Talk:Sharia

External Link leads to Page no Found

The only connection between Israel and Sharia is given by the this excerpt of the introduction: "Most countries do not recognize sharia; however, some countries in Asia (such as Israel[25]) ..." but this link leads to a Page not found. The absolutely controversial connection between Israel and Sharia Law should thence be removed. Bpfurtado (talk)

Outline

There is a section for Sharia in the Outline of law article, suggest populating that section. If it seems like the article is getting too long, then there will be a need to branch the religious law topics into an Outline of religious law article. -Inowen (nlfte) 20:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources of sharia law

The text currently states that there are four sources for sharia law but only three are mentioned in the opening statement of that paragraph. Teradon (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I read: "Traditional theory of Islamic jurisprudence recognizes four sources of sharia: the Quran, sunnah (authentic hadith), qiyas (analogical reasoning), and ijma (juridical consensus)." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent lead additions

@VenusFeuerFalle: Thanks for trying to improve this article. Unfortunately, the recent additions to lead were problematic for a few reasons, some substantive and some linguistic. You didn't cite page numbers, so I can't consult the sources you're attempting to summarize. If you'd like to have them in the lead, please explain what you're trying to convey and why this belongs in the lead. In order:

1. sharia during the classical era, lacked any codification comparable to Western law, rather the jurists followed their own opinion, derived from earlier reports. It's true that classical sharia wasn't codified and I agree that we could make that clearer in the lead. I think you're suggestion to mention the Mejelle is a good one. Noting that it was the first codification of sharia will help make that clearer. I'll make that modification. However, the comparison to "Western law" isn't really appropriate, in part because the term is unclear. The history of Western law includes a number of different legal traditions, some codified, some not, and some in between. Also, the sort of opinion championed Ahl ar-Ra'y is something quite different from the methodology of legal opinion in classical Islamic law.
2. The first codification of sharia was introduced by Ottoman rulers with Mecelle in 1869,<ref> called by promulgated by their own legal code (qanun) I'm afraid this sentence is broken both syntactically and historically. the Qanun wasn't a codification of sharia and its emergence preceded the Mecelle by several centuries.
3. However, the idea of a possible future caliphate, strives for a sharia based on the four major lega-schools Aside from infelicitous grammar ("the idea... strives"), why the "however", and how is talking about the caliphate due in the lead? The idea of sharia has been championed by various modern movements, and in particular various Islamist movements that the previous sentence refers to. Only some of them have connected their call for implementation of sharia with a vision of caliphate, and we don't have space in the lead to classify their different platforms. I don't recall any of the general concise overviews of sharia in the standard references highlight the caliphate proponents, so doing it in the lead would be WP:UNDUE. If you find that this connection is prominently covered in RSs, please consider developing it with in the body of the article first, ideally based on sources that discuss the topic of the article in general terms, and not solely focusing on Al-Qaeda.

Eperoton (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Eperoton: thank you for contacting me. I will try to respond to each of the mentioned arguements:

1. The comparation to "Western law" was exactly that the source stated, thus I simply transmitted this expression, actually to avoid interpretation on my own. But since you mention it, the expression "Western law" is to ambigious and probably easy to get, while reading the source, but inappropriate for the Wikipedia-lead. I think we should only say, that "Sharia" was not codified earlier. This should make the point clear enough. (It implies the lack of codified law during the Classical era).

1. The law-code established by the Ottoman Sulta was, as far as I know called "Kanun-i Esasi". It is not the first "Qanun". Accordingly, the "Kanun-i Esasi", was the first codification, but not the first law-system called "Qanun". If I linked it to the article Qanun I am sorry for that. I think I wanted to link it to "Kanun-i Esasi" or Mecelle, but unintentionally linked it to the general "Qanun" article, that is, as you sayed, wrong.

1. The last point does not focus on Al Qaeda per se. It rather introduces the development of takfir during the late ottoman period until Islamism movments. In this specific context, introduces the establishment establishment of "Sharia law" based on the works of Hanbal, Hanifa and so on and afterthat states, that this would be the basis for "sharia-law" (unlike Classical islam, where much interpretation was left). I guess I can quote the sentence here: "These laws (the laws of the major school of law in Sunni Islam) gave rise to "sharia" law, which became the unibasis for all Sunni schools of Islam and, therefore, central to Sunnirojections of a future global caliphate." If you want to check the context on your own, you can find it on page 66. My intention was to mention the idea of "Sharia" in modern context. Sunnis usually do not think about a "Sharia" based on Ottoman Law or a "Divine guidiance", but usually call for a "sharia" based on the four Schools of Law during the early Abbasid period. This might explain why I used the term "however", since it differs from "sharia" during the Caliphates (no fiqh, no ruler ando so on). I thought it would explain the idea behind "sharia" in mdoern times, . Since the source specificly mentiones "Sunni ideas" and not "Wahhabi"- "Salafi ideas" (how it does somewhere else), I thought this can be taken into account as a general idea behind contemporary Sunni ideal of "Sharia". But the source might be biased due to its focus on "Takfir" and "Islamism movements" (although it is not limited to them, due to the focus it probably omit other arguements for alternative Sunni-Sharia projections). Since I gave you the page number, you can check the source and its claim by yourself. You can tell me that you think of it or edit it corresponding to that, you think would be the best for the article. The much more important addition (Mecelle) was made and I agrred with you, that the statement now is much better. --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: Thanks for the explanations. It sounds like we're in agreement on the first two points. On the last point, as I think you yourself suggest, since the emphasis of this book on takfiri movements, we should be cautious about using is as basis for general statements about sharia. Let me invite you to take a look at two concise discussions of the subject in standard academic references, both of which are cited for the current statement. One is the entry on sharia Knut Vikør wrote for The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Politics. He has a standard book on the subject at OUP, and this entry concludes with a very condensed discussion of sharia in the modern times. The other is the somewhat more detailed entry written for The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World by Ann Elizabeth Mayer, who's a leading authority on modern developments of sharia. I think these two entries should suffice to convey the complexity of these developments and diversity of perspectives. In particular, among those who have called for full implementation of sharia, some were Islamic scholars trained in traditional fiqh and some were political leaders who used this rhetoric loosely. I tried to summarize this in the lead very briefly, drawing on Vikør's formulation. Let me know if you think the current formulation needs improvement based on these more general sources. The lead aside, the body of this article is still missing the entire topic of the modern development of sharia. I've been meaning to write it for a while now. Hopefully, soon. Eperoton (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Excuse my late respond: You have intriguing sources here, and "Politics" are not my main-focus. I rather touched this topic by accident and thought of making a contributation to this article. I remembered it as incomplete, especially, that alwas bothered me here, is that it does not say much about, that "sharia" actually is or how it developes. My other edit seems to be better fitting into anther section. Unfortunetely, I do not have the time for the following month to make major edits (apart from these I did the last two days. I wanted to do them, before I take a short break). But I am fine with you changes. Although I think this article still needs improvement, I will currently not be able to do much here. Thanks for dicussion--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Referenced Maddhabs

I'm just going to start a discussion here on the referencing of Jafari school of thought from Shia Islam as @Emir_of_Wikipedia reverted my removal from the article. I personally based on my knowledge of Sunni, Sufi, Shia and even Ahamaddiya Islam do not know if there is any reason to reference Jafari. It appears this inclusion is based on a the Oxford Dictionary of Islam referencing that Azhar University compares it to be a fifth Maddhab. That said Shia Islam on its own is not orthodox or considered mainstream and represents a super minority of the Muslim World. Jafari school of thought is one of several in Shia Islam which means its an even smaller fraction of the minority Shia sect. While Oxford is generally a pretty prestigious university their Islamic Studies academics tend to be atheists, ex-muslims, sufis or shias so their writings tend to come from a non-mainstream point of view and not something most Muslims would consider to be authoritative or even credible. Bkerensa (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)