Talk:Sharia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:


External Link leads to Page no Found[edit]

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)

Dispute that only 2 source for Sharia[edit]

Someone explain why it is improper to diverge from Quran or Hadith/Sunnah, with regards to the proper interpretation of LAW? to the underlaying unity of all life so that the voice of intuition may guide us closer to our common keeper (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Administrators of Sharia[edit]

Please add a new section to this article explaining who renders verdicts according to Sharia. There is little or no mention of this "Sultan, Government Authorities", whom is deemed capable of judging based on Sharia. For instance, in America, there is the Supreme Court and several of the federal and appeals courts. Is there a council of elders, or a ruler, who is the accepted judge? Are parents capable of administering Sharia Law unto their children? Answer these and add this topic to the article. to the underlaying unity of all life so that the voice of intuition may guide us closer to our common keeper (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge with Sharia Law[edit]

I can't see the need for distinction between this page and https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law Maybe the info on the Sharia Law page should be moved into a section on this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.30.12.130 (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem now: Sharia law and Islamic law redirect to here. Wikiain (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead changes[edit]

I've been eyeing this muddled article for a about a year now. Though I may not be the "expert in Islam" that the banner calls for, I did read some recent academic textbooks and a bunch of encyclopedic entries on the subject in preparation. I've started by rewriting some confused and woefully incomplete parts of the lead. I'm trying to tread lightly on the political controversies, but I did replace the sensationalistic and misleading passage about modern history (among other issues, Saudi Arabia is the only country that attempts to run a traditional system with uncodified laws, independent jurists, and qadi courts; it's certainly not the only country to "practice sharia", whatever that means) with an account that I think reflects academic sources in substance and tone, though I cited only one which presents a concise summary of the subject. Eperoton (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

There are some sources I have which would be very useful for this project. I have two of the books by Hallaq on PDF that I can email via PDF to anyone interested in this subject. Professor Hallaq is probably the most respected source in this field.
  • Hallaq, B. Wael, “The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law” CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, New York. ISBN-13 978-0-511-26407-8
  • Hallaq, “A History of Islamic Legal Theories: An Introduction to Sunni Usul Al-fiqh.”
  • Hallaq, “An Introduction to Islamic Law.”

cӨde1+6TP 14:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, Hallaq's writings need to be given considerable weight. I've read his "Introduction" and I'm half way through the green "Sharia" book. I suspect "A History of Islamic Legal Theories" is not one of your PDFs, but if it is, I would appreciate a copy. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

@Eperoton: That one I had to buy in hardcopy. But I'll provide two key references from it below which should be included in this article, with emphasis. The following facts are completely downplayed by the mainstream scholars, and if this article is to be fixed, it should include the following facts:

  • "... the underlying assumption, coupled with the conclusive authoritativeness of consensus, gives rise to the doctrine that consensus is superior to the Quran as well as to the Sunna... This superiority means that whenever a consensus is reached on a particular matter, the textual evidence resorted to in this consensus becomes, even though it may only be a solitary report (non mutawattir), superior to any competing evidence, including evidence from the Quran and the concurrent Sunna." Hallaq, "A History of Islamic Legal Theories: An Introduction to Sunni Usul Al-fiqh." pg 76

This shows that scholars formulating sharia have elevated their own verdicts above that of the Quran. This is why their sharia can contradict the Quran, because they have made their own authority supersede that of God (surprise!) Secondly, what is also important and needs to be communicated, is that the authority for this "consensus" of scholars, (which is used as the cornerstone of all sharia models) lacks a basis in logic, or the Quran or the authentic mutwattir hadith sources. The following quote shows this:

  • "We now turn to the third source, consensus, which guaranteed not only the infallibility of those legal rulings (or opinions) subject to juristic agreement but also the entire structure of the law... The universal validity of consensus could not be justified by reason, since Muslims held that entire communities or “nations” could go, and indeed had gone, wrong even on important issues. Consensus, therefore, had to be grounded in the Quran and/or the Sunna. But early attempts by theoreticians to articulate a Quranic basis for consensus failed, since the Quran did not offer evidence bearing directly on it. No less disappointing were the recurrent Prophetic reports (mutawattir hadith) which contained virtually nothing to this effect. All that were available were solitary reports speaking of the impossibility of the community on the whole ever agreeing on an error." Hallaq, "An Introduction to Islamic Law.", pg 21

What ended up happening, basically, is that the early scholars essentially cheated on their own rules, and collected a bunch of weaker hadiths and said that their prevalence afforded their claim an authentic status. This was against their own rules for authenticity originally, as only the Quran and mutawattir hadiths could offer an absolute basis. Source: Hallaq, "A History of Islamic Legal Theories: An Introduction to Sunni Usul Al-fiqh." pg 75-76 We actually discussed the mutawattir issue during the rebuild of the Criticism of Hadith article. It also sourced a paper by Hallaq.

Finally, another aspect, which can be included, is that the ones who were formulating the sharia had become dependent on state patronage, and therefore they could no longer be considered unbiased. I think that would be relevant here as well:

  • "Whereas the pursuit of knowledge in the earliest centuries was, generally speaking, done for its own sake, or, more accurately, for the sake of epistemic and social prestige (and no doubt propelled by a deep sense of religiosity), it had now come to pass that knowledge was being acquired for the sake of a competitive edge, which in part led back to the acquisition of social prestige... a venue for garnering political, economic and social capital. Furthermore, once knowledge itself became (as a source of income) commodified, its standards were manipulated as the need arose." Hallaq, "An Introduction to Islamic Law.", pg 54-55

I've written an essay on this subject on my blog, so that's why I have these references already collected. cӨde1+6TP 15:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll need to reflect these points with due weight somewhere between this and more detailed articles. First, however, I think this article needs a major overhaul to sort out the pervasive confusion between sharia-based legal systems from different historical periods.
To make sure others aren't misled by your use of the word "mainstream": Hallaq is as mainstream a scholar as you can get in this field. He just happens to be an innovative one. Eperoton (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
to clarify, by "mainstream" I meant the traditional scholars of the sunni/shia fiqh. Hallaq is definitely mainstream by academic standards. cӨde1+6TP 19:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)