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

Why is Greece included in the map?[edit]

The majority of Greeks are Greek Orthodox (basically another form of Christianity). Why is the specific country include in the map? Just doesn't make any sense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euclidthalis (talkcontribs) 20:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Quran's authenticity and abrogation[edit]

@Code16: I like your expansion of the Disagreements on Quran section with Wansbrough's Theory and Burton's argument. However, those sub-sections are becoming overweighted and the three sub-sections in it do not summarize Wansbrough, Burton or others in the context of Sharia, the focus on this article. I propose we move your constructive contribution to Quran's Tafsir and/or Naskh (tafsir) articles of wikipedia, and retain a summary here (see WP:SUMMARY) as it relates to Sharia. What are your and other's thoughts? RLoutfy (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I agree, a summary would suffice, as long as it is balanced (previously only Wansbrough's side was presented.) Code16 (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@Code16: I don't think a section on abrogation is needed in this Sharia article since it is too off-topic. Regards. --HakimPhilo (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@HakimPhilo: That's fine, I don't have a problem with removing the entire section, as long as both sides of the argument get affected and not just the counterargument to Wansbrough. Code16 (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Code16: Abrogation section is important given its historical and current role in Sharia. There are dozens of recent reliable sources, and this article would improve if we summarize them. I agree with you that balance is necessary and all sides should be summarized for WP:NPOV. I have over 25 recent sources on abrogation and its impact on Sharia in my office, but no time to summarize them for wikipedia. Perhaps you can take the lead, and I will help along when I find time. If you are busy too, please keep an eye. I will get to it in the coming weeks, and would appreciate your critical eye on anything I add and revise on abrogation. RLoutfy (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@RLoutfy: Sounds good, if you have more sources then I'll wait as there's no point in summarizing before another expansion is incoming. Although, if you have enough material, it might be better to start another page with a redirect posted here, as this is an important issue that deserves a dedicated page. The redirect would also be relevant for the "History of the Quran" wiki. This page is on my watchlist in any case and I'll keep an eye out. Code16 (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Dear @RLoutfy:. The subject of naskh (which is part of usul al-tafsir) is absolutely off-topic in an article on Sharia. I don't see how you can claim that it had "an important" role throughout history. Regards. --HakimPhilo (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @HakimPhilo, you are getting WP:TE and disruptive with your repetitive, opinionated, forum-style lectures on this talk page. If you have a cite for "naskh is absolutely off-topic to sharia", provide it here. The cites in the article already make it abundantly clear that "abrogration is important to sharia". RLoutfy (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable cite[edit]

@BoogaLouie: is not WP:RS. I have removed it, but left the text for now. If these claims are widely accepted, you should be able to find and cite a recent peer-reviewed reliable source, such as a scholarly book, journal article, or other reliable secondary/tertiary source. RLoutfy (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie, Such incomplete cites you restored are unacceptable: Chapra, M.U. (1985), Towards a Just Monetary System, Leicester: The Islamic Foundation. Do you have the pg numbers, etc. I have a version of the 7 page 1985 paper by M Umer Chapra in front of me, but it doesn't use the word Sharia anywhere nor does it state or imply what you claim it does. Which page number supports what you allege it does? RLoutfy (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I think I made a mistake with the Chapra, cite. I cannot find the original source for it. Here it is! <ref name=Chapra_2000_118>Chapra, M.U. (2000), ''The Future of Economics: An Islamic Perspective'', Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, p.118
It's from:
p.281, Sairally, Salma. 2007. Evaluating the `social responsibility` of Islamic finance: Learning from the experiences of socially responsible investment funds. In Advances in Islamic economics and finance: Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Islamic Economics and Finance, Vol. 1 ed. Munawar Iqbal, Salman Syed Ali and Dadang Muljawan, pp.279-320. Jeddah: Islamic Research and Training Institute, Islamic Development Bank.
Sorry about that!
As for, has there been an incident where it was found to have been inaccurate? if not what exactly, if anything, has made it "not WP:RS"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@BoogaLouie, Blogs and websites such as are questionable sources and SPS and often primary sources. Such sources cannot be used in this or other wiki articles. We should find, rely on and cite a recent peer-reviewed reliable source, such as a scholarly book, journal article, or other reliable secondary/tertiary sources. If a view is broadly held by scholars, you should have no difficulty in finding such recent sources. RLoutfy (talk) 06:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
In my defense I'll say that at first glance OnIslam looked too busy, too thick with sections and stories ("Ask the scholar", "Ask the counselor"), and too slick to be self-published. On further examination there is no "About us" link, the "scholar" and "counselor" aren't identified, and some (all?) of the functions don't work -- click any "ask" link and no question box to fill appears. SO maybe it can't be called a blog or even self-published, but it sure ain't transparent. I will not contest your deletion of it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Opinion: the Introductory section drafting—not the content—has serious flaws[edit]

Just thought that this (now archived) post by Hunterhogan was left without attention, I restored it here so that it receives more interest: (--CounterTime (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC))

Drafting vs. content[edit]

The introduction section might have content errors, but my comment here is emphatically not about the reliability of any statement in the introduction. Said differently, I am not discussing the content of the introduction. I do believe that the drafting (all aspects of writing) of the introduction has flaws that could cause confusion and misunderstanding; I also believe that the drafting has ambiguous statements, has statements that are imprecise enough as to accidentally produce a false statement, and has some non-obvious grammar errors that damage the intended meaning of the statement.

My opinion, an informed opinion, but still an opinion[edit]

Clear drafting, especially legal drafting ("sharia" means "law"), is an art not a science. In some situations, a person can objectively state, "This sentence is ambiguous." Most legal drafting, however, is subjective—is style—and describing something as subjective is how lawyers, politicians, and philosophers say "this is my opinion" without admitting they are expressing an opinion. I will admit, however, that this comment is mostly an opinion: my opinion.

Some drafting in the introduction is objectively flawed. The article begins, for example, with «Sharia (Arabic: شريعة‎ šarīʿah, ... "legislation" ...) is the moral code and religious law of Islam. The Arabic word ‘Šarīʿa (شريعة)’ means ‘law’...» (Arrow quote marks so I could preserve the punctuation of the original article.) There are multiple problems with the drafting here, but I will only point out the most obvious, and most important, error: the exact same word (including capitalization) "شريعة" is transliterated, capitalized, and translated in two different ways. To many readers, especially native-English readers who come from cultures that have a legal system rooted in the English common law system, the difference between "legislation" and "law" is trivial. In many legal systems, and in many languages, however, the difference is significant. Nevertheless, quality drafting, especially legal drafting, consistently translates a word, and when a translation deviates from the norm, the deviation is well explained.

The majority of the drafting that I believe is flawed is not objective: it is my opinion. It is true that I have significant experience with and intensive training in legal drafting, so my knowledge of legal drafting is above average. Nevertheless, an informed opinion is still an opinion. I am not claiming to have omnipotent drafting skills or that my views are authoritative. Furthermore, one of my best skills is creating typographical errors: I never trust my first draft, and I do not judge others for their typos in non-final drafts. And nothing on Wikipedia is a final draft.

Within this narrow scope, some examples of (potential) flaws[edit]

  1. As mentioned, translating the same word two different ways without explaining the discrepancy
  2. Translations from multiple other languages without citation
  3. Because "sharia" directly translates to "law" the phrase "sharia law" is tautologous, and it creates confusion: what is the difference between "sharia" and "sharia law"? If there are two different phrases they should have two different meanings. If the meaning is the same, the phrase should be the same.
  4. Since my last visit to Wikipedia's Manual of Style, it has expanded more quickly than the Big Bang, so I am unable to link to multiple excellent suggestions that I assume are still located somewhere in the MoS. I was able to find, however, the guideline that I believe is most important to this introduction; it is based on the seminal and peerless Elements of Style by Strunk and White, and I personally summarize the guideline as "Make every word tell." See Wikipedia's explanation, Be concise. (Yes, I am aware that I tend to draft text walls instead of concise text. "Vigorous writing is concise." (Strunk and White, supra.) It follows that concise writing requires vigorous effort. I reserve that effort for necessary situations.)
  5. Punctuation usage, especially quote marks, is inconsistent
  6. Within the introduction, capitalization of sharia is consistent (lower-case), but there are potential issues:
    1. Within the article, sharia is sometimes capitalized, implying a proper noun
    2. Other Wikipedia articles that directly discuss sharia sometimes capitalize the word
    3. I am not an expert on sharia (that's why I was reading the article!), but I suspect that a well-drafted article that discusses sharia will meticulously capitalize sharia when referring to an object or group of objects that is discrete and distinct but use lowercase when using the word sharia as a synonym, or translation, for law (or even "Islamic religious law"). Compare to the use of the word "code" in the term Lieber Code: even though "code" is a synonym for rule, a simple noun, when discussing the Lieber Code, it is a specific set of rules and the word "code" becomes a proper noun, which requires capitalization.
  7. Inaccurate contrasts: in one place, for example, the article states that sharia has "sexual intercourse" provisions and contrasts this with "secular law". Secular law absolutely has "sexual intercourse" provisions, but the article appears to suggest that sex is not typically covered by secular law. It's not clear if the original drafter intended to imply this, which is why I believe this is a drafting issue and not a content issue.
  8. Poor word choices (e.g., "...precepts set forth in the Quranic verses..." when the Quran contains both precepts and specific rules)
  9. Poor ordering of words (e.g., "The introduction of sharia is a longstanding goal for Islamist movements globally..."; "globally" is in the wrong place)
  10. Loaded words (e.g., "...attempts to impose sharia..."; yikes! "Impose" is a loaded word and unnecessary)
  11. Minor, but noticeable, grammar errors (e.g., a superfluous comma to separate only two items in serious)
  12. Minor, but noticeable (and sometimes confusing), deviations from Wikipedia formatting guidelines (e.g., not italicizing foreign words)

Why did I write a talk-page section that is longer than the article introduction?[edit]

As I was reading the article, I noticed these issues, and I clicked the edit link to make some changes. I quickly stopped, however, because I do not get involved in edit wars or revert wars. This article is locked, and that signals a high potential for edit wars. I expect that most, or all, of my edits will quickly be discarded either through revision or reversion. Instead of wasting my time on edits that will not last as long as the decay of a Higgs boson, I decided to first share my views here. If other editors agree, then the introduction will improve even if my specific edits are not adopted. سلام (Peace) hunterhogan (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)