any of the works of Ibn Warraq, who claims to be an outspoken former Muslim. (However, it is important to note that none of Ibn Warraq's personal claims can be checked or confirmed, since he uses a pseudonym.) A well-known example of a Muslim "apostate" undergoing persecution is that of Salman Rushdie, whose novel The Satanic Verses prompted Khomeini to issue a Fatwa (religious opinion) for his execution. Even though some suspect that Khomeini issued this fatwa more because of the lampooning of Khomeini himself it could be argued that Khomeini's motivation for issuing the fatwa is irrelevant as Rushdie's apostasy was the formal ground for the imposition of the death sentence." It probably goes without saying that we must mention who these "some people" are; otherwise the sentence makes no sense. Neither Ibn Warraq, nor Salman Rushdi converted to Christianity; the former is a secular humanist, the latter still considers himself a Muslim. "Even though some suspect..": here again, nobody knows who these "some" are, and even if we did know it, the exploration of Khomeini's motives is still irrelvant to the subject in question.Pecher ^Talk 20:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Fiefdom of reasonably free Speech

Thou shalt not snitch on thy fellow wikipædian, yet sometimes I do - geolocation info for 168.187.0.34 :

KW, Kuwait, 02, Al Kuwayt, Bayan, 29.3181, 48.0392, Kuwait Ministry of Communations

Dear Ministry of Truth, please throw your wisdom's pearls before other swine - we don't fancy pork, do you? --tickle me 05:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The Way You're Seeing It

Perhaps being so heavily involved in the editing of this article has made it harder to see the forest for the trees. You can't say Sharia is THIS, but some say its THAT, because that is automatically a biased point of view. Rather, it needs to be said that Shari'a is THIS, which is considered A by some and B by others, like this:

Sharia (Arabic: شريعة; also Sharī'ah, Shari'a, Shariah or Syariah) is the Arabic word for Islamic law, also known as the Law of Allah, and governs both secular and religious life of the devout Muslim. [citation needed] Sharia covers not only religious rituals, but many aspects of day-to-day life, politics, economics, banking, business or contract law, and social issues. The term Sharia refers to the body of Islamic law. Some accept Sharia as the body of precedent and legal theory before the 19th century, while other scholars view Sharia as a changing body, and include reform Islamic legal theory from the contemporary period.

Islamic law?

Out of plain curiosity, could or should sharia be called "Law based on Islam" rather than Islamic law? Considering neither the Qu'ran nor the Hadith (I think) make any mention of having a law set in stone like it is. Rather, is it not man's interpretation of the Qu'ran and the Hadith making it law based on Islam not Islamic law. Or is "Law based on Islam" simply incorrect? seventy-one 21:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC).

To me my work, to you yours

Believe it!

This is totally incorrect

In the section on Freedom of Speech, the following is found:

Sharia does not allow freedom of speech on such matters as criticism of the prophet Muhammad.

The Qur'an says that Allah curses the one who harms the Prophet in this world and He connected harm of Himself to harm of the Prophet. There is no dispute that anyone who curses Allah is killed and that his curse demands that he be categorized as an unbeliever. The judgement of the unbeliever is that he is killed. [...] There is a difference between ... harming Allah and His Messenger and harming the believers. Injuring the believers, short of murder, incurs beating and exemplary punishment. The judgement against those who harm Allah and His Prophet is more severe -- the death penalty. ("The proof of the necessity of killing anyone who curses the Prophet or finds fault with him" [12])

I understand that this may the views of some specific lunatic, but the section clearly implies that this is the views of Shariah (which it's not). Either rephrase this completely, as Shariah permits people to be non-Muslims, or remove this quote and come up with a better one.

Bless sins 02:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Does Shariah allow people to convert from Islam to a different religion?Flannel 09:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Differences of opinion as to what is/what was sharia/islamic/law of muhomad

Ok i think given the many possible interpertations of what sharia law is more then one difinition is called for in the article for instance the variances from country to country mabye a seperat section should be given to the major interperitations to keep everyone happy even though this will consume an un-godly amount of space for instance in saudi arabia things are carried out in this manor according to the law and in afganistan things are delt with in this manor comparing and contrasting the differences in application from country to country one last comment concerning the neutrality of the page i believe the article origionaly was probably as accurate as one could exspect a few points i would like to cover that was disputed (no perticular order) christians/non muslems can be in danger in islamic countries as sharia law does not seem to permit people to be a non believer for instance "christian to be executed in afganistan" head line chicago tribune tues march 21 2006 this man is being tried and could be executed if found guilty of abandoning islam. additionaly challanging the articls neutrality simply because you feel it is un-flattering to islam to discuss it proscribing mutilation for various crimes does not make it any less true and if it is in sharia law it should be discussed despite what impression that may give people of the religion

March 21, 2006 -- Bush administration appealed to Afghanistan to spare the life of a man facing the death penalty for converting to Christianity

A Kabul court confirmed that Mr. Rahman, 41, was facing a death sentence under Islamic Sharia law for converting to Christianity.

As a Christian, I'd like to know why anybody,of any religion, can convert to Islam (Proselyting by Islamists is allowed!BUT no one is allowed to Proselize any other Faith among Muslims!).Yet,one was was raised as a Muslem is not allowed the free will to choose another religion,if he/she wishes,with out incuring the death penalty. Do Muslims believe in GOD's gift of Free Will? It does not make sense, if other people can choose to become Muslims, why are Muslims not allowed to become, say, Christians or Jewish Proselytes, or whatever? And WHY are other religious Faiths NOT allowed to Proselize among Muslims without sever penalties(even death)?

The awnser to that is that many muslims dont believe in the idea of free will, (as you can see by their driving in islamic countried =P), however Saudi is much struicter than most islamic countries, and it dosent represent islam as a whole. In some christian could have been killed for converting in the past, so its historically nique to Saudi arabia to allow this.R.G.P.A (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted text from "The Penalty for Theft" section

The ruling was only used 6 times in 70 years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad Sal-allahu-allehi-wasallam. That is an average of about once every twelve years. Muslims during the time of Muhammad Sal-allahu-allehi-wasallam and the khulufaah used to leave their merchandise out and would leave it to go pray at the masajid and nothing would get stolen. People in Arabia at that time period were so afraid of getting their hands chopped off that they did not steal anything. This ruling in essence not only greatly reduced theft but nearly wiped it out in the Middle East during the time of the Prophet Muhammad Sal-allahu-allehi-wasallam and the Khulufaah. Although many secular Muslim states have abolished this penalty, in many parts of the Muslim world, one can leave valuables without fear of theft.

During the times of the second Caliph Umar, there was a famine, and the penalty for stealing was abolished temporarily. This shows that Islamic laws are context sensitive.

^ Quran Surah 5 Verse 38

---

I deleted the above as it was

1. unsourced
2. represents original research even if sourced
3. contains religious formulas, whose use is unwikipedic
4. contains speculative assertions ("This ruling .... greatly reduced theft .... during the time of the Prophet Muhammad", "in many parts of the Muslim world, one can leave valuables without fear of theft")

--tickle me 04:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The suspension of the penalty in that period of famine is well known. As for the number of times it was applied - I have heard of records being kept but I'm not sure where or how to refer to them. I have heard that the gist of them is that they weren't applied as often as is made out (but perhaps as often as expected looking at the strict criteria for evidence). 86.140.210.38 06:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If "the suspension of the penalty in that period of famine is well known", then it should be easy to find some sources to cite. Until that happens, I think tickle me is right.

As I said it's well known. Try googling "Umar suspension of hadd". 87.194.191.177 23:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Somebody had it out for Islam...

When they wrote this article. How does the act of a secular state such as Egypt have ANY connection with islamic shariah? Are we talking about Islamic Law, or the acts of people who happen to be Muslims? Do the British, Belgian, and French colonial experiences have any correlation with Christianity? Many of the key actors of those states may have been Christian, but I highly doubt anybody makes that assosciation. The fact that this article is showing a lack of such critical separation indicates to me the very undertone of bias. This goes for sections such as Punishment, where minority, radical, and sometimes context-specific opinions are being ascribed to the mainstream. While I may not be a scholar on such matters, I hope that we can reproduce this article while restoring to it the colour of neutrality.

tu queue fallacy??

How was my addition a tu queue fallacy? I AM a Canadian (did I give reason to feel otherwise?), and I'm a law student. I'm simply relating a fact that might help put things into perspective and reduce the glare of bias that I am detecting in this piece. Although the common law offence of blasphemy is NOT normally justiciable today in England and the criminal code section ((CC 245) of Canada that relate to is probably not enforced, they are ON the books nonetheless and this cannot be denied. Can THIS be used as an indictment of anti-free speech against the Canadian jurisprudence that begot such a provision (the way that prohibition of blasphemy against Muhammad is being used against Shariah)? I would say definitely not, the fact is all rights have limits (the whole reason I'm bring up Western examples is to SHOW the audience that such notions of 'non-protected free speech' are closer to home than they would otherwise think think), and this is the shariah placing a limit on THAT right within ITS jurisprudence. Why isn't THAT side of the story told, if this is truly said to be a 'neutral piece'? All statements have a point of view; the only way to HAVE a truly neutral piece is to illustrate both sides of the proverbial coin to allow the READER to make their assessment, rather than tow the corporate line.

Organisation and content

I find this article strange at the moment in that it gives a brief introduction to the Shariah then instead of expounding on that goes on to discuss issues that people in the west find controversial. While I'm sure the latter is an important subject that people want to read about, it certainly shouldn't form the bulk of the article and perhaps should receive an article of its own.

I also think that the section on "Divergent developments..." shouldn't be at the beginning. Perhaps it would be more appropriate before "Contemporary practice..." Zeroone 02:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a relatively bad article. It goes into fiqh understandings of sharia moreso than explain the concept itself and how it's differentiated. The problem is it uses a lot of sourcse that say "sharia says X is not allowed". I think we need to discuss the concept of what is sharia and how fiqh is used to "come up with sharia". The problem is everyone wants to call their way the way of God which is why so many sources describe something as being permissible or impermissible under the sharia. Definitely a more pious than academic route to take. I couldn't rewrite this on my own and am not familiar enough with the work on it to really fix it. However, if you can toss around some ideas I can judge them based on what I know about it. gren グレン 04:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Like you said, most of it seems more to relate to fiqh than the concept of Shariah. Perhaps those parts could be moved to the relevant subsections of the fiqh article? (Though that one is also really bad). Of course that doesn't fix the problem of lack of content, but I think something like that would be a start. Zeroone 20:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The thing that most surprises me is the "Divergence since the 19th century" section at the top of the article. Could this not go in with the section on Sharia in modern states, to form a new section headed something like "Application of Sharia in modern nations"? Then very early in the article there needs to be a clearer explanation of the roles of the Qu'ran, hadith, fiqh, and how they are viewed by the different Sunni and Shia schools. Perhaps even a table. Itsmejudith 18:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Dress-code a fail-safe system??

the rationale given for these rules is that men and women are not to be viewed as sexual objects. It is a fail safe system. Men keep their guard up and women protect themselves. Should either one fail, the other prevents the society from falling into fitna.

I have serious issues with this comment. Is this meant to be objective?

I think it's more obvious than objective, given the rest of the paragraph. If there has been any scholarly discussion of these rules then by all means, the issue should be explained with citations. But otherwise it strikes me as a good candidate for deletion. JiHymas@himivest.com 01:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

POV Pushing in "External Links" section

I'm going to revert back to the old version from the version

19:59, 28 July 2006 MarkThomas (Talk | contribs) m (Stop political editing out; trying to "soften" the appalling Sharia crimes in Iran)

If this information is to be discussed in an article about Sharia, it should be discussed in the main body of the work. JiHymas@himivest.com 20:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

circumcision in christianity

all i knew about christians is that they dont circumcize, as mentioned in this artice. site sources or it shall be removed. nids 11:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The Christian Bible includes passages saying that circumcision is no longer a religious requirement because Christians are "circumsized in their hearts" while Jews are "circumsized in the flesh."" Circumcision has rarely been practiced in Europe. However, in America it has been typical for most boys to be circumsized, although this custom is gradually declining.

DanB DanD 18:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you give a version, chapter and verse for the above quotation? JiHymas@himivest.com 19:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

One frequently quoted is in Second Romans 2:25-29 (KJV). Reading this as making circumcision unnecessary is only one interpretation, but it has been a common interpretation among Christian denominations. Here for example is an online sermon by John Wesley, founder of of the Methodist denomination: [1].

There's also Colossians 2:11: "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ." Chapter 2 of Colossians is in general a rejection of applying the formal requirements of Jewish law (such as dietary requirements and the formal sabbath observances) to Christians (Colossians 2:16)

DanB DanD 20:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the Bible states that Circumcision is a Convenant to God - and this is referred to during Abraham's lifetime, where he, along with his slaves were circumcised. If I'm not mistaken, he was 90 when he had it done and his son Ishmael was 13. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.15.122.35 (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Three randomised trials carried out in African areas of high HIV infection have provided evidence that a man's risk of acquiring HIV through heterosexual intercourse is halved if he is circumcised.

• Reference: Newell, Marie-Lousie (February 24, 2007). "Male circumcision to cut HIV risk in the general population" (PDF). The Lancet. 369 (9562): 617–619. doi:DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60288-8. PMID 17321292. Retrieved 2007-04-01. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

This may led to increase in circumcision in US. 09:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Yosri

The relevance of the previous comment to this discussion is not clear. None the less, I will point out that this research is highly questionable, done by long time partisans of circumcision. For one thing, if it were true, then the US should have the lowest rate of HIV of any of the industrialized nations, given that we have the highest rate of circumcision. The opposite is the case.

Opening graph

It currently reads as follows:

Sharia (Arabic: شريعة‎ ​ translit: Sharī‘ah)generally refers to a body of Islamic law, even though this meaning is considered very restrictive. Sharia, which etymologically means "way" or "path", is the legal framework within which the public aspects and some private aspects of life are ruled for those living within the state and who belongs to the islamic community (al-'Ummah al-'Islamiyah). Non-muslims in a sharia-abiding country follow the rules of their own community. I think Islam countries government will die , because Islam countries government also killing , and caning non muslims .

It seems cumbersome and inaccurate to me. First sentence feels like it's a standard transmission grinding loudly while trying unsuccessfully to shift out of first gear, and I'm not really sure what the second and third sentences are doing, either. For instance: Wouldn't Saudi Arabians consider themselves to be living under a form of Sharia law? Would a non-muslim in Saudi "follow the rules of (his) own community" in dealing with, say, a question of disputed property, or with a traffic violation? This critical graph seems to me like it needs some help and a rewrite. What do other editors think? [[User:BrandonYusufToro 3 / 9 / 2006

"Prophet" Muhammed?

Currently reads:

'Freedom of speech': "Sharia does not allow freedom of speech on such matters as criticism of the prophet Muhammad."

"Prophet Muhammad" is not NPOV. It should just say Muhammad. The Wiki uses Muhammad everywhere else. The word prophet is used only when hadiths are being referenced. If you have confusion see the article Muhammad. I will notify the current editor.--Matt57 22:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This page is fatally flawed - because it uses secondary sources ? Huh ?

I cannot actually believe that this is a wikipedia entry. It makes no mention of actual application of islamic law as practiced in the various muslim nations, mixes up the various legal schools up with reckless abandon. And there is a very real lack of case law. Quite clearly most of this article has been scribbled from secondry sources. I shall attempt to rectify this over the next few days.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.48.186 (talk) 00:03, October 12, 2006 (UTC)

i agree this page is 50% complete--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 03:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You imply that secondary sources are not the right sources !. Please do read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Types_of_source_material and you will find that Secondary sources are the prefered sources for Wikipedia. Court records are Primary sources; Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources. (quoting from that article). Ttiotsw 12:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Major rewrite

This article starts by illuminating that Fiqh and Sharia and different things and not to be mixed, and then procceds to mix them. That is contradictory, so i am moving all Fiqh related issues to that article. --Striver 09:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Women under sharia Section

This section contains many factual inaccuracies, does not give sources, and makes blatantly sexist comments which do not belong in any work holding itself as an "authoritative" source. (See, for example, "Even for the position of a judge, where there may be a tendency to doubt the woman's fitness for the post due to her more emotional nature...")In addition, it is very poorly written, and several passages do not make sense. Should be deleted.

Rewrote the section but it is still unreferenced and probably still contains many inaccuracies. Self-contradictory on the question of whether Muslims can marry outside the faith. Itsmejudith 10:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mis-placed quotes?

In the Etymology section, there's a quote that starts the concept of sharia.... It's not clear where this quote is supposed to end. There is a closing quote mark a few lines later, but it doesn't seem to be in right place. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding quotes -- The "Laws" section seems to be quoting from somewhere ("fornicatress" is not a commonly used word), but there is no source cited. This should be rectified if possible.Bticho 17:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Name?

I read somewhere that it was Shari'a, or Shari'ah. What's the story on that? Alethiophile¹2₃ 03:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The apostrophe represents a consonant that doesn't exist in English. The word ends with a letter that should be transliterated as "ah" but is more often pronounced without the "h" sound.87.194.191.177 23:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Added footnote citation on Mar 22 - problems

Hi... I added a footnote/citation in the section dealing with possible adoption of Islamic family law in Ontario, where it said "Citation needed", as I had a cite handy. However, there seems to be a problem with this page's footnotes; new/old system mixing with some confusing results, like it's footnote 5 (showing and in reflist), but ref's as number 4. (I may not have helped, as I'm new to wiki footnotes. -Alec 207.23.98.93 22:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Banking

Why isn't there explicit mention of banking in this article? There should at least be a summary section with a 'main article' link. I was reading this on BBC [2] and went to this article to read more but didn't see anything until the "See also" section way at the bottom. Perhaps banking can be added? The Behnam 01:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I found a great picture for Islamic law of lashing

Here is a picture of a woman being canned in Indonesia. We should get this picture, it will improve the article. The copyright will be a problem and we'll have to contact them. But this picture will improve the article as it lacks pictures.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this REALLY an article on Wikipedia??

Upon reading this article for the first time today, I find it apalling that such a TERRIBLE article can be present on wiki, and can even get rated B. Almost everything under 'Laws and Practices' is Original Research (not to mention absurdly simplistic and WRONG in many cases). How are people okay with such an article? It angers me to no end. I'm marking that section as Original Research.Starwarp2k2 18:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture of woman who got 50 lashes

This image is relevant to this article. I have inserted it but it was removed by Aminullah and Itsmejudith. Can you two show me how this image removal satisfies Wikipedia policies? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

File:HomaDarabi.jpg

The basic position is that shar'ia has many aspects. If there were a whole range of relevant pictures then there just might (I'm not saying there would be) be a case for including this one. But since it shows just one aspect of an enormous and complex legal system, then placing it in the article simply introduces bias. What about pictures to illustrate land and property transactions, inheritance laws, the court system, legal books and interpretations, the appointment of judges? And by the way it is up to you to justify the inclusion, not up to us to justify removal. Itsmejudith 22:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with Itsmejudith. I support removal of the picture, and until this conflict is resolved, I'm marking the section as non-NPOV Starwarp2k2 23:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not my job to bring in pictures for Sharia that show information for taxes and stuff. Thats your job. Instead of removing this picture, why dont you guys try to make it NPOV by bringing in these pictures? My justification for inclusion of the picture is simple: its relevant to the article and its not against policy, so there. Instead of letting this article go on to a level where editors are encouraged to bring in other pictures relating to Sharia, you guys are opting for stepping back. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you guys should look at Criticism_of_the_Quran#Submission_Movie, with the picture of the verses on the woman's body. Is that offensive too and does it introduce bias too? Please, let go of aversions to "bias". The job of an encyclopedia is to include information, not exclude it. Step forward, not backward. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The pic would have been notable and fit for inclusion if the source was notable enough. It isn't the case. Who is that woman? Who took the photograph? Is it genuine? How do you know he/she got 50 lashes and not 55? Who is Dr. Homa Darabi? What is this Dr. Homa Darabi Foundation. The foundation says nothing about itself. In one of its pages it says that You can request to be added to any of the categories listed below by mouse clicking on the category! Is it comparable to something like HRW or Amnesty? Pls do not bring garbage to Wikipedia. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Faysal - I dont think the image violates any policies. The source from where the image is copied from doesnt have to be notable, or does it? Do we have to know the name of the woman? Ofcourse not. I dont see the policy mentioning any of these superficial requirements you're suggesting anywhere on the upload page. The picture is not hard to beleive as well - floggings and stonings have been done in Iran, this is a well known-fact. There is no rationale to suggest that the picture is fake or unreliable. Is there any real policy concern you have for this image? We can ask Homa foundation for more information if required. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That picture looks faked, and it looks impossible to verify.--Kirby♥time 07:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"That picture looks faked" lol, is there nothing you won't say. Definitly not faked, looks taken 24 to 48 hours after the flogging by the colour of the bruising. In fact if you look at the picture you can still see some of individual whip marks, she's lucky if she was a man it would have been a jombock whip to the back. Pictures of the effects of punishments not common in most of the world need to be added so that the readers know we are not talking some gentle little S&M spanking for fun but real torture. Matt I'm sure that amnesty and HRW have similar pictures, also check gay rights charities as they will have similar pictures of men and women punished for their CRIMES! Hypnosadist 10:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So the picture is fake, what about the following reports - are they fake too?: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Anyhow, anyone who doubts the picture, can travel to today Islamic Iran and experience the Islamic Sharia Law first-hand! ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 06:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:ParthianShot.

I have been to Iran several times and the nonsense you claim is nowhere close to what is happening in Iran right now. --Kirby♥time 21:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have concerns about the copyright license. The permission request is currently viewable at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 27#Image:HomaDarabi.jpg. (1) The owner of the website did not indicate that he or she is the copyright holder of the image and did not explicitly license the image under the GFDL. (2) The image description page currently has conflicting licensing statements. (3) The correspondence has not yet been forwarded to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org. The image is still on IFD (which, lately, is always backlogged) and should remain there pending further information. --Iamunknown 02:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I am concerned about the misunderstandings evident in your assertion of what is whose "job" on wikipedia. We are all volunteers and contribute to the encyclopedia in whatever ways we can. Personally, I have never done much with images. I am better at spelling, grammar and verification with academic sources. It is the responsibility of all of us to keep the encyclopedia as accurate and unbiased as we can. Please do not create two camps on this issue where it is not necessary. Amnesty and HRW are appropriate sources, this source is not, not because it is not notable but because it is not verifiable. Itsmejudith 12:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Shariah huddud is only about 5 specific crimes. It doesn't include hijab. Aside from these, the source is a propaganda website. --Aminz 09:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

First we have to get copyright permission from the website owner. I've asked IMU for guidance. Its no use trying to put in an image when it could be deleted later. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

hey, fair enough these lashes couldve been true, acted out by 'muslims' in a muslim country according to 'sharia law' why do i put these words in inverted commas? because these things and facts may not be true. yes these atrocities do happen in the world, but the face that youre labelling them with is not right. THESE things such as these lashings and such punishments and treatment of women, they are DIASAGREEING with Islam. this is not islam, this is extremism, from people who dont even understand their own religion, and have gone and exaggerated all the rules. not letting women out of th house? no education? no right to witnesses or speaking up etc. this is all wrong, Islam has said that women are to be treated as equally as men. the reason she is asked to wear hijab, is to protect her from the eyes of men who have wrong intentions, another reason why she is ASKED, note not FORCED, to go out alone without a male family member eg brother. she is not asked to be covered from head to toe in black clothing and eyes and to hurry from shadow to shadow. all it is, is to dress modestly, concealing parts that could possibly attract a man. and it is these rules that the taleban, al qaeda and countless other muslims around the world have exaggerated upon, representing islam as a violent insensitive and unfair religion. i wonder when people will finally stop drowning in prejudice and ignorant views about islam, and many other issues, and see the very simple truth. many people call islam a prejudiced religion, ignorant of current values of women, fairness etc. well hang on, islam places theses things most highly, its just these certain people cant be btohered to see that. almost liek they HAVE to believe islam is a barbaric, violent terrorising religion. u may come back at em with other cases, quotes etc. my answer is the same that its not ISLAM, these are rules amde up and exaggerated by EXTREMISTS. could it get any simpler. °ﺍl||lﺍ° ζαıπυЂ °ﺍl||lﺍ° —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zainub94 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct usage and formatting

Is "sharia" supposed to be capitalized or not? Italicized or not? Is it "the Sharia" or just "sharia"? Do we have some reliable sources that address this question? Leaving the current inconsistent mix looks unprofessional. ~ 08:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC) Jeff Q (talk)

See also/Navbox

Greetings. I've noticed the tendency for See Also sections on articles about religious political ideologies to grow ... and grow ... and grow. I'm working on a NavBox to tidy things up. I've been skimming a number of the Christian sites, and have developed Template:Relpolnav (Religious Politics Navbar). Could a few of this page's editors check it out, and comment on the Relpolnav talkpage? Thanks! 23:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Samwaltz

POV edit

• Due to the belief that a woman is more sympathetic to others than men

I removed this statement as POV. There is no evidence that that is the reason for counting womens votes as half that of a mans. it is just as likely to be that women are valued half as much. --18:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Brideshead

It's not so much POV as it is unsourced conclusion-drawing, which is original research. In an article with such potential for controversy, it's critical that we scrupulously source statements like the one Brideshead removed. If it's a non-obvious conclusion, we must be sure to include a full range of sourced possibilities rather than just those that represent our own expectations or beliefs. And if that effort turns the statment into a labored tangent, it's probably best to leave it out, anyway. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed broken post

I've just fixed a major problem with this talk page. Yosri had posted a comments to "circumcision in christianity" above that included a reference using an HTML "ref" tag, but failed to close the HTML element. This ate everything else on the page, including 15 subsequent topics which were only visible to those watching the page, observing the diffs, and doing page-edits instead of section edits on those topics (because the topics failed to appear in the table of contents). I don't know why it took us this long to notice such a serious problem.

Although it is generally very bad form to edit another person's post, I felt it was necessary because the post caused a technical problem that rendered the remainder of the page invisible. I changed Yosri's ref element (appropriate for an article, because it can have footnotes, but not for a talk page whose bottom is constantly appended to) to a bulleted citation prefixed with the word "Reference:", which I hope conveys the same idea.

I also had to fix several signature/timestamps because the wiki editor failed to translate the standard four-tilde (~~~~) signature into a proper timestamp and username for all edits that followed the unclosed "ref" tag. All of these changes can be seen in my two edits — one for the major changes, and a second minor edit to fix the indentation of my first fix of Yosri's post. The signature/timestamps can be verified as accurate from edit history. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Countries where sharia is applied

India is the only country in the world which has separate Muslim civil laws

This is not accurate, at least the part about India being the only country where this applies. The inheritance and family law of the Muslim population of the Philippines, mostly on Mindanao, is governed by a statute called the Code of Muslim Personal Laws and applied by sharia courts, whereas non-Muslim Filipinos live under the Civil Code and the Family Code. 132.180.239.31 15:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

-->

I agree 100% with the need to incorporate parts that deal with the application of sharia law, as well as include the theories of fiqh. Sharia is an abstract concept and is not as clearly defined as many people assume, even those proning the litteral reading of the quran don't have a complete single well defined view of it. People with basic knowledge know that, yet even some experts tend to limit the scope. Sharia can only be explained in the context it is used and by the people who use/used it , i.e. the Koran and the Sunnah; theories of jurisprudence; and application before the periods of intense colonisation by the west of the muslim world (more or less the application of Orthodox islam and it's Sharia law up to the 18th and 19th century). I MORE OR LESS COMPLETLY AGREE WITH OLIVER!! This will defenetly give the reader the basic tools he needs to understand Sharia. And this is a must for a world wide source of knowledge such as wikipedia, especially in this day and age. Some people think islam orders the stonning of raped women for god's sake. WIKIPEDIA THIS IS A MUST!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.89.14.78 (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "mid-importance" labell you placed on Sharia law in the Wiki Law project. I think this labelling is based on a very euro-centric view of things. This might be the age of reason and globalisation, nonetheless Sharia TO THIS DAY deals and is usedby Law, ethics and the legal system. It is still used as the only/main source of law in afew countries and for many muslims... From Saudi Arabia and Iran which use it as its constitution to secular or semi-secular states. It is often used in none muslim background countries, when dealing with the local muslim population, and has even been making ways in western legal systems (Germany). Hence it parralells or opposes the other "sources of all understanding". U rank as high, those matters that are the source of all understanding. Atheists or not, we are talking about law arn't we? In a sense then it is for a significant amount of people A and/or THE source of understanding. Many semi-secular and secular states use sharia law completly in dealing with family law for instance, even they don't in other matters within with the legal system.

Wikipedia let's not be self-centered...And anyways there are going to be more people checking up on the other pages anyways :-) Just kidding... Keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.89.14.78 (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)