Jump to content

Talk:Sharia/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Pagans

Presumably the word 'pagan' is intended to denote a non-Muslim - as a statement of fact, as opposed to an example of historical usage. As a non-Muslim I find this offensive - and I would be equally offended by a supposedly objective article on some aspect of Christianity that referred to non-Christians as 'pagans' in a similar way. Certainly it is not balanced, neutral, or particularly scholarly. Where the word 'pagan' is used in this way it should be replaced by 'non-Muslim'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneedy (talk • contribs) 23:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, and the word pagan does have more than one definition. But the term is commonly used to describe a person that does not follow an Abrahamic tradition, in other words a person who is neither a Christian, Jew or Muslim. That is the way it is used in this article, to distinguish Muslims, Jews, Christian and other religions (pagans) from each other. So the article does not refer to Christians and Jews as pagans. Some people may consider it a derogatory term, but it is not used that way in the article. It's used to describe a person whose religion does not accept the God of Abraham, Moses, David, Noah, etc.

Princeton wordnet defines pagan as: heathen: not acknowledging the God of Christianity and Judaism and Islam

Wikipedia: Paganism (from Latin paganus, meaning "country dweller", "rustic") is a blanket term used to refer to various polytheistic, non Abrahamic religious traditions. ...

Aquib (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Normally the term should be avoided but it is used to describe the religion of a tribe living in Mecca over a thousand years ago. TFD (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Sneedy brings up a good point, the word "pagan" is problematic because of its other connotations. I'm not sure what could be used in its place though; "non-Muslim" doesn't work. Courbage and Fargues use the word "heathen" - also problematic. Bernard Lewis clearly prefers the word "pagan". Aquib (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This article desperately needs a link to a complete transcription (copy? listing? something) of Sharia. If there is no single location/book/etc. where you can read the full and complete Sharia then we MUST note that fact prominently for the reader. As currently written, it assumes the reader has at least a basic understanding of Sharia and each section gives only a bare bones statement of what it is about - no detail. Acceptable for this article, but not complete.Aaaronsmith (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Aaron, I am interested in the fact you came away from the article with this impression. The second paragraph of the article states All Muslims believe Sharia is God's law, but they have differences among themselves as to exactly what it entails.[1] Modernists, traditionalists and fundamentalists all hold different views of Sharia, as do adherents to different schools of Islamic thought and scholarship. Different countries and cultures have varying interpretations of Sharia as well.
Reliance of the Traveler is fairly comprehensive for Shafi' fiqh, but I'm not familiar with sound modern English translations for the other schools, although I assume they exist. I have heard that roughly 75% of Sharia law is common across Sunni schools. The Salafis have a different view of fiqh (interpretation and formalization of Sharia), as do the Shia and others. Which leads to the diffuse definition of Sharia; the point being there is no one source.
I am interested in your thoughts in this regard Aquib (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The point is: I have read the Koran and wanted to read the "second" book of islam. I tried various bookstores (including religious) and then searched the web. I have not been able to find any comprehensive publication of Sharia. It'l almost as if it only exists in the minds of the judges and they argue about whether they're remembering right.
Where can the reader of this article learn about Sharia. The article really only tells WHAT it is - no detail.Aaaronsmith (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
[Reliance of the Traveler] is a very common version of Sharia law that can be purchased from Amazon. It's used heavily in the article.

Aquib (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I found ISLAM Its Law and society by Jamila Hussain a very informative and readable introduction to Islamic law. It gives a matter-of-fact treatment and doesn't indulge in apologetics. If you want to get a good overview without descending into the minutiae, it's likely to be a better starting point than a fully fledged legal handbook. As a non-Muslim myself, I have no idea how it might be viewed by adherents to that faith. However, the author is herself a convert to Islam, and a senior academic with a diploma in Sharia Law and practice, and she teaches Islamic and Asian law at a respectable tertiary institution, so I have no reason to question her reliability.
One possible disadvantage is that the book was specifically directed towards an Australian audience, so there may be a few allusions which non-Australians might find obscure, but I doubt if there would be any more than a handful of these (if, indeed, there are any at all).
David Wilson (talk · cont)
Sounds interesting, she is an expert on comparative law. This should be a good one to read. Aquib (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Aaron, you bring up a good point: the topic is vast and complex. The uninitiated reader will have trouble sorting through this material to find further reading if they are interested in learning more.
I have added a Further reading section to the end of the article. It includes a popular Quran translation, a Sunni hadith collection, and the book on Islamic law David suggested. I was not confident of being able to identify a sound English translation of Shia hadith, hopefully someone can add a reference. Maybe this new section will give the reader some contextual cues as to the role Sharia law plays in Islam, and how it relates to the primary texts - the Quran and the hadith.
Thanks and regards, Aquib (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thank you all for the help.
Question - I was educated as an engineer. If it exists, I would like a complete list of ALL hadith with notations to indicate which ones are applicable to which of the (19???) Muslim sects. Does such a thing exist anywhere in the world?
Thank you.Aaaronsmith (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Aaron, I would like to have that as well, and I have looked around for it before. There may be something along those lines somewhere, but I haven't seen it. Please let me know if you find one. Scholars such as Imams Shafi and Hanif would have reasoned their positions carefully and documented their reasoning, but these discourses would fill volumes, and only cover their single school's positions at a given point in time. Having said that, one can easily trace the broad outlines of Sharia after having read the Quran and a couple of abridged versions of the hadith accounts.Aquib (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Aquib american muslim. May I make a suggestion? Personally I would prefer the "further reading" section to be moved as close to the main body as possible. Above the "references" if Wiki policy permits. In this (special?) case, I think the further reading is the most important/informative part of the article.Aaaronsmith (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no WP policy on this, but it would conflict with guidance in the Manual of Style — see WP:FOOTERS. If the Further reading section is the most important/informative part of the article, the article probably needs a lot of work. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The article really does not tell what Sharia is. It is like describing a Ford as a car, made in America, mainly driven in America but available in other countries, etc. So? What kind of car and what makes it different/special/unique, etc.Aaaronsmith (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Countries_with_Sharia_rule.png

The image at File:Countries_with_Sharia_rule.png needs updating to iadd "Regional lavel" coloring for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao in the Philippines. See Article III Section 5 here. Also note that the description page of the image is tagged "This file is lacking source information. Please edit this file's description and provide a source.". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

POV tag on Democracy and human rights section

Could the tagging editor summarize how this section fails NPOV? Tijfo098 (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

democracy and human rights

This is an article on Sharia law. Just because the rulers of a particular country happen to be Muslim does not mean their actions are in accordance with Sharia law. There is a good deal of text in this section discussing "Islamic countries" or "Muslim countries", terms which are not synonymous with "countries ruled by Sharia law". It is a bit off-topic.

There is also a good deal of elaboration on the thoughts of certain individuals here. To the point where they begin to take over the section.

In addition, there is a lot of space dedicated to a synopsis of an editorial.

Other than that, the section is a disjointed mess with a text box stuck in the middle for emphasis.

Aquib (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"thoughts of certain individuals here" as opposed to the thoughts of Allah? If you think some specific individual among the scholars and jurists cited should not be cited, then challenge their expertise by naming the unworthy ones here. I have no strong opinion on the Free Inquiry quote. I moved it from another article where it was even less on-topic. That quote could be removed as far as I'm concerned. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
wp:npov, wp:talk. You are quick to bring God into the conversation. You should try making your case on its merits instead. Aquib (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I will begin with the premise the section presents two points of view deserving equal consideration. From this perspective, a raw survey of the section yields around 35 negative assertions (sentences and citations), counterbalanced by 11 positives.

There two ways to address this condition.

I can go out and bring back more elaborative discourses from Drs Khan, Glenn and others (perhaps some of the voices previously in the article which have since been removed). I can delve the counterpoints, such as Pippin's refutation of Khan, to bring in further voices and extend this debate ad-infinitum. This approach is not encyclopedic.

The preferred alternative is to present the opposing viewpoints on the topics in an organized, balanced way. This will require some trimming of sourced material. However, I am not interested in removing viewpoints from this article, as has been done in the past.

Aquib (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of revisionist historiography of Islamic law

This section contains material which is not relevant to the article. Aquib (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me revise this statement to say I'm not sure how relevant the material is specifically to this article at this point in time. There was in fact material in this article at one time to which this section might apply, but it has been removed. In any case, it is certainly unbalanced, as I know for a fact there are many academics and professionals that hold differing views on the more general topic of Islamic history. I am not interested in suppressing viewpoints, as has been previously done here. The material needs to be collapsed and folded into the contemporary topics sections somehow, to reduce the relative footprint of the material, or it needs to be counterbalanced with some of the voices which were previously in the article and have since been silenced. Aquib (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

incorrect information

"Homosexual activity is illegal under Sharia; however, the prescribed penalties differ from one school of jurisprudence to another. For example, these Muslim-majority countries may impose the death penalty for sodomy and homosexual activities: Iran,[173]Nigeria,[174] Saudi Arabia,[175] Somalia.[176] In contrast, in some Muslim-majority countries such as Indonesia (outside of Aceh province),[177] Jordan, Turkey, Egypt and Iraq same-sex sexual acts are legal.[178]"

Homosexuality is illegal in Egypt. People have been receiving convictions there even lately and this has garnered international attention. this is available on the Wikipedia article on LBGT rights in Egypt.

As for Jordan.. it is decriminalized... however: "In 1951, a revision of the national criminal code decriminalized private, adult, non-commercial and consensual sodomy, with the age of consent set at 16.[1].

Periodic government crackdowns on homosexuals tends to focus on male cruising, public displays of affection and prostitution. In 2008, Saad Manasir, Governor of Amman, pledged to continue with the crackdown until, "we eradicate any trace of male homosexuals in the society." [1]

While legal, traditional Islamic morality deems it to be a sin and there have been reports of bias motivated crimes, including murder, directed at LGBT Jordanians. Often these crimes are vigilante honor killings directed at a family member whose "illicit" sexuality is seen as bringing shame to the family. In 1999, a Jordanian family living in the United States repeatedly beat their adult daughter and attempted to forcibly return her home after they discovered that she was gay [2].

This abuse does not appear to be official government policy, although the government seems reluctant to come to the aid of such an unpopular class of people [2]. The Jordanian criminal code does provide lesser penalties for a man killing his wife or kin for engaging in "illicit" sexual relations [3],"

From the article on jordan.

From the article on LBGT Rights in Iraq:

"Homosexuality has been decriminalized - but is still considered a taboo by the majority of the population in Iraq. Many LGBT people in the country suffer from discrimination, abuse, honor killings and murder. There are even allegations that uniformed Iraqi police officers have carried out lethal attacks on homosexuals. As a result some LGBT human rights groups have described Iraq as one of the world's most dangerous places for LGBT people to live."

Somebody is attempting to whitewash the Shariah perspective on LBGT rights. Or its lack there of.

Judderwocky (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaking Sharia law for the legal systems of Muslim majority countries. They are two different things.
Homosexual activity is illegal according to Sharia law, however the national laws of Muslim majority countries are not the same as Sharia law. Muslim majority countries have legal systems that include varying degrees of Sharia law. They range from liberal to conservative, from secular to religious, from democratic to totalitarian.
If you disagree, I would ask you to post a quote from a reliable source, with page number, supporting your position.
This paper supports my position. Notice the last sentence under the section titlesd "gender discrimination" on page 28. This paper was written by a university professor and published by a university press for the use of policy makers in the European Union. Your citation needs to be from as good a source as this one in order to have any significance.
Aquib (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

please insert info on custody of child under "divorce"-it's locked for me

quick note:

under Islamic law, custody was usually given to the husband, not the wife, unless reasons were given for evidence the husband could not support the child, etc. The wife retained custody until the child reached a certain age (usually age 7), but it differed according to the madhab. There are a lot of sources for this and is generally known by anyone with any grounding in Islamic law (or who has lived in a predominately Muslim country for any length of time) so I'm surprised by this error.

http://www.islamic-sharia.org/children/islamic-perspective-on-child-custody-after-divorce.html and M. Zahraa, The concept of custody in Islamic law.

pov in this article seems confused at times. I understand the wish to remove misconceptions perpetrated by those with little understanding of law, but islamic law should not be re-written to parallel common law because that's the new trend;. This assumption in common law that a woman should get custody is one mostly rooted in a sexism and view on female duty that was not present in Islamic law. Islamic law was revolutionary, I think, in not ascribing child-rearing as a wife's duty, but instead placing the burden on the husband of the responsibility of any children borne, even after divorce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.74.249 (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, not saying anything about your website, but religious websites of any sort are not generally considered the most "reliable" sources, as they tend to support a particular, perhaps not well-understood, POV. And less well-known websites are generally singled out as questionable sources when the material is disputed.
Your point is however, taken. The issue you have identified may be more of a gap than a POV.
This subject obviously bears discussion, but could get complex. As you can see, much of the material on marriage is generalized. I have al-Misri (p. 552-553) stating the woman has no right to her children when she remarries, as her duty is to her new family - and also the new husband has no incentive to love the child (not my opinion, that's what the book says). In addition, when the child reaches the age of discrimination, 7-8 years old, the child may choose. It appears the period of time we are discussing is that between the weaning and the age of discrimination. Again, I'm generalizing on one reliable mainstream opinion from the Shafi school here. -Aquib (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Done. Hope it holds up. Aquib (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Improper writing

"Shia jurists replace qiyas analogy with 'aql, reasoning." This is a whole sentence in the article, but its clearly missing peices and I'm not sure what they are. Anyone more familiar should change it to be less improper Chardansearavitriol (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out -Aquib (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph is poorly written/irrelevant at best and erroneous at worst. It should probably be removed. Arguments for removal, based on each line:


"One contribution Islamic law made to Western law, was the legal procedure."
There are plenty of legal procedures that are pre-Islamic (Roman Law) that are still used in parts of western law today. We may re-write to say that Islamic law has affected western law, but that somehow it was the seed of western legal procedure is erroneous.

"Until the Crusades, legal procedure in the West often consisted of "God's judgments" by boiling water (or another "ordeal") or by duel."
First all both ordeals and dueling continued long after the crusades. In many states in U.S. the practice of dueling is still not specifically banned by law. So any implication that contact with Islamic culture ended these practices in the west is erroneous. Next, it is implied that ordeals where the main method of determining cases. It wasn't. And it wasn't always the ordeal itself that determined guilt or innocence but the threat of it.

"By contrast, Islamic law decided on the basis of proof and allowed the defendants to express freely, a practice that had been established in the time of the second Caliph of Islam, Umar."
Proof and open testimony existed in pre-Islamic Europe. (Roman Law, Scots Law, etc.)

"Marcel Boisard argues that these procedures were transmitted to Europe via Louis IX, who instituted several reforms upon returning from the Crusades."
Just because it's in a book doesn't mean it's true. What is his argument? What are the procedures? What are the reforms? How did they influence modern western law? These reforms did not stop Louis IX from continuing the Inquisition, btw. If we want to change the focus to those reforms, that would be good, but even then post-crusade French law is not the basis of modern western law (except maybe in France).


--65.80.41.185 (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

--no one is taking it seriously so I am editing the section. I welcome arguements. 68.18.118.187 (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Leaving Islam/Converting to other faith/Apostasy

Apostasy is a serious enough counter to the Western world's insistence on modern religious freedom that it should have its own section in this article, as the controversy is really rooted in Sharia. But what to call it? The obvious answer is "Apostasy" - but the regular internet user won't know what that means. The regular user will however know what "Freedom of Religion" means, or "Freedom to leave Islam" or "Leaving Islam." Some such headline might work better. I'll take a bold stab and feel free to change the heading. Pär Larsson (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if Salman Rushdie belongs here. Someone biased for Sharia will probably say No, someone biased against will likely say Yes - as him being accused and persecuted for his writings, called an "apostate" is really the main thing the rest of the world thinks of when they hear "sharia" coupled with "fatwa" and anything to do with Islamic religious freedom (was that an oxymoron?). It's bold, I'll give you that. Someone campaigning for Sharia to be seen in a moderate, peaceful light would likely disagree. The header could also use fixing, as could where exactly in the article this should be discussed, as it's rather more prominent in world affairs than its previous hiding under the sub-sub-heading of Penalties would suggest. I eagerly await the judgement of the internets. Pär Larsson (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Oops, forgot. I am not neutral but edited anyway. I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men and Women are equal before the Law ...etc, etc. Life, Liberty, the pursuit of Happiness and so on. Freedom of Press, Religion you know the deal.Pär Larsson (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The truth should be sufficient. -Aquib (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:V sufficiency is citation of a reliable supporting source (e.g., [1]). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I always had a sneaky suspicion that truth was unreliable. :) Pär Larsson (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Well it should be sufficient. Verifiability will have to do for now! -Aquib (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This person who enjoys making bots with arrogant names like "SmackBot" needs a bit of a smackdown imho as the bot apparently does not actually read the citations before editing in "Not in citation." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article531110.ece "died preparing an attack 'on the apostate Rushdie'."Pär Larsson (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Bottom line, your use of the word "persecution" is subjective and controversial. Basically for our purposes, persecution is punishment and abuse meted out wrongly. But apostasy in Islam is not just a rejection of the religion of Islam, it is a rejection of Islamic law and the Islamic state. If we were discussing a treasonous act in our countries of origin, I wonder how this conversation, and this article section, would look.
Your use of the word "persecution" implies you have not just a reference, but a preponderance of world scholarly and expert opinion on your side. Yet your references do not even use the word persecution. This is, therefore, not even close to meeting the threshold for inclusion. It is a subjective opinion, your own opinion, until you back it up with references. Kindly replace the tags until you can nail this down. And I suggest you bring railroad spikes for nails. -Aquib (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for not having read the section properly before I posted the above reply. I am not familiar with these figures or their work. If Rushdie is indeed a proponent of a different interpretation of Islam, then this becomes a gray area. Nevertheless, persecution is a strong word. The question becomes at what point does a Muslim's interpretation of their faith go so far beyond the bounds of the mainstream they have indeed left their religion?. And in what regard would these notable figures mentioned in the article differ from any other apostate, other than their writings? One would usually consider apostasy a renunciation of faith, at what point does dissent cross the threshold to apostasy? Is this the difference between heresy and apostasy? I suppose so. And what are the implications of this distinctions? How does Islam compare to other religions in this regard, and how are the degrees measured? What are the punishments?
Perhaps at some point this must return to an examination of the intentions of the individual. It would seem to me this will remain a subjective approach, with examples being more or less questionable as to their intentions and the secrets of their hearts.
This is a matter I could do some more reading on. In the meantime, the use of the word persecution still needs a source.
Aquib (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sharia and Terrorism

Under Modern Perspectives > Revival of the religion > extremism, the article touches on the use of Sharia as justification or impetus toward extreme acts. (As what religious creed has not!) I think, particularly for the average viewer, there should be much more on the connection or disconnection between Sharia and terrorism, both historically and in its present manifestations. A bit more here, with relation to religious belief and practice, and perhaps a more complete section on this subject later, under Contemporary Issues. This is where I would go, as a visitor, to find out how Sharia is interpreted to endorse violence & jihad ... and, maybe more important, how scholars and Muslim leaders have defended Sharia and pointed out that it is not a justification and indeed has been considered antithetical to terrorist-style violence. This subject is not mentioned in the Contents, although many who are not familiar with Muslim beliefs would be eager to learn where Sharia stands on this. (By the way, I certainly would not make this the starting point of this article.) Pabloften (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a good point and one I have also considered. I have some material on jihad but I haven't gotten around to putting it in.
If I recall, it belongs under Topics of Sharia law > Justice. Discussion under contemporary topics seems likely, although I don't think it should take up much space and it may already be in there. I'm sure there are other articles that address contemporary aspects.
Sharia law forbids the harming of non-combatants; particularly the aged, the young and women. It also forbids most killing of livestock, poisoning of wells, damage to property etc unless it is in the direct line of combat. Under these rules, it is hard to imagine the use of weapons such as land mines as well as WMD; carpet bombing and strategic nuclear weapons directed at civilian targets - if not all nuclear weapons. -Aquib (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
"Sharia law forbids the harming of non-combatants", then why do the Hadith tell us different? "It also forbids most killing of livestock"?? The Qu'ran relates several occasions when "the Muslims" killed livestock and enslaved women and children. Please stop posing as an expert on Sharia, you clearly are not. (See: Ibn Ishaq, 468-469, esp 464; Ibn Ishaq, 490; Quran 4:24; and Abu-Dawud Sulaiman bin Al-Aash'ath Al-Azdi as-Sijistani, Sunan abu-Dawud, Ahmad Hasan, translator, Kitab Bhavan, 1990, Book 38, no. 4390.) SecularHumanist1789 (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri Reliance of the Traveler (edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller) P. 603. You can find this book on Amazon and search it for O9.10, it will come up in the list of hits on p. 603.
No, I am not an expert on Sharia. But I am citing a reliable source.
You cannot use the Quran or Hadith to directly support material in articles - that is called original research. You may however use these sources to illustrate a point supported by an acceptable source. You can find the rules at WP:Verifiability and particularly WP:MOS Islam.
On re-reading Al-Misri, it appears you are correct on the killing of livestock. I cannot find the reference to poisoning wells, and it is permissible to kill old men (older than 40).
Sharia does not permit the killing of non-combatant women and children, or animals (unless they are being ridden into battle.
The topic we are discussing is Sharia and terrorism. Are you suggesting the capture and enslavement of women and children is a form of terrorism? I rather thought we were discussing the killing of non-combatants to incite terror. Do terrorists take a lot of captives?
Your suggestion I am a liar or a sham is not acceptable. There are guidelines for article discussion, you can find them at WP:TALK. And be sure to take a look at WP:AGF, an assumption of good faith is key to our work. Kindly follow the rules and stay on the subject. I am here to discuss the subject of the article, not debate Islam.
Aquib (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Contact with Western powers

This bit: The Fundamentalist movement: Fundamentalists, wishing to return to basic religious values and law, have in some instances imposed harsh Sharia punishments for crimes, curtailed civil rights, and violated human rights. These movements are most active in areas of the world where there was contact with Western colonial powers. I see that it is footnoted, but it doesn't sound right. It sounds like it's trying to shift the blame for the cruelties of Sharia onto the West. Every corner of the world has had "contact" with Western powers, that's no excuse. I recommend that whatever the point was should be made more clearly, or else the paragraph should be deleted or incorporated elsewhere in the article. The Sanity Inspector (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"Opposition to Sharia from non-Muslims is rooted in the belief that it will impose upon them "no music, no art, no rights for women"."

I'm haven't been a user of Wikipedia for a long time, so I'm not entirely sure about all the rules and guidelines and how they apply to this. This "Opposition to Sharia from non-Muslims is rooted in the belief that it will impose upon them "no music, no art, no rights for women"." is an opinion stated as if it were a fact. I haven't come across this before on Wikipedia so I thought I'd point it out. I can think of plenty of beliefs that might cause non-Muslims to oppose Sharia. A non-Muslim might oppose Sharia because they believe that it will impose upon Muslims "no music, no art, rights for women", or impose death upon Muslims who commit apostasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon12356 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Map of the Muslim world with the main schools of Islamic law (madhhab)"

Turkey is included in your map although Sharia is banned in Turkey, perhaps some clarification is needed on what exactly this map is showing?

Anon12356 (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Large amount of text

User:Redheylin removed a lot of text and restructured the article (as of revision 425552535). I think some talk and verification is needed on this account. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 21:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I replaced it all - moving chronological material into sequence and promoting passages that give an overview of the entire field. Redheylin (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
We will need to understand why the more nuanced aspects of Sharia as it applies to modern Muslims have been deemphasized or eliminated, why the various implementations have been simplified, why the historic context has been deemphasized or eliminated. Looks like a lot of cited material is missing. Also noticing you are taking Sharia out of caps. If I were you, I wouldn't put a lot of effort into further changes, much or all of it could end up being undone. Aquib (talk)-
I have reverted your changes until I can understand what has been done. An explanation would be helpful. Thanks -Aquib (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Appreciate Aquib's action. Even if Redheylin's edits are correct, they need to be implemented after enough discussion. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 04:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
"Sharia as it applies to modern Muslims have been deemphasized or eliminated, why the various implementations have been simplified, why the historic context has been deemphasized or eliminated. Looks like a lot of cited material is missing." - Please give details of missing citations and eliminated material - as far as I am aware no material has been "eliminated". There has been talk of "removal of a large amount of text" but the history shows that only 500 characters have been saved due entirely to skilled copy-editing. You write "I have reverted your changes until I can understand what has been done." Please signify when you have understood - really I recommend understanding what you are doing before you do it in general. Since "sharia" is not a proper name it takes a lower case: "Use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not current in English." Further explanation above and in history: unify historical material, define important concepts early. Also the page is 3x standard length. I await your discussion - please refrain from making threats to destroy my work - remember you have given no valid reason for reversion. Thx. Redheylin (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I re-read and been through the revision history once again.
Redheylin's last revision seems good. I notice that,
  • Characteristics#Origins been merged into Historical development -- I'm OK with that. But Characteristics#Origins can be replaced with Characteristics#Sources or separate Sources of Sharia section would be good. This section shall tell that the sources of Sharia are: Qur'an, Sunnah/Hadith, Ijma, Qiyas
  • Characteristics#Fiqh been also merged into Historical development' -- But, section Characteristics#Fiqh can be kept, linking to Fiqh but giving a short brief about fiqh. In history section only historical development of fiqh may be kept.
  • Characteristics#Categories of human behavior been replaced to as Characteristics#Actions -- Good edit actually. Note of Wajib and Halal can be added though.
  • Definitions and descriptions#Traditional perspectives is rewritten as Characteristics#Traditional perspectives -- Shi'a, Sunni subsections can be kept as subsections, as they are highlighted as Islam's major sects.
  • Definitions and descriptions#Modern perspectives#Spectrum of Muslim legal systems section is moved to independent Legal systems section -- OK
  • Definitions and descriptions#Modern perspectives been moved to independent Modern perspectives section -- OK
  • Characteristics#Topics of Islamic law been moved to independent Topics of Islamic law -- OK
  • Topics of Islamic law has TOO LONG subsections, kept as is. -- Can be summarized by giving links to respective articles.
  • Historical developments and contemporary issues#Contemporary issues been moved to independent Contemporary issues section -- OK
  • Contemporary issues has TOO LONG subsections, kept as is. -- Can be summarized by giving links to respective articles.
All these points do not come to notice easily. So a talk about this is helpful to validate the change. The edit notes don't say, Restructured the article and rearranged text without reducing information :P - even this note might have saved us from confusion.
we can un-revert the edit, and go for further edits with care.
Let us remain cool and forget conflicts
--নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 16:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, NafSadh, comfort level rebounding here : ) But about the structure. People come to this article to understand what Sharia is. Does the reader now have to cover the entire article to get all the essentials? Isn't the interpretation of its current status and impact essential? I will follow NafSadh's guide through the article and make some notes at my earliest opportunity. Regards -Aquib (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
This section shall tell that the sources of Sharia are: Qur'an, Sunnah/Hadith, Ijma, Qiyas - will tell that this is a common view, while other views exist among Shia and moderns, as was done. Main definitions like this must appear together, giving all noteable views.
  • Characteristics#Fiqh been also merged into Historical development - only that portion that gives the chronological development of fiqh should appear in chronological order. Fiqh should be distinguished from Sharia early - as was done - and contrasted with state application of fiqh early - as was done.
Note of Wajib and Halal can be added though. Note of "halal" WAS added - and reverted.
Shi'a, Sunni subsections can be kept as subsections, as they are highlighted as Islam's major sects. No need - small sections dealing with same matter. Sects are already "highlighted" with wikilinks.
Restructured the article and rearranged text without reducing information - Sorry - nearly put you to the trouble of examining my edits before deleting things you now know are improvements. You should have put a notice that the page belongs to you.
Let us remain cool and forget conflicts - Let us experiment with remaining cool in the first place.
Topics of Islamic law has TOO LONG subsections, kept as is...Contemporary issues has TOO LONG subsections, kept as is. Agree - will merge to linked pages, but outline of scope of sharia needs to appear before or at the same time as the "controversies arising" - I suggest brief merged account of relevant topics. Redheylin (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Glad you approve most changes. Aquib - I believe it is best to introduce topics of sharia more briefly, with careful introduction of important Arabic terms and lots of links but little text. Brief notes of controversies can then appear in line, following directly from the "modern approaches" and maintaining historical integrity of article. My aim is a clear, accessible and sympathetic expounding of Islam. Redheylin (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
put a notice that the page belongs to you -- who tells the page belongs to someone? But the page belongs to the community and anyone do have the right to ask some clarification about the change that have been made. I was unsure and confused so was seeking info. I think this act shall not be observed as offensive.
N.B.: I have not deleted or reverted any of your changes--নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs
  • "This section shall tell that the sources of Sharia are: Qur'an, Sunnah/Hadith, Ijma, Qiyas - will tell that this is a common view, while other views exist among Shia and moderns, as was done. Main definitions like this must appear together, giving all noteable views." -- I mentioned giving notion of source, and as so the acceptance level of these sources and other sources might also be briefed.
  • Fiqh -- almost OK with the change; I suggest that, Characteristics#Fiqh can be there which will shortly note what fiqh is. Just and idea, or might be skipped as there it is in the lead. :-|
  • Note of "halal" WAS added - and reverted -- Was there a talk on it? if not can we go for a discussion involving reverting editor and some other editors?
  • Shi'a, Sunni subsections ... " -- "no need -- OK agree
  • Let us experiment with remaining cool in the first place. -- Experiments are OK.
  • TOO LONG subsections -- ""will merge to linked pages, but outline of scope of sharia needs to appear before or at the same time as the "controversies arising" - I suggest brief merged account of relevant topics." -- Agree, do your edit and I and other editors may talk and contribute also.
Happy wiki contributing :) --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 05:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Questions regarding the new version of the article

Redheylin, I am convinced you are a talented and enthusiastic contributor who is a valuable asset to our encyclopedia. Nice to meet you! However, there are some questions which have arisen with regards to your changes, and your help would be much appreciated. Feel free to post answers directly below each question. Thanks

First para of lead

  • The first word in the article, Sharīʿah, has been changed by removing the final "h". What reasoning or source did you rely upon for this change?
  • The definition of Sharia you are using comes from the free online dictionary. Is that accepted as a reliable source? What sources do they use? I am not certain I agree with it, and if you look at the definitions section you will see why. The old version said it is the code of conduct or religious law of Islam. I believe that is closer because it is so general. Your version is more specific, and raises questions. I don't think the definition in the lead should be changed to be more speficic and limiting, through referencing a source of possibly questionable reliability. But it is certainly worth discussing.
  • Are you aware WP MOS Islamic article states the first reference to the Islamic prophet Muhammad in an article can be phased as such; ie the Islamic prophet Muhammad? If so, why did you change this phrase?
  • Are you aware Islamic scholars deliver fatwas, and schools of fiqh generally do not?
  • Are you aware that when a word, such as Sharia, enters the English lexicon, it need no longer be italicized?
  • Can you tell me why you prefer to spell Sharia in lower case, since the AP Stylebook capitalizes it, it is spelled both ways, and in cases such as this the preferred approach is to leave it as you found it?
  • Are you familiar with Sharia law?

Thanks. -Aquib (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for those kind words. Please note I have just reversed the deletion of Logic in Islamic philosophy and Psychology in medieval Islam. You are familiar with the case and will realise that their citations need to be checked thoroughly - I do not know if you are able to help? Your points;
  • The first word in the article, Sharīʿah - to maintain a spelling consistent with the title.
  • The definition of Sharia you are using comes from the free online dictionary - it makes a good distinction, but can be moved further down. General and notable is best at first.
  • the first reference to the Islamic prophet Muhammad - change necessary to avoid double meaning, but MOS should be followed.
  • Are you aware Islamic scholars deliver fatwas, and schools of fiqh generally do not? Are you familiar with Sharia law?- You may make any refinement to the text when it is restored. My edits have not removed or altered anything significant.
  • Are you aware that when a word, such as Sharia, enters the English lexicon, it need no longer be italicized? Can you tell me why you prefer to spell Sharia in lower case? - In general I think italicisation helps legibility, and no-LC approximates more closely to Arabic as well as making sentence breaks more clear and reducing the tendency to capitalisation of all such terms, which is needless, pompous and less friendly. I am thinking entirely that lack of Arabic should not be a bar to understanding Islam, but rather that these pages highlight, explain and interlink important terms to achieve gradual assimilation. These days the word sharia is certainly entering the lexicon, but the most reliable lexicons I have are on paper and had not complied at time of publication. It's important to give due weight to all its aspects and to explain quickly but not focus unduly on the relationship with criminal/punitive state legal systems. Otherwise the word will be entering the language with a wrong meaning. Redheylin (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
My stand is between Aquib's and Redheylin's. I may express my stands later if this dispute is not been resolved until. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 05:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Undo revert and continue?

I think we can undo the last revert and continue to improve this article based on Redheylin's last revision. Aquib's, Redheylin's, mine and other editors' suggestion might be implemented on that version. If anyone agree then please undo the revert without waiting for further discussion, and may put a note here. If someone agree the undo revert but don't want to do so please note and sign with Agree; if someone disagree please sign telling so. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 05:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose although a talented and valuable contributor, Redheylin lacks the insights into the subject matter needed in order to effect a large scale reorganization of the material in a short time. This article is important. While Wikipedia is the encyclopedia almost anyone can edit, and speed is useful under certain circumstances, this restructuring is of dubious merit.
Drawing attention to the other editor's replies to my questions.
  • The other editor lacks a basic understanding of the topic (see fatwah above), uses questionable references at critical points (see definition above), makes arbitrary changes to the material based on appearance (see pronunciation) or personal preference (see capitalization and honorifics).
  • The other editor does not seem to take much interest in the result, or how this might affect other editors, as evidenced by their willingness to make these changes, en masse, then leave it to others to go through the article and try to sort things out.
  • Everyone seems to be in a rush. This is a red flag.
Given such obvious shortcomings apparent in the first paragraph, one cannot assume the material has been restructured in such a way as to improve the article. Being personally somewhat familiar with the material, I can say much important material has been buried, such as how and where Sharia is applied, how Muslims use it in their lives, exactly what it means. Further, one cannot simply go by the byte-count to say material has not changed. It would take some time to answer even this basic question. Under the circumstances, I must object in the strongest terms.
Aquib (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm obliged with the Objection from Aquib.
Now, shall we go for a WP:3O or shall discuss further on improving this article. I think this article needs major improvement by structures, subsection names, language, citations and size. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 12:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
"Now, shall we go for a WP:3O ..."
You can try, but requests for a third opinion are supposed to be limited to being for disputes between two editors, whereas this appears to be a dispute amongst three editors. It may seem unnecessarily pedantic, but I have seen these grounds being cited before as a reason for refusing such a request.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, 3O is not available. It is not needed, because there is consensus. I agree strongly with Nafsadh about the necessary restructure. Aquib seeks to "assume" that I ought not to be allowed to edit this page at all (" one cannot assume the material has been restructured in such a way as to improve the article"), based on his assumptions about, rather than an examination of all, the changes: his remarks are directed to me personally - "Redheylin lacks the insights into the subject matter/lacks a basic understanding of the topic/does not seem to take much interest in the result" in a way that violates basic rules of etiquette, he refuses to co-operate in further improvements but seeks to make me responsible for previous content and to make his own views on personal wiki-style sound like an insult to the religion, a judgment upon my competence and as a sufficient reason to prevent edits without examining them. This is an inadedequate defense of the revert he made some time ago, and for which he now seeks to continue to avoid offering justification, but is simply a continuation of his original attempts at bullying ("If I were you, I wouldn't put a lot of effort into further changes, much or all of it could end up being undone"). I invite him to acknowledge that consensus is against him and revert himself. He will then be free to propose those changes he desires and to co-operate on further improvements to an article that gives a connected, chronological account of the subject and due weight to its entire and considerable range with a clear presentation of topics, categories and terms. Redheylin (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no consensus here. A small number of people may get together and decide to make dramatic changes against the wishes of others but there is no legitimacy in such tactics, and the changes will not necessarily stick. It can get messy. It seems there is also the danger of a troutwhacking to consider under such circumstances, which could be awkward. These are legitimate concerns I am raising here. -Aquib (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I think there is no consensus here, as only three editors are in this discussion (and a 4th just informing 3O is not possible), where 1 has strong opposition.
My stand is somewhat between Aquib's and Redheylin's. I think it will be good to, "undo revert and go to last revision of Redheylin, then soon proceed with some of Aquib's suggestions here". Personal preferences of caps and hons shall be eliminated. Some disputed phrasing, sources shall be reworked.
I will feel it comfortable if we can see some other editor's insight. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 15:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
"It seems there is also the danger of a troutwhacking" - Aquib, it was you who started to poll a !vote. I have not objected to any proposed emandation of the new text. It is just that you have not given adequate reasons for reversion. If much-needed added citations seem insufficiently authoritative to you, that is an occasion to improve them, not to remove them. If you have ideas on style you must be prepared to win consensus and implement them consistently across the entire subject area. Redheylin (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Pardon my weak attempt at humor, troutwhacking. -Aquib (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Aquib - there is an unacceptable delay in your justifying your reversion, backing your non-neutrality claims, finding support for your style objections and identifying your "large amount of text". Redheylin (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Redheylin, I'm sorry but your changes are not an improvement. I oppose them, as I have already explained above. -Aquib (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
You have explained only your personal views on a small number of changes. You have made threats and allegations, but offered no reason to revert. At present you need other editors to agree with you. Redheylin (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Women NPOV

Gigantic NPOV violation on the women and women's rights sections. Sharia specifically restricts the sexual rights of women, and sharia courts routinely impose the death sentence on women for their sexual decisions. With this in mind the article says that they have more? rights than western women, as if women in western countries are executed for who they have sex with and why. 108.65.0.169 (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read the sources cited but, presuming good faith, I presume that the cited sources support the article assertions to which they are attached. My guess is that this issue should be addressed by the introduction of additional source-supported material, IAW WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Which sexual rights does Sharia restrict for women that it does not also restrict for men? Also, you seem to have misread the sections on other rights for women. There is poor wording in these sections, I agree there, but the sections are accurate enough. -Aquib (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Islam : Characteristics : Customs & behavior : Dress codes

The "Dress codes" subsection begins, "The Qur'an also places a dress code upon its followers. The rule for men has been ordained before the women: ...". It then goes on to explain (as I understand it) a dress code for women. How about either changing this to read, "The Qur'an also places a dress code upon female followers: " (explicitly saying that the dress codes apply only to female followers, if that is the case), or (if not) better explaining how 24:30 relates to dress codes for male followers? [Quran 24:31] contains behavioral rules plus some pretty explicit dress code rules for female followers; [Quran 24:30] contains behavior rules for male followers and (AFAICS) just one bit which might be taken as a dress code for male followers — that bit being translated variously as "guard their modesty", "be modest", and "guard their private parts". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This section is not properly written and needs to be rewritten and sourced. There are Purdah rules (dress code and behavioral) for men also. There are explicit dress code for woman in Qur'an. Purdah and modesty related ayas are 50:16, 7:27-28, 7:33, 17:32, 6:151, 40:19, 42:36-39, 16:90, 23:5-7, 29:45, 2:169, 3:135, 33:35, 33:59, 24:19, 24:21, 24:60. Hadith have explanatory rules for men&women and dress-code for men, but citations are not in my hand now.
Again, in Sharia the topic is generally Purdah, modesty etc. Dress code as the name of section itself is not perfect, I think. » nafSadh did say 03:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree -Aquib (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Dubious statement

"Very often, Westerners mistake hudud punishment as punishment regularly given under Sharia law, but that is inaccurate" There are no citations for either part of this statement. The first part in particular falls into the category of "It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify." I mean, before you can say that Westerners make this mistake, you would really have to have some evidence that Westerners generally know what hudud punishment is. In addition, even if this statement were verifiable, I am not sure what facts it tells us about Sharia.

The second part ("but that is inaccurate") is really exceedingly vague. If you have some statistics you could provide about the frequency of the two types of punishment, that would be a valuable contribution to people's knowledge. Other than that, I don't know what you mean by saying that a punishment is regularly given or not. Does that mean it happens in a given country once a day or once a year? In general, I think the whole text above should be removed, but I have settled for tagging it. If someone has some references it could stay in, but I still think it is pretty ambiguous.FideliaE (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect capitalisation

I see (above) that other editors have correctly challenged the inconsistent capitalisation of 'Sharia' in this article (and been reverted). The highest authority available in English is the New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (2005) which at page 349 gives "sharia (also shariah and shariat) Islamic canonical law (not ital)". In view of the commendable restraint shown in previous discussion, I have not summarily made the necessary changes. However, this must soon be done unless the reverters are able to produce a superior authority for their actions (a very unlikely possibility). Obviously, the word must be capitalised when it is the first word in a sentence, or in a book title, quotation, etc. Otherwise, like 'canon law', 'common law', etc, 'sharia' is correctly to be rendered in lower case. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

God versus Allah

I propose replacing the name God with Allah everywhere. Muslims prefer the name Allah, and using God's name in Islam is blasphemous to Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.70.168 (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Both are nothing more than human names for the same imaginary character, so why does it matter? 98.135.62.84 (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Quran or Qur'an

We have it both ways in the article now. I checked the MOS and found nothing helpful. Since the main article for the topic is entitled Quran, I propose using that spelling consistently in this article. Comments? Objections? -- Jo3sampl (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If you check the recent History, you'll find this has already been done throughout the text, excepting, quite properly, where "Qur'an" appears in a quotation or book title, etc. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Right you are. Thanks. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

(comment)in arabic its pronounced [koor'awn] NOT [koo' rawn] koo' rawn is absolutely wrong(as it says i the title). The word quran has meaning

Where is the list of laws that comprise Sharia law?

I cannot find it. Anyone know where it is? I went to several pro-Islamic sights. They said they do not know where it is either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.81.123.88 (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

List of countries with sharia?

The colorful image titled "Countries with sharia" is very nice, but a list with country names would be even better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.185.174 (talk) 11:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It would also be helpful to recognise those nations that allow Muslim minorities to use Islamic personal law for family matters, for example India.Bless sins (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


What about the situation of Azerbaijan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cemyildiz (talk • contribs) 15:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article is disorganized and needs cleanup. Many of the sections repeat information and that needs to be merged. I propose looking at this as a good guideline for organizing the article[2].Bless sins (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sharia#Modern_perspectives should be merged with Sharia#Contemporary_practice and Sharia#Traditional_perspectives should give more details on the sources of sharia (Sources of Islamic law has valuable information).Bless sins (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I undid this edit,[3] because the information was unsourced. This article already suffers from multiple issues, let's not add to its woes.Bless sins (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Slavery

In the section "#Slavery_and_emancipation", it states "Slaves also had more rights under Islam as an owner could not mistreat them." This sentence should be deleted or changed. If left, it should - IMO - be changed to add that slave owners had/has the legal right to have sex with female slaves. The female slave had/has no legal right to refuse. I would say that forcing an unwilling female to have sex (either by violent force or by authority of ownership) is actually mistreating her, and that Islam allows this. See the main article's section on the matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery#Concubinage

85.226.24.82 (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha, the sentence claiming that slaves couldn't be mistreated under Islam is absolutely priceless, as if involuntary servitude and the treating of another human being as property don't qualify as mistreatment.

That sentence has been removed, as it failed to state whom the slaves had more rights than. More rights than slaves in another country? More rights than they had before they were enslaved? No attempt was made to explain what was meant by the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.172.4 (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


This topic is a mess, I kinda see why people shouldn't rely on Wiki for reliable information.

Under Shariah slaves could not be abused, there are many hadiths on this;

Whosoever kills his slave: he shall be killed. Whosoever imprisons his slave and starves him, he shall be imprisoned and starved himself, and whosoever castrates his slave shall himself be castrated. (Abu Dawud, Diyat, 70; Tirmidhi, Diyat, 17; Al-Nasa’i, Qasama, 10, 16)

Whosoever kills his slave, he shall be killed, whosoever imprisons his slave and starves him, he shall be imprisoned and starved himself. (Tirmidhi, al-Ayman wa l-Nudhur, 13)'

As for "raping" the slave, you need to provide conclusive evidence of this being allowed in Shariah. I can safely say there is none, making the claim to be remained invalid.

In fact we have counter evidence. In an authentic narration from Sunan Al Bayhaqi, Volume 2, page 363, Hadith no. 18685 we read the following story:

Abu al-Hussain bin al-Fadhl al-Qatan narrated from Abdullah bin Jaffar bin Darestweh from Yaqub bin Sufyan from al-Hassab bin Rabee from Abdullah bin al-Mubarak from Kahmas from Harun bin Al-Asam who said: Umar bin al-Khatab may Allah be pleased with him sent Khalid bin al-Walid in an army, hence Khalid sent Dharar bin al-Auwzwar in a squadron and they invaded a district belonging to the tribe of Bani Asad. They then captured a pretty bride, Dharar liked her hence he asked his companions to grant her to him and they did so. He then had sexual intercourse with her, when he completed his mission he felt guilty, and went to Khalid and told him about what he did. Khalid said: 'I permit you and made it lawful to you.' He said: 'No not until you write a message to Umar'. (Then they sent a message to Umar) and Umar answered that he (Dharar) should be stoned. By the time Umar's message was delivered, Dharar was dead. (Khalid) said: 'Allah didn't want to disgrace Dharar'

Not to mention the many hadiths by Muhammad that forbid the ill treatment of slaves. I think I've made my point.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.42.90 (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Women

This section does not discuss the real restrictions and legal limitations placed on women in Islamic communities. Cultural norms may differ widely from actual Islamic teachings due to differing interpretations, but this should be addressed in the article. For example, in some places a woman's perceived chastity is a matter of public domain, women being banned from driving in Saudi Arabia, wives having to go through more complicated procedures than their husbands to obtain a divorce, requirements that women must be escorted while traveling, strict dress codes for women, etc.

This article was obviously written by Islamic apologists, there is not a single mention of the actual application of Sharia in the real world. Stoning of women, acid attacks, rape as a form of punishment, forcible wearing of restrictive clothing,etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.51.171 (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"Cultural norms may differ widely from actual Islamic teachings," and this article is about Sharia, not about local cultural norms that differ widely from place to place. Unflavoured (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Saudi ban on female driving has nothing to do with the Sharia. However, other aspects may be addressed, such as Sharia's difference in dress codes between women and men.Bless sins (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The section on women is an absolute freakin whitewash, to say the least. Women are, for all intents and purposes, second class citizens under sharia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.75 (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a shocking lack of courage here to speak the truth about the inequality of most women in countries that have Sharia law. "Cultural norms may differ widely from actual Islamic teachings," but somehow most countries that have adopted Sharia law, women are not treated equally.206.248.129.3 (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)SIMON206.248.129.3 (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Sharia, Sunna and sunna

I'm not going to bother finding sources for this but it is important that this section is changed to prevent false discussion on Islam. Sharia law uses components of Sunnah yes, however it also contains components of sunnah ....with a little 's' . These are the activities and perceptions on Muhammad taken from tribal communities, word of mouth etc. In the Hadith we find both Sunnah and sunnah mixed together because it is hard to distinguish what was incorporated...for example lapidation or stoning was punishment used by most human societies prior to Islam...it's incorporation into sharia law is based on what was happening and how pre existing societies and culture adopted Islam. What Saudi Arabia follows, Wahhabism and sayid qutb etc, is how particular people chose to interpret Islam....in no way did Muhammad in his Sunnah condone most activities western society seems to think are products of Islam....honor killings, lapidation, suicide bombing...just like Jesus Christ saying don't look for god for he is within you, Muhammad never wanted to be idolized...All religions have a mass amount of perceptions and it is false to organize sharia law into one solid, static, category...and for many it contains very little Sunnah and a mass amount of sunnah....which is Islam twisted to fit political agendas etc.....I hope someone fixes this information before a naive person reads it..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justwannamakeanote (talk • contribs) 17:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

justice

the section on justice asserts that the conception of justice in sharia differs greatly from the western, yet the section itself doesn't really substantiate this. a little more exposition on precisely how sharia and western ideas of justice differ would be helpful, i think. - chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.134.8 (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

funeral prayer

Is it generally recommended that Muslims visit those who die? Could someone who knows about this topic help edit the section [[4]] to make it explicit that Muslims are instructed in how to visit the dead, not just that they do it willy-nilly like. The paragraph at present sounds like visitors remind the dying to pray and so on perhaps because they feel like it, but not because it is law that they do so, unless you're already familiar with the topic. the last sentence in the paragraph makes it clear that how people interact with the dying is made clear by Islamic law but the first three sentences make it sound more like this is done willy-nilly. makeswell (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This article contains too many specifics on Sharia, which are best suited for the articles listed under Template:Fiqh. Bless sins (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary issues and topics

Currently this article has a section on Sharia#Topics_of_Islamic_law and Sharia#Contemporary_issues. These two sections overlap quite a bit. For example, Sharia#Women can't be separated from Sharia#Dress_codes,Sharia#Marriage and Sharia#Divorce. I propose we merge these two sections.Bless sins (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Child Custody

The information on child custody, whereby the child gets to choose at an age of discernment, seems to be based on 'cherry-picked' information. Even if a particular Islamic school of thought says that children should go to the mother, other factors are taken into account in (Sharia)judged custody decisions. For example who is best able to raise the child financially, religiously, morally etc. This is especially true in cases of a Muslim man marrying non-Muslim women who have become Muslim converts for marriage. What I'm getting at is that in practical terms, the Muslim male spouse wins custody of children in the majority of cases (once they reach 8-11 years old). Glossing over the realities of Sharia doesn't do anything for the integrity of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.96.203.30 (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Women in Sharia

How come in the women in sharia section there is no mention of the fact that a woman's testimony is half that of a man's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unchartered (talk • contribs) 02:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Sharia law

The term "Sharia law" is redundant, because "Sharia" is translated as "Islamic canonical law",[5] or simply "Islamic law"[6]. Most sources use the term "sharia" not "sharia law".Bless sins (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually "sharia" on its own is ambiguous since sharia has multiple meanings. "Sharia law" is more specific. Pass a Method talk 19:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
That is why the first line defines Sharia as Sharia is the moral code and religious law of Islam. Reliable sources use Sharia, not Sharia law. Please look at google books[7] for example.Bless sins (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
If there are no further objections, Sharia law should be reverted to Sharia.Bless sins (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
"Sharia" is actually a noun.[8][9] "Sharia law" makes as much sense as saying "China law", as opposed to "Chinese law".Bless sins (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
There is consensus at Talk:Sources_of_sharia#Requested_move that "Sharia" or "Islamic law" are preferable to "Sharia law".Bless sins (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding extremist books

Currently there is an anon edit-warring to add certain books at the Further Reading section. These books are written by known extremists (e.g. Robert Spencer) and have no place in this article.Bless sins (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Spencer is an 'extremist' any more than Christopher Hitchens was. Anti-Islam is not extremism, it's common sense, and apparently intelligently-expressed on his part... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.138.104.132 (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the latter. Spencer is just like Hitchens - he refuses to be a sheep of political correctness - and has the guts to expose the dangers of religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.41.212.2 (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


jesh, sure, the books of a guy who founded a HATE_group isnt extremist? wtf? i mean look at his wikipage. and for me, i prefer rather believing in these Ngos which are monitoring hate groups than believing this hategroups.. if i want an objective information about the holocaust, i wouldnt ask nazis. (well i would ask all people which were rather "middle" then extreme left or right...i wouldnt believe extremists and i wont belive this spencer-ggeller-lonatics. (i mean fantasizing about islamisation because 0,6% of americans are muslims? whadda bs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spencer_(author)#Criticism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.177.75.151 (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for being a sane IP who is not out to push a hateful POV, unlike some other folks who don't even need to be pointed out. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

'Hateful' point of view, Mr Ian Thomson? Shame on you. Know this - I am (or rather was, until I was emancipated) a Muslim woman, and was a victim of Sharia for all of my young life. You have never lived under its oppression, it's medieval bigotry, its treating of women as if they were children. You know nothing. I am grateful to anyone who criticises Sharia. Indeed, where is the section 'Criticism of Sharia'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.74.170 (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tags with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed two old POV-section template with a dormant discussion, per the instructions on that template's page:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

If editors are continuing to work toward resolution of any issue and I missed it, however, please feel free to restore. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_4#Category:Sharia

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_4#Category:Sharia. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding a section of Sharia law's impact on countries.

I expected at least a little bit of info/statistics on what Sharia law actually does not just what it's stated purpose is. Could someone add a section about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.3.76.69 (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Women in Sharia

How come in the women in sharia section there is no mention of the fact that a woman's testimony is half that of a man's?

Because this article is mainly written by Muslims or moderate/pro- Muslim supporters, hence it's lock. The entire page is clearly written with a bias in favor of the things being said. Utterly detestable. 69.138.182.89 (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This portion reads in an offensive tone (unless it's sarcastic, in which case it's equally inappropriate) as well:

"Western legal systems have generally allowed for greater women's rights than Islamic law, even going so far as acknowledging the equality of the intelligence of women..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.2.73 (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at this and it appears that the Quran does NOT say that a woman's testimony is half that of a man's. On the contrary it appears to say that the judges should be more helpful to women. The verse below only relates to the recording of complex financial transactions where the money will be paid back after a very long time and where the women is not a party to the transaction, but just a witness. In such circumstances she could take along her friend to assist her if she forgets. Even in the West, 1400 years ago men and women were mostly illiterate and it may take two people to remember the contents of a complex financial transaction that may have occurred years ago. Being a man, I would say this is unfair on men, as why can't men take along their friend to remind them. If I was an illiterate man and had to remember the contents of a complex financial transaction and was then called up to a court many years later and had to face two women, they would have twice as good chance of remembering the exact numbers than me. It's unfair on men.

Surat Al-Baqarah 2:282[1]

O you who have believed, when you contract a debt for a specified term, write it down. And let a scribe write [it] between you in justice. Let no scribe refuse to write as Allah has taught him. So let him write and let the one who has the obligation dictate. And let him fear Allah, his Lord, and not leave anything out of it. But if the one who has the obligation is of limited understanding or weak or unable to dictate himself, then let his guardian dictate in justice. And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men. And if there are not two men [available], then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses - so that if one of the women errs, then the other can remind her. And let not the witnesses refuse when they are called upon. And do not be [too] weary to write it, whether it is small or large, for its [specified] term. That is more just in the sight of Allah and stronger as evidence and more likely to prevent doubt between you, except when it is an immediate transaction which you conduct among yourselves. For [then] there is no blame upon you if you do not write it. And take witnesses when you conclude a contract. Let no scribe be harmed or any witness. For if you do so, indeed, it is [grave] disobedience in you. And fear Allah . And Allah teaches you. And Allah is Knowing of all things. [2] --Johnleeds1 (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Sharia to become basis of Libyan law

Please see Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Libyan law, and help update Law of Libya so that a link to Sharia can be placed on the front page. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

"Interest prohibitions, also imposed secondary costs by discouraging record keeping, and delaying the introduction of modern accounting. Such factors, according to Quran, have played a significant role in retarding economic development in the Middle East. "

It may be best to remove "according to Quran" from the last line, as it makes it sound like the Quran says these factors have lead to ecomonic retardation. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The nature of the article

Why is there is "religious text primary source" complaint in this article? How is that legitimate? If Sharia laws is from Islamic texts to begin with then why cant this article use the Islamic texts as primary sources?

Im assuming by "secondary sources that critically analyze" what is really meant is "antagonistic anti-islam interpretation". Notice that the notice calls for "other opinions". What does opinion have to do with an encyclopedic text on the technical particulars of a religious ideology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.83.71 (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

At the top of the article, it states, "This article improperly uses one or more religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources, with multiple points of view. (May 2013)" The prior, unsigned comment legitimately asks why direct citation to original texts is not ordinarily sufficient. Primary, secondary and tertiary sources suggests that merely descriptive (not interpretive) citations to a primary religious text is not only acceptable but likely preferable to other sources. Nevertheless, a merely descriptive statement about any religious text is rare, and any interpretation of the primary source, no matter how small, should be supported by a secondary source.
As I write this comment, the article has 186 numbered citations, and, as many editors would expect, a noticeable portion of the 186 numbered citations are referenced more than once. I skimmed the current numbered citations, and I was unable to find any cite that referenced primary sources: only non-primary sources. The article does include inline links to primary sources, though. In May 2013, when the warning/ complaint/ request was added to the top of the article, maybe the entire article was so deficient that a general warning was necessary. As of today, however, I think the warning is excessively broad.
Looking through the citations, it is clear, however, that many citations need to be clarified, expanded, and corrected. As I write this, for example, the citations include a source listed as "Ramadan (2006)", but I cannot figure out what that source is or how to find it. If the entire article needs a warning/ request, then a request for confirming the formatting of the citations may be appropriate. If there are any sections that "improperly uses one or more religious texts as primary sources", then those sections may need a warning. I suspect, however, that the best way to improve the sources for this article is to mark specific sentences with their specific deficiencies.
Finally, "critically analyze" is not pejorative: "critical" in this context means "interpretive" with the connotation that the interpretation is founded in rational thought. (It may be wise, however, to use a word other than "critical" for this type of warning.)
Summary: I suggest immediately removing the warning text at the top of the page because it does not provide any guidance about the specific problems of this long article that contains hundreds of citations to secondary sources.
N.B. I apologize, but because I greatly dislike the high risk of acrimonious discussion, I tend to not follow discussions to which I contribute. hunterhogan (talk) 09:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The Third Paragraph does not really add to the discussion of what Sharia is

It may be opinion, for example the causes of the Second Sudanese War are complex and not directly related to Sharia. The mention of Israel is really irrelevant. The UK, Turkey and other countries recognize aspects of Sharia family law in their civil code but get no mention as it is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.208.191.2 (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I cannot find anything that reflects the issue raised by this comment. I did not inspect five months of changes, but it seems that this issue is no longer present. I am merely a sometimes-editor, and I do not know the process for removing or archiving issues from talk pages (and I would rather learn other wiki-editing skills or use the ones I have), so I am "flagging" this section so that an experienced editor can decide what to do and how to do it properly. hunterhogan (talk) 09:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ [10]
  2. ^ [11]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sharia/Archive_8&oldid=1142777684"