Talk:Sharia/Archive 4

The source of the dubious claims in this article, has been RFCed

Apparently the source for many of the problems in this article is one Jagged85. He has been RFCed here for tendentious editing, disruptive editing, misuse of sources, etc.

This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years, despite many requests from other editors to change their behaviour. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent... The obvious impression from this editor's work is that they have engaged in a systematic distortion of their sources so as to promote Islamic and other non-European scholarship and achievements, which is deeply unfortunate as there is much there to promote without any such distortion. ...

The fact that the quality of Jagged's additions is such that they need to be constantly checked by other editors makes him highly disruptive: Numerous editors have to spend a lot of time cleaning up after him, instead of being able to spend that time building content...

The intensity of Jagged's tendentiousness, combined with the sheer quantity of his edits has done substantial damage to wikipedia. Whole swathes of the encyclopedia, namely any article related to Islamic science and social reforms, have been edited to a state far beyond anything remotely resembling NPOV. The damage is so extensive that it is undermining wikipedia's credibility as a source. The fact that two of the editors who are participating in this RfC/U were goaded into joining wikipedia because they noticed something was up with Islamic science articles speaks volumes by itself...

Then, as I started perusing more history of science articles, I noticed that articles such as Astronomy in Medieval Islam, Science in medieval Islam, Islamic Golden Age, and many others were utter POV-fests, essentially claiming that all modern scientific discoveries were anticipated by medieval Muslim philosophers. Articles about these philosophers (e.g. Abu Rayhan Biruni, Avicenna) read like extended hagiographies. I also noticed that the main contributor to these articles was Jagged 85. Following his latest burst of activity on these articles beginning in December 2009, I scrutinized his track record more carefully and came to the following conclusion: This user is on a two-fold mission on wikipedia, the first of which is to promote scientific achievements on non-European cultures while downplaying and hedging those of European cultures, and the second of which is to promote a positive image of Islam, whether through scientific achievements or social reforms. In addition to competent editing, the following problematic methods are employed: ...

I think it has been proven beyond any doubt that this user has a clear tendency (maybe this term is too soft), to hype any Muslim achievement (particularly in the so-called "Islamic Golden Ages"), and as a result to diminish the importance Western scientist and philosophers have had throughout history (not only modern, but also ancient and medieval). But the problem it's not only with Muslims scholars, it's also with Hindu and (on rare occasion) Chinese ones. To sum up, every non-Western achievement is hyped, specially Islamic. To accomplish this goal, the user has misinterpreted the sources, provided extremely unreliable sources, and cherry picked the information in the sources.
I really would like to assume good faith here. But, the evidence is too strong. Wikipedia is read by millions of people all over the world, and we have to assure that the information provided is trustable ...

Etc. etc... see reference for details. See here and here for more on misuse of sources. And here for original research.

I am going to eventually try and consult what sources I can and see what among Jagged85's contributions are good faith and salvageable, although perhaps such effort might be better spent simply removing them. Given all the examples posted above, it seems likely that the content posted here also constitutes misuse of sources or is otherwise unreliable. I'll look into what I can, if anybody has Westlaw access and can check that would be great. Jayzames (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may have a peripheral affect on what you take out of the article but it does not change any of my concerns with material you are putting in to the article.

Aquib (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe theory in "Laws of the United States"

Added "unbalanced tag" to Section on "Laws of the United States, due to being a fringe theory

Please support your claim by citing contradictory references, thanks Aquib (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "fringe theory" template; the closest one is "unbalanced." Theorizing that the US Constitution is derived from Islamic law is a fringe theory that few in the legal community have even heard of, it is not widely accepted, it is not notable, and should not be treated as such. Read WP:FRINGE already. Jayzames (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please support your claim by citing contradictory references, thanks Aquib (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're kiddin', right? If you can prove to me that ANY of the U.S. Founding Fathers had any idea WHAT Shari'a is, let alone its precepts, I will eat my hat. No really, I'll eat it!

Just to say that the paper cited to support "possible borrowings" does not contain any such claim. It goes no further than to point out certain similarities and avenues of possible influence. The author does not say that anything may have been borrowed.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW, the person who said that he would eat his hat is not me)

Since the word "sharia" appears in the Quran in Arabic only once, AND since Jefferson read an English language Quran if he read it at all, I think it's quite likely that no Founding Father ever heard of "sharia" or had any idea what it is. If Jefferson even read the Quran, he likely did so in an attempt to understand why the Pasha of Tripoli would attack a non-hostile nation solely on the basis of religion. Jayzames (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that there was considerable awareness and understanding of Sharia among British academics, politicians and merchants. Particularly, within the British East India Company, which had a significant interest in the American colonies. Jefferson was not aware of this? The Founding Fathers had no knowledge whatsoever of Sharia? Aquib (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sharia/Comments

Shouldn't the prohibition to take interest rates be mentioned ? Or is this not part of the sharia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.228.4.51 (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should go in this section, it needs expanding Sharia#Topics_of_Islamic_law. I noticed it mentions swine and alcohol. Of course, an exhaustive list of actual laws would need to be in a sub-article, and there would be some variations. But interest is a big prohibition, and should be added under the financial section. I did notice it mentions Sharia-compliant financing, but doesn't explain it. Aquib (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the need of this page? -- Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 18:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a great demand to have Sharia law documented in an understandable form. Especially in Western countries where religious tolerance is the norm. It seems a perpetual conundrum that Muslim readers will find Western dipictions of their beliefs offensive and unnecessary. There is a way around that... just write the truth. 196.213.37.195 (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does one learn what Muslim readers think? From the western media? From surveys? Or perhaps from talking to Muslims? In my experience, many Muslims believe their religion is misunderstood, and welcome the truth. This article, for all its problems, is a good start. Aquib (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality in doubt

A lot of claims done in the article are irrelevant comparisons with Western law systems. The extension of text talking about how Sharia used to grant more rights to women than french or british law did does not matches at all the extension of the disclaimer admiting that, as a matter of fact, that's not longer true. It is of course well documented and of a lot of importance that Sharia law granted that rights, but non less important is what Sharia actually grants and grants not, well documented also.

I'm not expert in any kind of law systems so I'm tagging the article es neutrality disputable, and in need of an expert.

Nattelsker (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aquib american muslim (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC) agree[reply]

But who can undertake such a task? Aquib (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2010)" OK do we have an ETA for when this dispute might be resolved? LOL : ) Aquib (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do people think about removing the lengthy and irrelevant speculation about a possible and unproven influence of sharia on Western law? It would be nice if this article could get to the point about sharia, and its meaning in contemporary terms, like what exactly political movements around the world mean when they demand sharia, and how sharia differs from the average person's idea of law. For example, sharia has different rules of evidence (documentary evidence in sharia courts is strongly deprecated in favor of oral testimony), and lacked codified statutes for most of its history. I would like to squeeze in these actual pertinent, real, nonspeculative facts in somehow, but I don't know where to to fit in with all the dubious and gloating "sharia is the origin of Western common law, civil law, human rights" etc. The article doesn't even mention important matters like riba, the prohibition on interest. Jayzames (talk) 02:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your basic premise that the point of this article is to address Sharia's meaning in contemporary terms. I believe the purpose of the article is to describe Sharia. It's meaning in contemporary terms is only one facet; assuming you are referring to it's contemporary political newsworthiness in the West. There is a section in the article titled "Contemporary issues" you may want to review again to see if it might suit your purposes.

I'm sure you know that most Muslims follow Sharia starting the first thing in the morning, and that most Sharia doesn't apply to non-Muslims. You seem to take a special interest in the excesses of fundamentalists and radicals. That's normal in these times, but excess in some of it's followers is only one facet of Sharia. I do think your noticing that riba is missing from the article is very helpful. I only found a passing mention of pork as well.

I will be happy to discuss each and every issue you wish to bring up about the article, and work with you to improve it in a balanced way. But judging from the issues you have brought up, I expect we are going to have some differences. I suggest we take your issues one at a time, so we can understand each other's point of view and try to reach some sort of consensus before you make any more sweeping changes in the article like those you made this evening.

Issue 1. Your assertion about "lengthy and irrelevant speculation about a possible and unproven influence of sharia on Western law"

A. Please paste the block of the article you feel is a lengthy discussion of Sharia influences on Western law. I searched the article and found 12 hits on "Western", maybe I missed the lengthy speculation you're referring to.

B. Please explain why such a connection is irrelevant in an article on Sharia.

C. Please explain why you think this assertion is speculation. I did see some references here and there.

I am serious about wanting to try to work through this with you.

Aquib (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the comparisons with Western law, and all the attempts to speculate on Islamic antecedents to Western customs, basically from "comparisons with common law" to "freedom of speech." I'm obviously not the only one to find it irrelevant, as per the poster above. The idea that sharia is the basis of Western law is very much a fringe view, I've never heard of it outside of Wikipedia and only flimsy evidence based on "similarity" is presented. Saying that peace is a fundamental concept of Islamic law and diplomacy because the Muslim greeting is "salaam 'alaikum" is so vacuous it strains credulity.

It is irrelevant because this is an article about sharia, not Western law. That content would be better in another article about "Possible Influence of Islamic law on Western law." For Muslims who deal with sharia and for those dealing with Western law, its possible and largely unproven influence on Western law is an exceedingly trivial matter in comparison with Sharia's rules of evidence, the existence of statutes, penalties, and laws governing economic relations.

Also, sharia DOES apply to Non-Muslims in any disputes involving Muslims in an Islamic state, and also applies many disabilities to them in their daily lives(dhimmi). Let's not be dishonest and pretend that being non-Muslim automatically makes one completely free from sharia.

Finally, the point about excessive focus on "fundamentalists and radicals" is also irrelevant; "fundamentalists and radicals" have a huge impact on the world, and are the official government of anywhere from two (including just Saudi, Iran) to half a dozen states (including Gulf states, Sudan, Pakistan, etc.). Imposition of Sharia is a huge part of their agenda, and this is really the only reason why anybody outside the faith would even take an interest in Sharia. Sharia as understood by contemporary Islamists is pretty darn pertinent. Jayzames (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The change you made in the introduction to the Sharia article this morning is incorrect. Sharia law does change and adapt over time. It is the basic code, the Quran and the Sunnah, that do not change. You have just dropped a fundamental misconception into the opening of the article, while you are talking about making changes on the talk page. I am reverting your latest change. Aquib (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK I see now you have been building this case regarding the alleged immutability of Sharia and it's incompatibility with western civilization over several edits. This will take a little more than an undo to fix. No problem, I have the rest of my life to work on this. Aquib (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, you object to comarisons with western law and suggestions of Sharia as an antecedent in some areas of western law. On the other hand you inserted this line as the third sentence of the article: As such, Sharia is considered "God's law," and therefore cannot be changed or reformed, in contrast to the "manmade law," or "qanun" enacted by temporal authorities. This is an obvious comparison between Sharia and western law. It is also based on a faulty assumption. I'm not talking about my personal opinion here. There are different expert opinions as to the exact extent and nature of much Sharia law. See Sharia:Definitions and descriptions. Please note the second sentence of the article states Sharia is derived from the sacred text of Islam (the Qur'an), and Traditions (Hadith) gathered from the life of the Islamic Prophet, Muhammad. Sharia is derived from those sources. While these sources are immutable, many would say that Sharia is not. Much of Sharia has been derived through various processes such as consensus, logic, and analogy. Therefore, you cannot use this statement as a basis for the next sentence in the article, which you recently inserted (as mentioned above). This is a very controversial topic, and there are a range of opinions, bottom line you can't pick one side of this issue as the basis for a core statement at the top of the article, this is digression and bias. Sharia is, in the opinion of many, subject to change and reform through interpretation - within the limits of the basic code, the Quran and Sunna. A more accurate comparison is between the Quran and Sunna on one hand, and a constitution on the other.

The third sentence in the article, which you inserted, needs to be removed or corrected. Please slow down and work through these issues one at a time or let's put this up for mediation.

Aquib (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wallahi, you are being obtuse. I compared sharia not with Western law but with qanun, temporal law in Islamic states. There is a big difference between sharia and temporal law; the major difference between the two being that temporal law is man made and can be enacted and abolished ad libitum. There are in fact important comparisons with Western law to be made, just not the evidence free ones made in this article. By the way, it's no longer just "Western law," secular law is the standard practice worldwide.

Such attempts to insist on Islamic origins for anything valuable began largely as a Salafist project. I will refer here to the prominent Muslim scholar of Islamic law, Khaled Abou El Fadl:

By the mid-twentieth century, it had become clear that Salafism had drifted into stifling apologetics. Salafist apologists responded to the intellectual challenges of modernity by adopting pietistic fictions about the Islamic traditions; such fictions eschewed any critical evaluation of Islamic doctrines and celebrated the presumed perfection of Islam. A common apologetical device was to argue that any meritorious or worthwhile modern institution was first invented and realised by Muslims. Thus, Islam liberated women, created a democracy, endorsed pluralism, protected human rights and guaranteed social security long before these institutions ever existed in the West. The main effect of apologetics was to contribute to a sense of intellectual self-sufficiency that often descended into moral arrogance, producing a culture that eschewed self-critical and introspective insight, and embraced the projection of blame and a fantasy-like level of confidence.

I think Dr. Abou El Fadl has stated it far more eloquently than I. We should write an informative, factual, and relevant article on sharia here, not to perform dawah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayzames (talk • contribs) 02:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK now we agree on something, that is what we should write. But a lot of it is already in here, we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. It seems unlikely that any system as extensive and durable as Islam would not contribute to it's neighbors in all sorts of ways, and vice versa. No surprise there. I would be surprised if the opposite were true.

I'm looking at Hodgson's Venture of Islam, it seems qanun was vetted by the Ulema for compatibility with Sharia. Do you agree with that statement? If so, what does line 3 imply? It only seems to make sense if you substitute "humanistic law" for Qanun, but humanistic law is not necessarily consistent with Sharia (ex pork or interest).

Please go slow, and make incremental changes. I suggest you pick an important change you want to make and tell me (us if anyone else is interested) specifically what you want to change. Aquib (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but whoever put in all the irrelevant revisionist rambling (he dumped all over the Common Law and Trust (law) articles too), felt no such compunctions in turning a once much better article into Islamic dawah, why does that not bother you? I have cited a fairly respected scholar in Islamic law as to why such speculation and revisionism is spurious, in bad faith, and bad for Muslims. I think this constitutes fairly good grounds to take it out or at least shunt it to another article. And why do I even need to ask your permission, do you own the article?

Also where do you get the idea that sharia can be changed? That is prima facie not an opinion shared by the present majority of jurists, who are not going to reverse, for example, the prohibition on alcohol, until the appearance of another prophet or Allah SWT himself.Jayzames (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL OK I don't think we are getting anywhere trying to discuss this. Aquib (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I want to write a real article, you insist on dawah. "Sharia cannot be changed" is supported by the majority of ulama. It is God law, and by definition, no one other than God can change it. The "invalid assertion" is that "Sharia is the origin of common law." And of course, this raises the question as to if Islam is the origin of all these wonderful things, why have only infidels benefited?

BTW, Khaled Abou El Fadl is a professor at the Law School at UCLA, presumably he knows what he's talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayzames (talk • contribs) 07:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jayzames, apologies I am a newbie and can't figure out how to edit your talk page. It seems to be blanked out or locked. I have submitted your edits for arbitration. Aquib (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and by the way the article you cite does not support your assertion that Sharia is immutable, as it discusses both sides of the underlying controversy surrounding whether fiqh is part of Sharia. This does not belong in the head of the article, and is not necessary to introduce at this point in the article. Aquib (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I am referring to the article you cite for your assertion that Sharia is unchanging (top of article). The citation you are using today, that replaced the other article when you reinserted your text. Neither of these citations supports your assertion. Your latest citation is a good article that supports my side of the issue. You are making so many changes you can't have a coherent discussion about them Aquib (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Figured out JZ's blank talk page, added arbitration notification Aquib (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No response from Jayzames. Arbcom declined arbitration, as I have not yet availed myself of avenues such as these -> WP:DR WP:ANI. While I am deciding on the best course of action, I am going to correct what I hope anyone who might be reading this would agree is damage done to the lead of the article during the recent bout of edits. Aquib (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Islam Online

"The Shari`ah is for all times to come, equally valid under all circumstances... If it is divinely ordained, it can be changed by a human being only if authorized by God or His Prophet.... as the manifestation of God’s infinite mercy, knowledge, and wisdom, the Shari`ah cannot be amended to conform to changing human values and standards..."

From the European Court of Human Rights:

"Like the Constitutional Court, the Court considers that sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable." Jayzames (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reference, I'd like to have a look at this, thanks Aquib (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References are inline. You really should get up to speed and figure out how things work here, particularly the fact that everything can and will be edited and redistributed mercilessly, or you might embarrass yourself in front of the admins again. Jayzames (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayzames, I see the reference now, thanks. I was looking at another place in your changes, which apparently doesn't exist anymore, where you referred to the ruling without the reference. Aquib (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where to start

I'm still trying to get through the first paragraph. Which, as far as I could tell, stated that the term "Sharia" was enforced on Christians and Jews. Not the law, just the term. The term is enforced. And just how does one enforce a phrase of speech? Oh, sorry, I forgot. That's what the Internet is for ; ) OK, I carefully tweaked that sentence to indicate Christians and Jews may use the Arabic term Sharia. Now I am looking further down in the first paragraph, towards the next to last line. We have a word for the overarching concept that refers to all aspects of Islam, and I don't think it's Sharia, at least in English. The word is Islam. Aquib american muslim (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First para does not clearly define Sharia Aquib american muslim (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First para, parsing this sentence "It is used to refer both to the Islamic system of law and the totality of the Islamic way of life." All human actions and activities fall into categories in Islam. These categories range from the most exemplary or excellent, to the merely permissible, to the most reprehensible. In that respect, the above sentence is correct. But does the fact that all actions fall somewhere on that spectrum imply that Sharia refers to all aspects of the Islamic way of life? Does the term "Islamic way of life" refer to only those actions that are distinctly Islamic, since many aspects of behavior are common to all humans? Perhaps, but I am wondering who uses the term Sharia to refer to the Islamic way of life. This is not a common usage in my experience. My experience is based primarily in English usage, and this is the English Wikipedia. I am considering asking for a citation. Aquib american muslim (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First para - Google "define:sharia" This is the type of information one would expect to find at the beginning of the article. The current Google entry from Wikipedia looks completely different from what we have up at the moment. Aquib american muslim (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First para - I am beginning to think the discussion of collocation does not belong in the first para at all. It is a distraction, a point of contention. Aquib american muslim (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Structure and content

Compare this article to the entries for "Common Law" and "Civil Law". Do the same issues, questions and points of comparison not exist in these other huge bodies of law that govern the lives of so many peoples? The other articles are more readable as well. Aquib american muslim (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I saw a comment this article is huge and consideration should be given to breaking it up. There is some merit in this suggestion, although it would no doubt be a daunting task. Aquib (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be Bold My understanding is that Sharia is a code of conduct that Muslims are expected to follow and that Islamic jurisprudence varies from place to place (or school to school)J8079s (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharia refers to the entire body of Islamic law. Sharia law is relatively uniform, but varies in it's details by locale and school of jurisprudence (Madhab). Islamic jurisprudence, known as Fiqh, is the interpretation of Sharia and it's application to new questions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh. As new questions are settled, these solutions are incorporated into Sharia. Aquib (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning of Article

Purpose of changes: Unify and simplify the first paragraph so the reader has a basic understanding of what the subject is, and how it relates to other important associated concepts. Never mind the rest of the article for now. Aquib (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a scholar, but this change does not require a specialized scholar. It requires someone with general knowledge of the subject and the language.

Proposed date for change: as of now, say 2/10/10. Unless I start getting some feedback or run into a problem. I can pretty much see what needs to be done. Aquib (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Momentary pause: Reviewing interesting input from J8079s see below Aquib (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism in Etymology holds up change Aquib (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in place and visible. Thanks to fellow Wikians who assisted and the ones who seem to be watching over this site to protect it.

replaced: entire beginning paragraph -----------

Rev 1 Proposed new beginning paragraph Aquib (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharia (Arabic: '‎شريعة Šarīʿa; [ʃɑˈriːɑ], "way" or "path") refers to the entirety of Islamic law. Sharia is based on the holy book of Islam (the Qu'ran) and the life of the Prophet Muhammad. There are differences of opinion in some areas of Sharia law, depending on which Islamic scholar's opinions are followed. Sharia deals with many aspects of life, including crime, politics, economics, banking, business, contracts, family, sexuality, hygiene, and social issues.

Rev 2 Aquib (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharia (Arabic: '‎شريعة Šarīʿa; [ʃɑˈriːɑ], "way" or "path") refers to the entirety of Islamic law. Sharia law is derived from the sacred text of Islam (the Qur'an) and examples from the life of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. There are differences of opinion in some areas of Sharia law, depending on which Islamic scholar's opinions are followed. Sharia deals with many aspects of life, including crime, politics, economics, banking, business, contracts, family, sexuality, hygiene, and social issues.

Rev 3 Aquib (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharia (Arabic: '‎شريعة Šarīʿa; [ʃɑˈriːɑ], "way" or "path") refers to Islamic law. Sharia law is derived from the sacred text of Islam (the Qur'an), and traditions (Hadith) gathered from the life of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. There are differences of opinion in some areas of Sharia law, depending on the school of thought (Madh'hab), and the particular scholars (Ulema) involved. Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) interprets and refines Sharia, by applying it's principles to new questions. The judge (Qadi) applies the law. Sharia deals with many aspects of life, including crime, politics, economics, banking, business, contracts, family, sexuality, hygiene, and social issues.

Rev 4 Aquib (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharia (Arabic: '‎شريعة Šarīʿa; [ʃɑˈriːɑ], "way" or "path") refers to Islamic law. Sharia law is derived from the sacred text of Islam (the Qur'an), and Traditions (Hadith) gathered from the life of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. There are differences of opinion in some areas of Sharia law, depending on the school of thought (Madh'hab), and the particular scholars (Ulema) involved. Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) interprets and refines Sharia, by applying it's principles to new questions. Islamic judges (Qadi) apply the law. Sharia deals with many aspects of life, including crime, politics, economics, banking, business, contracts, family, sexuality, hygiene, and social issues.

FINAL REVISION, plus don't forget the bit I've shifted to etymology. Aquib (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharia (Arabic: 'شريعة Šarīʿa; [ʃɑˈriːɑ], "way" or "path") refers to the "way" a Muslim should live or the "path" they must follow. Sharia is derived from the sacred text of Islam (the Qur'an), and Traditions (Hadith) gathered from the life of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. There are different interpretations in some areas of Sharia, depending on the school of thought (Madh'hab), and the particular scholars (Ulema) involved. Traditionally, Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) interprets and refines Sharia by applying it's principles to new questions. Islamic judges (Qadi) apply the law, however modern application varies from country to country. Sharia deals with many aspects of life, including crime, politics, economics, banking, business, contracts, family, sexuality, hygiene, and social issues.

notably moved: from beginning paragraph

A less contentious version of the below belongs under Etymology Aquib (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Arabic, the collocation ‘Šarīʿat Allāh’ ('God’s Law" or "Law of God") is traditionally not only used by Muslims but also followed by Christians[1] and Jews, sometimes translating expressions such as Torat Elōhīm [תורת אלוהים] or ‘ho nómos toû theoû' (ὁ νόμος τοῦ θεοῦ) '’.

This text will be reworded (below) and moved to a new second paragraph under Etymology. Aquib (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase ‘Šarīʿat Allāh’ ('God’s Law" or "Law of God") is also used by Arabic Christians[1] and Jews to describe their own religious law, sometimes translating expressions such as Torat Elōhīm [תורת אלוהים] or ‘ho nómos toû theoû' (ὁ νόμος τοῦ θεοῦ) '’.

notably deleted: from beginning paragraph

Someone please give me a citation below, the Islamic way of life is referred to as "Islam", not "Sharia" Aquib (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is used to refer both to the Islamic system of law and the totality of the Islamic way of life.[citation needed]

concession regarding dispute as to how much of Fiqh is, in fact, Sharia

I am sidestepping this issue by removing the claim that Sharia refers to the entirety of Islamic law. This question it is taken up at length further down in the article. This question is beyond my reach and seems to be a point of contention. Let us not sacrifice the inestimable value of presenting a concise overview in the first paragraph. Aquib (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be Bold
Please see this web site [1] it seems neutral and current
how about this

Sharia (Arabic: '‎شريعة Šarīʿa; [ʃɑˈriːɑ], "way" or "path") refers to the "way" a Muslim should live or the "path" they must follow. Sharia is derived from the sacred text of Islam (the Qur'an), and Traditions (Hadith) gathered from the life of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. There are different interpretations in some areas of Sharia, depending on the school of thought (Madh'hab), and the particular scholars (Ulema) involved. Traditionally Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) interprets and refines Sharia, by applying it's principles to new questions. Islamic judges (Qadi) apply the law, however modern application varies from country to country. Sharia deals with many aspects of life, including crime, politics, economics, banking, business, contracts, family, sexuality, hygiene, and social issues.

again I say 'be bold

J8079s (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like. I'm linking in Muslim, and there may be a missing comma. That will be my final revision, thank you J8079s. Aquib (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce

Quran 2:229: Khul' Aquib (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Khul' (Parting of a wife from her husband). This instruction for the judge comes from Quran 2:229, it refers to a woman giving up some or all of her dowry to regain her freedom.

Qur'an - 2:229 ...Then if you fear that they would not be able to keep the limits ordained by Allâh, then there is no sin on either of them if she gives back (the Mahr or a part of it) for her Al-Khul' (divorce).

It is quite clear we have a wife seeking divorce from a judge in this verse. If the judge fears sin will result from withholding the divorce, he is to grant it to the wife. However she seems to be liable for compensation from her dowry.

Below three translations of the complete verse 2:229, which discusses other matters of divorce along with Khul'. In all these translations, there is a passage specifically addressing the situation where a woman who has brought suit for her freedom. If there is danger of sin as a result of denying the divorce, the judge is instructed to grant divorce, with the possibility of requiring a return of some or all of the dowry. Please note I am not thoroughly outlining the correct procedure, or citing law. I am citing a specific verse in the Quran which allows a woman to divorce her husband.

002.229 YUSUFALI: A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold Together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness. It is not lawful for you, (Men), to take back any of your gifts (from your wives), except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah. If ye (judges) do indeed fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah, there is no blame on either of them if she give something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by Allah; so do not transgress them if any do transgress the limits ordained by Allah, such persons wrong (Themselves as well as others).

PICKTHAL: Divorce must be pronounced twice and then (a woman) must be retained in honour or released in kindness. And it is not lawful for you that ye take from women aught of that which ye have given them; except (in the case) when both fear that they may not be able to keep within the limits (imposed by) Allah. And if ye fear that they may not be able to keep the limits of Allah, in that case it is no sin for either of them if the woman ransom herself. These are the limits (imposed by) Allah. Transgress them not. For whoso transgresseth Allah's limits: such are wrong-doers.

SHAKIR: Divorce may be (pronounced) twice, then keep (them) in good fellowship or let (them) go with kindness; and it is not lawful for you to take any part of what you have given them, unless both fear that they cannot keep within the limits of Allah; then if you fear that they cannot keep within the limits of Allah, there is no blame on them for what she gives up to become free thereby. These are the limits of Allah, so do not exceed them and whoever exceeds the limits of Allah these it is that are the unjust.

Khul('): Woman's right to divorce in Islam or an abbreviation for an airport in Houston?

Hi. Can someone help me figure out how to send searches on khul to the article on khul' instead of the airport in Houston? Thank you : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquib american muslim (talk • contribs) 15:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've created a redirect at khul and added a note at khul', in case someone is looking for the airport but finds the "kuhl'" article. Graham87 06:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham, I'll make a note of how this is done Aquib (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map indicating countries that use Sharia

I was thinking a map showing which countries/areas use Sharia may be useful. 76.30.222.251 (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that's a great idea Aquib (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New

Were is the criticism of Sharia law in the article? many people have expressed contempt of it and it's immoral view —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.118.232 (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for contemporary criticisms of Sharia, scroll down to the Modern Islamic law section. You'll find plenty of contemporary criticisms of Sharia there. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization and standardization of spellings

I propose to capitalize every reference to the word Sharia. 1) According to Merriam Webster dot com this is permissible. 2) According to rules of capitalization, references to religious books are capitalized. Although the scope of Sharia is in dispute, there is no doubt the roots of the basic code are the Quran. 3) It has to be spelled some way, so let's capitalize. Most people won't notice. The ones who would be offended are more likely to take exception to its UNcapitalized form.

I plan to undertake a systematic review of spelling, punctuation, capitalization and syntax across this article.

Aquib (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead sentence of this article says, "Sharia (Arabic: 'شريعة Šarīʿa; [ʃɑˈriːɑ], "way" or "path") refers to the "way" Muslims should live or the "path" they must follow."

WP:MOS#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines, and their adherents says, in part, "Philosophies, theories, movements, and doctrines do not begin with a capital letter unless the name derives from a proper noun [...]."

My synthesis from that is that the term should not be capitalized. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Wtmitchell thanks for the feedback - my thoughts:

Doctrine Examples of religious doctrines include: Christian Trinity

Trinity The Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead.

Perhaps WP:MOS is silent on the subject of religious doctrine?

A case may also be made Sharia is derived from a proper noun. One of Allah's 99 names is The Way. "Way" seems (have not researched this) to be the verbal noun referenced at Quran 45:18 quoting --> Sharia#Etymology The definition of Shari’a could be traced from the verbal Arabic noun “Shari’a” that appears in the Qur’an only once at 45:18.

A case could also be made that Trinity and Sharia have become proper nouns in the same way Republicans and Democrats have.

Aquib (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just commented in passing above. Liiking at Trinity, that term seems to a "Triune God, existing as three persons"; i.e., a diety. That MOS section says that honorifics for deities, including proper nouns and titles, should be capitalized. If what you say about "Way" (and "Sharia") is the case, that would seem to apply there as well, but only in those cases where the term is used to refer explicitly to Allah. Where the term is used in some other sense, it would seem not proper to capitalize it. I'm certainly no authority on this, and further input from me on it is probably of little value. I note in passing that the Trinity article capitalizes the term "Trinatarian", and I would tend not to do that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Schools

There is something strange in the map of legal schools. In the article, it seems to show Egypt colored the same as East Africa and Indonesia, for Shafi'i. However, when I enlarged the map, it was green, like the easten regions, for Hanafi. Can someone fix this, or explain it?

--Sukkoth 06:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukkoth Qulmos (talk • contribs)

Sharia means path to water hole?

Perhaps the root word for Sharia was derived this way 1,400 years ago, but the current definition is what we are looking for here. See etymology for origins of the word. Aquib (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC) By the way, undid Buckburg's new definition Aquib (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning assertion that section on Sharia's contributions to English common law is unbalanced

Re the POV tag placed here, comparison of Sharia and English common law; I'm not a scholar on this subject, and I am not discussing the merits of these assertions. But if there is more than one valid point of view needed here, can we have a citation in the article supporting this alternate POV? That should resolve the matter. Otherwise, one can only assume there is no contradictory citation available. The section seems well sourced. We can't assume the section has a POV problem simply because there are no contradictory citations.

Also, I agree Roman law came before Sharia, but Roman law was civil law. And Sharia did come before English common law.

Aquib (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invited Fremte to discuss Aquib (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No response Aquib (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That does not mean that Sharia law influenced the common law. The article lays claim to sharia creating juries, trusts, and contracts, which were all established parts of law in the Roman Empire long before Mohammed existed. This historical revisionism largely cleaned up in the English common law entry, but the sharia section needs to be revised as well. A journal article by one guy (Makdisi) does not determine in any way that sharia developed these parts of English jurisprudence. The section as it stands contains weasel words and violates NPOV.Calanen (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing POV from head of article

The following text has recently been inserted in the third sentence of the article.

"As such, Sharia is considered "God's law," and cannot be changed by humans, in contrast to "manmade law," or "qanun" enacted by temporal authorities. "

The citation follows here http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1209357805399&pagename=Zone-English-Living_Shariah%2FLSELayout The Unchanging in a Changing World

For purposes of this article, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the premise.

I must point out that the citation (above) is to an article by a professor who (if I may be so bold as to generalize here) is a) apparently well-known for his various criticisms of Wahabism and Salafism, and b) also an advocate for human rights and liberalism in Islam. This is of course a valid POV (can we say any POV is invalid in this sense?), but it directly refutes the text for which it is cited. A close reading of the article yields a description of the very same dilemma posed by the insertion of the text in question. The cited article is very similar in flavor to the one by Dr. Ali Khan quoted in the Definitions section of the article (see below). BTW I am not in a position to address whether one might categorize such a viewpoint as "mainstream" among adherents to Islam.

The text which needs to be removed represents one POV on Sharia. As such, it must be presented along with other viewpoints. Three viewpoints are already represented. This article covers the relevant viewpoints here Sharia#Definitions_and_descriptions. Please note Dr. Ali Khan's quote under "Other perspectives".

No doubt there are other POVs on the definition of Sharia, for instance the Sufi, Salafi, and Wahabi, which might be added. In order to avoid bias, none of them should be in the third sentence of the article.

Aquib (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can testimony from women carry half weight if only men can testify?

This sentence in Sharia#Legal_and_court_proceedings contradicts itself. Either women can testify or they cannot.

Testimony must be from Muslim male witnesses; testimony from women is given only half the weight of men, and testimony from non-Muslims may be excluded altogether.

Aquib (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amended to "should." Cf. Status of women's testimony in Islam. Even you must already know this.

(above text added by JZ)

Yes, thank you Aquib (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading assertion regarding codification of law

Quoting from Sharia#Legal_and_court_proceedings

unlike civil law, sharia does not utilize formally codified statutes (which were introduced only as a very late development during the Ottoman Empire).

This phrasing leaves the impression Sharia is an oral tradition. Quite the contrary, Islamic law in all the major schools has been documented in detail for centuries. A good example is Reliance_of_the_Traveller from the 14th century. Aquib (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you need to get up to speed, as you apparently do not even understand the difference between the common law of Britain and its former colonies (including the US), and the civil law of continental Europe and its colonies. Please read both articles. Common law makes law through the verdicts of courts, which are treated as precedents, civil law is made in legislatures through a formal code. Most countries today mix both systems to various degrees; but sharia does neither of the above. Absolutely no reference is made to there never having been books written, only someone unfamiliar with the most rudimentary basics of law could deduce from the above that Sharia is an oral tradition. Sharia did not have a code because there was never any legislature (i.e. "Congress" to put in terms you might understand) in Islamic states until very recently, nor did previous verdicts ever form a corpus of binding common law, the way "Brown v. Board of Education" for example, made segregation illegal.Jayzames (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(above paragraph appears to be Jayzames response)

@Jayzames, that's not the definition of code according to Princeton wordnet. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=code S: (n) code, codification (a set of rules or principles or laws (especially written ones)) So I suggest you read Realiance of the Traveler and tell me it's not codification of law.

Aquib (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-sequitur, you might have just as well responded with "Zebra!" or "Banana!" It might be burdensome or difficult for you or you may be a slow reader, but please actually read the articles on what common or civil law actually is. Codification, i.e. "United States Code Title 23 Highways Chapter 1 Federal Aid-Highways" was not enacted until the late Ottoman period, the fact thereof has already been noted in the article via Noah Feldman. Reliance of the Traveler is not a code and has not been officially used as such, ever. There was no legislature like the Roman Senate or the US Congress to make laws under the sultans, nor has the verdict of a previous Sharia court been binding on a subsequent court in the practice of common law jurisdictions.

You can check Judicial system of Iran for further details, it notes that codification was especially resisted by Shia jurists.

Jayzames (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayzames, your response is "well they had all their laws listed out in detail, but they didn't have their laws typed up on U.S. government issued Selectric typewriters, therefore they were not codified?" Can you not see the obvious absurdity of your position? Wikilawyer?

Your assertion is not only misleading it is incorrect. Not just this statement, but this whole section needs to be moved back down below definitions and brought up to some sort of reasonable semblance of objectivity, or thrown away altogether.

Aquib (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another non-sequitur. You've already been directed to the refs indicating that codification is a recent innovation. Nowhere did I state that the laws were all listed in detail, that in itself would have been codification.

In the early 19th century, the Ottoman empire responded to military setbacks with an internal reform movement. The most important reform was the attempt to codify Shariah. This Westernizing process, foreign to the Islamic legal tradition, sought to transform Shariah from a body of doctrines and principles to be discovered by the human efforts of the scholars into a set of rules that could be looked up in a book. (Noah Feldman)

For the Shiah, ... resistance to a single written code was even stronger; the jurisconsult's right to describe the law in his own way was the very essence of the doctrine that had revived the jurisconsult school at the end of the 18th century.(Roy Mottahedeh)

Try actually reading the refs, or if this helps you understand better, "READ, IN THE NAME OF THY LORD!" Jayzames (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL OK JZ...

I see you are using a specific definition of codification that is common. That is not to say it is accurate or universal. But it seems to be in common use among some lawyers or at least writers. It is legalese.

BUT Nowhere in the definition contained in Codification_(law) do I see anything that would prevent Reliance of the Traveler from being classified as code. By the way, follow the link in the first sentence back to legal code, too.

And, according to your link, CIVIL law was codified in Turkey in the 18th century. We have to assume CRIMINAL Law was not already that way. I'll give you that. For now.

And you can't prove this assertion by citing examples of specific jurists and rulers at specific places and times. I can cite examples of plenty of people who have resisted all sorts of things, but it doesn't prove those things were never implemented anywhere at anytime. It won't hold up.

Most importantly, what's the average person going to think when they read this? That none of this was written down for 1,000 years. It's misleading. What is the point of this section? Where is the perspective?

If you insist on keeping this sentence, please clarify. I'm not saying I agree, or even understand what the point is, but... I guess something like how scholars and jurists had studied, read and written about Sharia, how they had organized and documented the law, developed it, debated it... but they didn't "codify" it until the Turks. A little balance here?????

Aquib (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliance of the Traveler" was never promulgated by the sultan or caliph as official code. It's as simple as that. Never at any time could a person look up a passage from Reliance of the Traveler and use it alone to enforce anything, whereas I can look up anything in the USC to enforce something (i.e. "civil"), AS WELL AS looking up previous precedent, e.g. "Rowe vs. Wade" to guarantee access to abortion (i.e "common"). Nowhere does the article as written suggest that sharia is an oral tradition, it says it is based on fatwas and presumably most or all fatwas are WRITTEN. It's only your ignorance of the basics of legal systems and your apparent unwillingness to read references that have caused you to misconstrue this so badly.

You are also confusing the concept of "civil (i.e. Roman, continental) law versus common law (British)" at the national level with "civil code (i.e. law where private parties are adversaries, lawsuits, patents, etc.) versus criminal code (i.e. law where the opposing party is the state, felonies, misdemeanors, etc). Jayzames (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well now that is true isn't it? No Sultan or Caliph would dare to promulgate their own version of Sharia would they? This was the sole province of the Ulema. You are oversimplifying your comparisons to the disservice of the the article's subject; ie stating they didn't codify until such and such, but failing to mention the reason why. Bias. Aquib (talk) 06:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of codification has already been referenced in two sources, it's not a controversial issue except in your own, rather muddled, mind. What you said further demonstrates that there was no codification, nor, according to you, could there be unless introduced by the ulema, who never deigned to do so. Jayzames (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, apparently, Sharia is NOT codified even in Saudi Arabia!Jayzames (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between codifying and promulgating. I stand behind my assertions. Your changes are biased. I was working on etymology when you showed up. I am not a scholar but I know bias when I see it. You are leaving the same sort of mess that you claim Jagged85 caused here. Aquib (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What assertions? Everything has been (mostly patiently) explained to you, a definition of codification has been provided, numerous references have been given, and when you've refused to read them, the references have been directly quoted. The semantics of "codification" cannot be readjusted solely to suit your whim, the rest of the world, Muslims included, understands codification as the compilation of laws into binding, official statutes, not just writing down opinions in a jurist's handbook. This codification process was indeed "foreign to the Islamic legal tradition," as noted by Noah Feldman. You're trying to advance truthiness over truth, because this "lawyer's legalese" definition of codification is unsatisfying to you on an intuitive level, never mind actual the actual facts or evidence of how it's actually used in the world. Jayzames (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of history's notable codes:

Code of Hammurabi - one of the earliest codes in the ancient Near East. Corpus Juris Civilis devised by Justinian, Emperor of the East Roman (Byzantine) Empire, formerly used in the pre-Islamic Middle East, and ancestor to continental European law. Napoleonic Code- Very important development, and the direct ancestor to the codes used in Quebec and Louisiana to this day.

Sharia, however, was very clearly never compiled in anything resembling this fashion until relatively recently, nor has precedent been compiled in the common law fashion. None of this has anything to do with sharia being an "oral tradition."Jayzames (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain to me what the purpose of your statement is? Sharia wasn't codified until relatively recently... So... Was it less effective? Was it less modern? Was it just different? Why is this statement important? What is the implication in terms of the implementation or effect of this system of law versus other "codified" systems of law? What's your point?

Because it is quite clear what the effect of your statement is on the casual reader. It implies a shortcoming in Sharia.

Aquib (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps you should hesitate before appointing yourself as the representative of the casual reader because you don't appear to actually read. The sources have been provided as to why codification is important, it gives every literate person, ulema or not, direct access to an objective and reliable source of information on the law and makes law enforcement predictable. The same goes for compilations of case law. Of course this greatly diminished the position of the ulema, ergo huge importance.

My "intentions" are really irrelevant, if it's factual, sourced, and relevant, and the lack of codification are all three. There isn't any normative judgment as to whether lack of codification makes sharia more or less efficient, you could legitimately argue that not being bound to precedent or statutes makes sharia verdicts more flexible (at the cost of being less predictable). I think most people living today, and especially people doing business, like to have their laws predictable. Jayzames (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General questions on Legal and court proceedings section

1. There are 2 citations in this section. Is the rest of this original research?

2. Why are Sharia court proceedings described as TRADITIONAL? Shouldn't there at least be contemporary descriptions as well? Is this balanced?

3. Why is the court proceedings section more important than the definitions section, and placed beneath the lead in to the article?

Aquib (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 & 2. Because sharia courts have diminished greatly in status from the late 19th century (cf. Timur Kuran), and either have been abolished completely, or are restricted to adjudicating only family affairs between Muslims. They are the general court system only in Saudi Arabia, and maybe Sudan and Iran. I think one can confidently say that virtually all secular courts allow lawyers as representatives, and virtually all secular courts allow written evidence, but I can't speak to how sharia courts are now run in every single Muslim country. That is better referenced in articles on the individual legal systems of each country. I can only speak on what was the prevailing custom of sharia courts for some 13 centuries or so. Also, again, actually read the refs.

(above by JZ)

1. You seem knowledgeable, but there are problems with this material. I will wait to see if it develops before returning to it. The section is notably devoid of citations. I believe it is because you are speaking in overly broad generalizations Aquib (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. If you can only describe Sharia in it's traditional terms, then you can not make this section work. It's like saying "Sharia is so complicated I can't describe it, so I'll describe it the way it used to be." That is a disservice. Aquib (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. The court proceedings section is there because this article is much too long and needs to get to the point, and people will want to know the salient differences between sharia and secular legal systems.Jayzames (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Nevertheless the definition of the article's topic is the primary section within the article. Comparisons are an elaboration of the definition, in order to help the reader grasp the definition. This section should be a subsection of the Definitions, or the next section after Definitions. If you can salvage the gross inadequacies in it's POV. Aquib (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the section is rather a comparison isn't it? Which is something I have heard a lot of complaining about from you. I hope you're not planning to get rid of the other comparisons before discussing it first. Aquib (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comparisons are IRRELEVANT because no verifiable evidence is put forth for the claims. There is evidence, in fact, lots of evidence, that premodern sharia courts did not use representatives, and excluded written evidence. Jayzames (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

don't let the truth get in the way Aquib (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-sequitur, but I think you mean "truthiness."Jayzames (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of the word Sharia, outside of quotes, within this article

This article capitalizes the word Sharia, as does the AP Stylebook. WIKI MOS first principle; consistency.

Why is Criticism of revisionist historiography of Islamic law placed under the Definitions?

Definitions is for definitions, not criticisms. This criticisms of hist... topic is of less relevance to the purpose of the article, and belongs toward the bottom of the article, along with the claims in question. I assume the claims referred to still exist in the article, although I am not sure where they are at the moment.

You can't have it both ways, if you want the relevant sections at the top, you should move this Crit... subsection.

Aquib (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

is the phrase "canonical hudud punishments" contradictory?

khanun is contrasted with Sharia in this article. The word khanun is supposedly derived from canon. Hudud is described as punishments prescribed by Sharia. So isn't canonical hudud (third paragraph of article) an oxymoron? Aquib (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Qanun" (قانون ) with a "q" just means "law in general" in Arabic. It is an Arabic word referring to an Arabic concept, not an English one. The English word "canonical" is referenced here, in definitions 1&2.

1. Present in a canon, religious or otherwise- The Gospel of Luke is a canonical New Testament book.

2. According to recognised or orthodox rules- The men played golf in the most canonical way, with no local rules.

Hudud is both present in the religious texts, and also a recognized and orthodox rule. Hence canonical.

Jayzames (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to have to say this, but your problems with vocabulary and reading comprehension are making it difficult not to be patronizing.Jayzames (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jayzames, why has the section on Classic Islamic law been gutted?

And what exactly has been done with the content? And why?

I haven't been editing the "Classic Islamic Law" section, perhaps someone else did. Again, try actually reading the page histories.Jayzames (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the stuff that was moved from "Classic Islamic Law" was about possible relationships with common law and had nothing whatsoever to do with "Classic Islamic Law."Jayzames (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed first paragraph of "Inalienable rights"

I removed the first paragraph in this section because it gets all its support from a single source, "Justice Without Frontiers" by C.G. Weeramantry to claim that Islam granted inalienable rights, provides for rule of law, and anticipated John Locke's idea of conditional rulership (here). In fact the book mentions Islam only on two pages, one of which is about Islam and land ownership, and none of which mentions inalienable rights, rule of law, or John Locke. I think this is one of jagged85's misrepresentations of sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayzames (talk • contribs) 03:47, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying Islam does not grant inalienable rights or provide for rule of law? Or these points are either not germane or uncited? Or you took those statements out because they were in the same paragraph with the assertion ~Islam contributed to John Locke's thinking? And is this not the same cited article you later discovered to have additional information you missed the first time you read it?

And is every line in every article in Wikipedia subject to summary deletion if it is not properly cited? Don't answer this last one, it is rhetorical. No one will ever know what's recently been deleted from this article without Wiki forensics.

Aquib (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are reading the wrong book. The book I originally cited was Justice Without Frontiers: Furthering human rights, not Justice Without Frontiers: Protecting human rights in the age of technology. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please make sure you're consulting the correct source before throwing around accusations of its being misrepresented. As it happens, the removed text did misrepresent the cited source, because it made it appear that an expression supposedly quoted verbatim from the source was referring to "early Islamic law and Jurisprudence". In fact, the source was not quoted verbatim, and the expression misquoted was not referring to early Islamic law and Jurisprudence at all, but to "the modern framework of human rights".

Here is the proper quotation together with some preceding context from pp.134–35 of the cited source:

"The Islamic theory of the state does not view a contract between man and man as being an adequate foundation on which to rest a ruler's duties to his people. The Islamic citizen does not therefore have to seek his rights as a citizen in a contract, genuine or notional, between himself and his ruler. His rights, like his duties depend on 'the Covenant his soul has sealed with God'. Both ruler and ruled are the subjects of a common sovereign. The earthly ruler is at best no more than a vice-regent, discharging on trust the duties imposed on him from above.

"One sees how easily this ties in with the modern framework of human rights which denies to any ruler, however powerful, the right to take away from his subjects certain rights which inhere in his or her person as a human being."

whereas the text removed from the article said:

'The concept of inalienable rights was found in early Islamic law and jurisprudence, which denied a ruler "the right to take away from his subjects certain rights inherant in their persons as human beings." '

It is evident from other passages in the source that the text removed from the article probably did give a reasonably accurate representation of Weeramantry's views. Further down on p.135, for instance, we find the following text:

"The concept of inalienable rights entered Western thought through Lockean formulations in the seventeenth century. In Islam they were there from the commencement."

But, however reasonable it might be to infer from this that Weeramantry would quite likely regard early Islamic jurisprudence as denying any ruler the right to take certain rights away from his subjects, such an inference nevertheless constitutes original research and therefore cannot be used as a justification for including such an assertion in the article.

In any case, there seems to me to be a serious problem with using Weeramantry as a source for the content of early Islamic jurisprudence. While he does seem to be an eminent jurist, he doesn't appear to be a trained or professional historian. Thus, although he would therefore appear to constitute a reliable source for matters of modern jurisprudence, I can't see how he can be regarded as one for the history of jurisprudence.

Also, according to a footnote on p.126 of the cited source, it's nothing more than the transcript of a lecture delivered at the United Nations in 1989, and, as such, it (understandably) doesn't cite any primary sources and very few secondary sources. It's therefore hardly ideal as a source, even for those matters on which Weeramantry himself might be regarded as a reliable authority.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 18:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section "Economic and Social Rights" for the same reason

Again, all references are to Weeramantry, when nothing in the book indicates that Islam granted economic and social rights. ... Restored, after I look at the book a little moreJayzames (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are reading the wrong book. The book I originally cited was Justice Without Frontiers: Furthering human rights, not Justice Without Frontiers: Protecting human rights in the age of technology. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, you're still reading this. I really don't want to have to go figure out a way to get back on Westlaw to do all of this, are you considering ever fixing any of this? I can tell you that comparing the US legislature, a body of lawmakers, with the Sunna, the biography and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad is far fetched, as well as the civil law comparisons (lacking codification), and the common law comparisons (lacking binding precedent). I don't see anything but the most trivial and superficial similarities.Jayzames (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed first para in "Comparisons with Common Law"

I think it's already been established elsewhere in the article that Sharia is not bound by precedent, which is the distinguishing feature of common law, and the comparison made by Badr comments on the differences between common law and Islamic law, rather than the similarities. Reasoning by analogy is too universally applied to provide meaningful similarity, you may as well say that sharia and common law are deeply similar because they are both systems of law presided over by judges that breathe air. El Gamal's comparison with common law is only the loosest, vaguest comparison based on the use of analogy from other examples in both systems.Jayzames (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather, those who are comparing sharia with common law are asserting that common law is closer to sharia than civil law due to its reliance on previous fiqh rather than a formal code, and reasoning by analogy from previous fiqh (though civil law uses reasoning by analogy as well). This is a lot less dubious than saying that sharia is similar to common law.

The critical fact that judges are not bound by precedent, however, makes any but the most approximate comparison to common law tenuous at best, I will have to read Makdisi and see if there's more here. In any rate, this is a tiny minority opinion which probably doesn't really belong on Wikipedia at all. Jayzames (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

problems

I dont really know enough about Sharia to help but that hasent stopped others so Ive checked these sources

The Shari'a and the nation state: who can codify the divine law?[2]
The Reliance of The Traveller (by Ahmad ibn Naqib al Misri) a Classical Shafi's Jurisprudence Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Translated by Noah Ha Mim Keller in 1991 [3]

The definitive work for Shafi fiqh by al-Misri exclnt trns by Keller Aquib (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State[4] short article here [5]
for info on Sharia and the laws of modern States see [6]

J8079s (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

to do list

we need an outline
Sharia and "Islamic jurisprudence" are not the same thing
Coparisons to other legal systems belong elsewhere
the edits of jagged85 cannot be trusted (by his own admission) check cites
I would like to merge etymology, definitions, descriptions, and origins, get rid of sports, leave issues like marriage, diet, punishment, "international relations" (i.e. warfare and jihad), mostly to their own articles elsewhere on wikipedia, where they are covered in more detail. I would like to get rid of "Modern Islamic law" "background," "women's rights" etc. and merge them all into a single section on human rights, and maybe put the speculative comparisons to other legal systems, either on another short page, as they are largely the hypothesis of a single scholar, or into wiki jannah altogether.

BTW, who's going to fix all the possibly dozens of other messed up articles? I've seen that at the least Trust (law) and Common law] have been tampered with.Jayzames (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, Jagged85 has spammed the "ulama" article with the "Islamic origins of common law" theory, in an article that really has nothing to do with common law.Jayzames (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As well as this, note that Jagged 85 has had problems with his use of sources, so make sure to double check any of his contributions if they seem dubious.

I've just deleted some nonsense from this article, though I've not bothered to check whose addition it was.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pruned part of the "etymology" section

There's too much cruft in the etymology section, and I hope to eventually merge the definitions, etymology, origins etc. into a single section. The Hebrew and Greek text does not appear in the cited reference, nor is there any mention of Arab Christians.Jayzames (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Peace and Justice" section

Removed this section. The Arabic greeting "سلام عليكم : meaning "Peace be upon you" does not by itself show that an Islamic state is especially inclined to pacifism (this greeting was used before Islam in both Hebrew and Latin as well). In fact there is a lot more theorized fiqh available to deal with war than peace (cf. Divisions of the world in Islam). Anyway this section has has nothing to do with sharia.

Duty of Keep the Peace (ALAYKUIM) Muslims have a general responsibility of civility and respect based on dozens of hadith and Quranic verses... the hadith requires a Muslim to greet another Muslim...the Quran says that slander, blasphemy and ridicule and the use of offensive names are crimes...

What is Islam? A comprehensive Introduction; Horrie and Chippindale; Virgin Books Ltd; 1990; ISBN 0753508273 Aquib (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pg 47 Aquib (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of which is relevant to pacifism as state policy. The Hanafi school of Fiqh was apparently the first to divide the world into Dar al-harb, the "land of war" (like "Darfur" means "Land of the Fur") and Dar al-Islam, and such theorizing was subsequently adopted everywhere else, "Dar Al-harb" is even explicitly mentioned in Reliance of the Traveler. If anything, war, not peace, is the default relationship between Muslim and non-Muslim states according to sharia, as all non-Muslim nations are Dar al-harb (including [Al-wilayat al-muttahida]).Jayzames (talk)

This section covers a basic tenet of "recommended behavior" in Sharia "civil law." It is not intended to cover international law. It describes the fundamental right of Muslims to live in peace and be treated with respect in an Islamic society. It was under "Human rights" when you began making changes. Perhaps it was moved to another section before you deleted it. It most certainly covers fundamental human rights.

"What is Islam?" (above) breaks out Islamic "recommended behavior" into these categories: Funeral Rites, Duty of Keep the Peace, Dress, Womens Legal Status, Marriage, Polygamy and Divorce.

Aquib (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muddled?

Like as in whether or not Fiqh is part of Sharia? Whether Fiqh is Islamic jurisprudence? Whether canon law is sacred law? Whether canon is Fiqh? Huh?

Heres a definition of Catholic canon law. There are other similar ones if you would like to see them.

http://books.google.com/books?id=7CIUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=difference+between+sacred+law+and+canon&source=bl&ots=MxGONMGfMD&sig=xKf2UcQcty64Zd-OnqNxuYWcUJI&hl=en&ei=NUXaS9bgK4vY9ATo65lg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=difference%20between%20sacred%20law%20and%20canon&f=false

Let me once again take you back to the third sentence of the article here, recently inserted by Jayzames Because of its origin in revelation, Sharia is considered "God's law," and is not subject to change by humans,[1][2] in contrast to the "manmade law," or "qanun" decreed by temporal authorities.

Qanun, by the way being an Arabic borrow of the Greek for canon. But let's not take the ancient Greek translation for it. Not when we have the current Catholic definition.

Now, further down, excerpting Jayzames' new third paragraph

The most contested aspect of the Sharia involves the canonical hudud punishments (e.g. amputation, stoning, lashing,

Canonical Sharia? Perhaps we are using a different definition of canon than the one the Catholics and Greeks use?

This entire article is becoming more muddled each day. Distinctions between classic and modern implementations of Sharia are being lost. Distinctions between whether or not Fiqh is part of Sharia are becoming even more muddled than they were. Distinctions between different schools of Islamic thought don't seem to be prominent if they are in here at all.

And this does not appear to be an entirely random muddle either. Kind of a selective muddle. As in this example of canon I have provided, in what has become somewhat the centerpiece for a quick read of the article by, yes, I'm going to say it now, the casual reader?

Ell Ohhhhhh Eyullll

Aquib (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already provided the link to wiktionary regarding "canonical," but if you haven't gotten it the first time, here it is again.

1. Present in a canon, religious or otherwise. The Gospel of Luke is a canonical New Testament book. 2. According to recognised or orthodox rules. The men played golf in the most canonical way, with no local rules. 3. Stated or used in the most basic and straightforwardly applicable manner. This definition would be more useful if it were canonical. 4. Prototypical. 5. (religion) In conformity with canon law. 6. (music) In the form of a canon. 7. (religion) Of or pertaining to an ecclesiastical chapter 8. (mathematics, computing) In canonical form.

Hudud qualifies for a number of these, including 1, 2, 4, and 5.

"Canonical" (English) is a different word from "qanun" (Arabic) (قانون ، قانوني ، قانونية , meaning "law," and "legal") in the same way that "libraire" in French means "bookstore," while "library" in English means "library" ("bibliotheque" in French). The words are related, with a common ancestry, but have different meanings.

You aren't a second language English speaker by any chance?Jayzames (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am merely pointing out you seem to have some confusion as to the nature of Sharia. Hopefully you will figure it out. Aquib (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't know if you've gotten this yet, but "قانون " refers primarily to secular law while "canon" (when referring to law) refers primarily to religious law. The similarity in pronunciation and origin doesn't mean they mean the same thing in their respective languages.Jayzames (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons of different bodies of religious law would be useful

We have compared Sharia to civil law and common law.

How about traditional Catholic canon law? Stoning vs. burning at the stake?

And traditional court proceedings? Sharia courts vs. Inquisitions?

Aquib (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disingenuous. Catholic canon law is with the possible exception of the Vatican, nowhere the law of the land. It's fine to make these kinds of moral equivalences the next time someone gets burned at the stake or stoned in a non-Muslim country, or the next time there's an Inquistion. Unlike both those cases, however, sharia courts and hudud punishments are still ongoing.

There are presently various court systems that call themselves "sharia courts" in the OIC countries. Some of them may have borrowed innovations from other systems of law, like professional representation, written evidence, and cross examination, some of them may run strictly on the most traditional lines. I'm just giving a general idea of how sharia courts work in the same way that if you were explaining a proceeding in the US system you'd mention features it has, like representation, discovery, the hearsay rule, and many others.Jayzames (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was actually referring to comparisons of traditional laws, but in fact the situation you describe is not so far fetched Death_by_burning#Modern_burnings. Aquib (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And none of these are actually perpetrated by the state. Jayzames (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason "Criticism of revisionist historiography of Islamic law" keeps moving around

Is because it doesn't belong in the article. Are we going to have other sections highlighting various Bush-era human rights appointees (no, I'm not touching that one) every time we remove questionable material from an article? Ones that ascribe dubious agendas to people of different faiths from their own? Aquib (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole lot that doesn't belong in the article put in by an editor who, as quite exhaustively documented by the RFC, completely screwed up this and many other articles. The "revisionist historiography" section will be moved to a more appropriate location in due time.Jayzames (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm gonna fess up on this one I did misread it. Although the assertion is ludicrous, it is germaine. But I think I can find solid citations for claims of improved lot of women under Islam , and better than European women until recently. Aquib (talk) 06:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already put in multiple citations to primogeniture, when/if I ever get to the women's rights section I'll expand on it. If you bothered to actually read the refs you'd note that Islamic law does indeed grant privileges in inheritance that, though unequal to men, were not granted to women in premodern Europe.Jayzames (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then why a separate section that refutes it categorically? Fringie sounding Aquib (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can hats be deep fried? I guess so, as long as there isn't any plastic in them

I don't know what this argument is all about, but... This was easy enough to find, Jefferson was a prolific reader and he kept a catalog.

I mean, would Jefferson not have read the Quran? Really? Thomas Jefferson?

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/07012/quran.html

Page 158 http://books.google.com/books?id=SUsRr93DRKEC&pg=PA158&lpg=PA158&dq=jefferson+quran+puffendorf&source=bl&ots=muRJO-N6s3&sig=ugqjSdoc52-iBmQ1V2ZKqmaFiHo&hl=en&ei=r4naS7LKI8T68AaZh7VS&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCIQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

And for those of us familiar with Islam, Jefferson's note about a building returning to a state of nature could have a somewhat different connotation.

Just sayin

Aquib (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No-one's denying that Jefferson, or many other educated Westerners of that period or any other, read the Qu’ran. The doubt is over the claim that this influenced in any concrete way the drafting of the US constitution.

Your demand above to "support your claim [that it wasn't influenced] by citing contradictory references" is irrelevant: if the claim is at all contentious, it itself must be supported by a good source. Since the source that was cited to support this claim was misrepresented and made no such claim, in general or in detail, I've removed the claim.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2010

I'm sure Thomas Jefferson had a Bible in his library too. That doesn't mean the Constitution was based on the Bible, and he wasn't even there for the Constitution. Remember that this is the man who pioneered the wall of separation between church and state, exactly the opposite of Sharia.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson was very unlikely to have had a positive image of Islam, as he and John Adams actually met the Ottoman Pasha of Tripoli, Abdalrahman Alajar, in London in an attempt to discourage seizure of American vessels and enslavement of their crew by Muslim pirates. The Pasha, in accordance with a classic Sharia doctrine for relations with non-Muslim states, gave him the choice of: 1. Accept Islam, 2. Submit and pay tribute, 3. Continuous fighting.

“It was… written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged [the Muslims’] authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon wheoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Jayzames (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharia's checks on the powers of the sovereign might not have gone unnoticed. Interesting, but not a priority for me at the moment... the framework for extending and vetting law, independent judiciary... hmmm Aquib (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ba ba ba. Pencil. Carpet. Fish. Elephant. Astronomy, Chorus. Jayzames (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link to article on the meeting between Jefferson and the Pasha by the one and only Christopher Hitchens, British journalist and dipsomaniac.Jayzames (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that there was considerable awareness and understanding of Sharia among British academics, politicians and merchants. Particularly, within the British East India Company, which had a significant interest in the American colonies. Jefferson was not aware of this? The Founding Fathers had no knowledge whatsoever of Sharia? Aquib (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There might also be an invisible dancing fairy on the top of your head right now. Is there any good reason to believe this without some actual evidence showing that it's there? Dig up a document showing that Alexander Hamilton knew about sharia and you've got something worth putting up here, instead of elaborate Da Vinci code conspiracy theories and pseudohistory.Jayzames (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, I've already provided evidence which can be verified from multiple sources (cf. First Barbary War) that at least two Founding Fathers likely had negative views of Islam and Muslims, because in the eyes of the rulers of the North African states, it allows Muslims "to make war upon nations who had done them no injury" simply on grounds of differing religion. Jayzames (talk) 04:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People who think for themselves will know what I'm saying. Let me explain it to you. The world is a much more complex place than some appreciate. Western civilization did not evolve in a test tube. Putting false assertions and citations into Wiki articles is an act of deceit. As is spinning them or tailoring them to suit one's view of the world. But the dismissal of possibilities without prior reflection is an act of ignorance I would not lightly attribute to the framers of the American constitution.

Aquib (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More "truth from the gut, not books," AKA truthiness.

I don't want to assume that you've already heard this (from what I've seen I don't want to be overly sanguine), but you may have heard Carl Sagan's adage "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Here on Wikipedia that adage is modified to "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources." This is part of Verifiability, one of the core policies of Wikipedia (incidentally, this would be referred to as "citing a code provision," Wikipedia is thus more like a civil law system). Saying "Sharia influenced the Founding Fathers" or even "Sharia may have influenced the Founding Fathers" is an exceptional claim (one of very many in this article), it requires exceptional sources and exceptional evidence, of which neither can be found here.

Ick, Citing Wiki policy feels so bureaucratic.Jayzames (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, this won't go any farther than the talk page. And even if it were true, I doubt I would enjoy watching anyone actually eating a hat. Aquib (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tomato! Pineapple! Foot! Opera! Pinch!Jayzames (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this article

Is that there is not one definition of Sharia. You cannot start the article with one specific definition of Sharia. And you can't start it off listing attributes or controversies that only apply in certain countries, or under certain interpretations.

It's unfair, it's misleading, and it's ultimately self defeating. Everyone who comes through and sees these imbalances is going to try to correct them in all directions at once. Right up at the top of the article. Which will lead to pointless warring, stress, wasted effort, and yet another rewrite.

Without doubt, Sharia is the sacred law of Islam. But the article needs to state up front that there are different definitions of Sharia held by Muslims. It needs to say there are different shades of classic Sharia, and there are different shades of modern Sharia. Then it can begin to describe what all these definitions have in common.

Once that has been done, there needs to be a short section highlighting and contrasting the major differences along the spectra of sect and traditionalism.

This is the closest to the top where current issues and East/West conflict can be safely described if you want to really accomplish anything of significance, like making this into a Class-A article. But you can't talk about beheadings and the imposition of Sharia, without also talking about the common folk of Turkey who want God to play a more central role in their lives.

The farther down in the article you push the exploration of conflict and differences, the longer the article will last. It will be more resilient and more readable.

From that point, a better outline of Sharia law is needed.

Court proceedings? Yes, that is important.

Finally, the article breaks out to explore each of the areas introduced above. East/West, Sects, traditionalism, modernism. Whatever.

History and influences? I don't have a strong opinion on that. It does seem that Jefferson owned a Quran. Of course he did. He was Thomas Jefferson. Hard to balance here.

Contrasts between civil, common and other religious law? Mmmmm I have my doubts. Most people intuitively know what their own laws are like. This will be the yardstick they will gauge Sharia by. Hard to balance this.

There are tactical victories to be had by some at the moment. Maybe that's all some people want. I would prefer the truth. If we are after cliche's and sound bytes, we can always go to the media. I have come to expect more than that out of this Wiki thing. Perhaps I am a bit naive.

Aquib (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say that this sounds like an entirely reasonable structure and approach for this article. I don't have the time or expertise to contribute significantly but I wish you all the best in sorting this out.

–Syncategoremata (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aquib (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this article is that it was completely borked by a very tendentious editor, who destroyed this and many, many other articles for religious missionary purposes. We aren't "systematically destroying" it, as you've claimed on the noticeboard, we're trying to bring it back from the dead.Jayzames (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prove me wrong Aquib (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sources

we need wp:rs for a mainstream view of Sharia

Sharia and National Law in Muslim Countries: Tensions and Opportunities for Dutch and EU Foreign Policy Jan Michiel Otto Amsterdam University Press, 2008 ISBN 9087280483, 9789087280482 preview at google books [7] pg 7 espc.

J8079s (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding this. IMHO, this is indeed a comprehensive, mainstream view of Sharia. The wording is clear, and the terminology seems more sociologically oriented - a big plus in my opinion. The author's credentials are impressive. Too bad we can't see all the pages. I'm ordering a copy from Amazon this evening. Regards Aquib (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A comparative work on the fiqh of the various Sunni and Shia sects plus mentions of Salafi and Sufi topics might be useful. I'll try to look around tomorrow and see what's out there. Aquib (talk) 05:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A note on Salafism

I feel it is important to point out a few things here.

I happen to know a few Salafis, and they do not strike me as needing to explain or rationalize or make excuses for or spin their religion any more than other people I know.

Salafism is not a political party or a school of thought. It is a diverse religious movement.

I find the idea of singling out a religious group and tarring them with a derogatory epithet to be offensive. Regardless of who coined the phrase or what their intentions were.

So the next time someone wants to use the term "Salafi apologist", they might try taking whatever beliefs they hold dear and placing the word apologist on the end of it and see how it makes them feel.

Aquib (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salafism is a school of thought that engages in intense condemnation of the practices of other schools of thought, particularly those of Sufism and Shiism. To describe it as some kind of interdenominational group hug in Islam is flatly untrue, your "this guy I know" evidence notwithstanding. There is nothing wrong or inaccurate or derogatory in referring to "Salafi apologetics" anymore than referring to the writings of C.S. Lewis as "Christian apologetics" because that is what they were. Salafis use "salafi" to describe themselves, it is not a derogatory word, anymore than "Evangelical Christian" is a derogatory word used to describe certain varieties of Protestant Christianity. The point is Salafi apologetics should not be the purpose of this article.Jayzames (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem here is the common one that the word "apologist" has two very different meanings in English. Jayzames is using it in the technical sense, where it means "One who speaks or writes in defense of a faith, a cause, or an institution." I've seen other examples on Wikipedia of people being offended by the use of this word, since they read it with its other more everyday meaning ("One who makes an apology.").

But in an article involving religion, its technical meaning is appropriate and the only term available in English to describe such activity.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on Origins section

Some things that come to mind regarding this lead paragraph in Origins

When Sharia began its formation in the deserts of Arabia about 1,400 years ago, the time Islam was born,[33] a sense of community did not exist. Life in the desert was nomadic and tribal, thus the only factor that tied people together into various tribes was through common ancestry.[32] However, the nature of Islam challenged that ideology and brought all those who professed their submission to Islam into the Ummah. Additionally, Islam was not just a religion but a way of life. Laws had to be instilled so the doctrines of Sharia took root. All who are Muslim are judged by Sharia[34] – regardless of the location or the culture.

Some thoughts on this paragraph ----

Islam began in the cities of Arabia, and the Prophet Muhammad was primarily a city dweller. He was not a Bedouin.

The cities were often a mixture of clans and tribes. Many cities had a dominant religion. Mecca had significance to many religions.

Tribes were usually bound by religion as well as kinship.

After the death of Prophet Muhammad, Muslims continued to follow his example (Sunna), and the teachings of the Quran, in all aspects of their lives. This was true of the leaders of the Muslim community as well as the individual Muslims. This desire to follow the Quran and Sunna led to research, discussion and studies. The results of this process became known as Sharia. By this time, most of Arabia was unified under Islam, although strong ties of clan and kinship continued on.

Aquib (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by H.A.R. Gibb

Some of Hamilton Alexander Rosskeen Gibb's comments on Sharia

"Only at a much later date was the Greek word ‘canon’ (qanun) adopted to denote administrative rule as distinct from revealed law. (Thus ‘canon law’ in Arabic should mean the exact opposite of canon in European usage.)"

" As in other Semitic religions, law is thought of, not as a product of human intelligence and adaptation to changing social needs and ideals, but of divine inspiration hence immutable."

Accordingly, no original research, and since everyone from Gibb to Maududi agrees, a representation of mainstream views.Jayzames (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work Aquib (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Mr. Gibb directly addressed this question is an indication of the potential for misunderstanding in it's use. I am of the opinion this article should be written from a sociological standpoint rather than legalistic, and that legal or other specialized jargon should be avoided. There is no need to use ambiguous terms in order to write an article.

Wikipedia:Mos#Contested_vocabulary Wikipedia:Mos#Clarity Aquib (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider " the fact that Mr.Gibb directly addressed this question" is even a coherent response. For the rest:

"Canonical" is neither specialized nor ambiguous jargon, and can be readily understood by a literate first language English speaker. If you think it is too difficult, there is a Simple English version of Wikipedia available.
Gibb was an Arabic professor and Orientalist, Maududi was a journalist, theologian, and early Islamist. This indicates a wide spectrum of agreement from people of highly divergent backgrounds that Sharia (not interpretation of Sharia), where it makes clear instructions in the Quran and Sunnah, is not to be changed by humans. Asserting such is not contentious. My mentioning Gibb was also to show that there is a reputable source for referring to Sharia as religious law vis-à-vis secular law (for which separate provisions and even "codification" had been performed by temporal rulers like Suleiman the Magnificent), that Sharia is treated differently than secular law because it is divine and not to be changed, and that such an assertion is not original research.
This is an article about "Islamic law"'. A legal perspective, including issues like corporate law, rules of evidence, precedent versus codification etc. is a natural and legitimate perspective. This was missing from the article, and what there is, i.e. "The Constitution was influenced by the Quran," "common law is from sharia," is extremely distorted. The sociological and political aspects, like the attempts by Islamists to introduce Sharia (or more Sharia) in predominantly secular states with codified laws like Nigeria and Malaysia have been mentioned, I hope to get to them in more detail eventually. It's a work in progress and will likely take a long time. I hope my enthusiasm won't flag too quickly (I hope the usage of "flag" here is understood, but just in case meaning "to sag, diminish, decline," not the stars and stripes)

I don't think the article needs to be dumbed down just because you in particular don't understand words like "canonical" or "codification."

Also, you still don't seem to get this, but the article was extremely biased and distorted before I got here as abundantly documented in the Jagged85 RFC above. I'm sure however, that there is probably some dawapedia site out there somewhere where extremely contentious conclusions like "Thomas Jefferson owned a Quran"--> "Sharia influenced the Founding Fathers" will go unchallenged, you might be happier with that.

Your disagreement appears to be with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Perhaps your insults and derision can sway them. From my perspective, it only highlights the weakness of your underlying assertions. Insults, ridicule and obscure language are all common tactics used by people who do not wish to discuss issues on their merits. Sadly, they can be quite effective. Thankfully, not everyone is fooled.

Aquib (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Law of the United States- Removed the Al-hibri paragraph

I removed the Al-hibri paragraph because the source represented here is much too problematic. In keeping with the policy of "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" I'm going to dismiss this as a sufficiently exceptional source, as it has only been cited 5 times by others. It also relies on speculation and unfalsifiable claims, including the whopper that the slaves of the Founding Fathers might have been Muslim, and this might have influenced them somehow.Jayzames (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will also hereby make use of the technique of qiyas to assert that since the Prophet Muhammad (SAAW) owned a slave girl/concubine who, not "might have been," but was a Coptic Christian, it is therefore completely reasonable to speculate on the influence of Coptic Christianity on the Quran.Jayzames (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "medical marijuana" claim on grounds of presentism

I think it was desirable to take this out as it gives a misleading impression that the present concept of "medical marijuana" is an accepted one in Islamic society, and this wrongly assumes that premodern people had the same drug prohibitions as the people of today (there were no narcotics acts in the U.S., for example, up to the 20th century, cannabis was first criminalized only then). Basically, no one, Muslim or not, had the moral ideas about marijuana that we do now until the past century, rendering comparisons moot. Also, four predominantly Muslim countries have imposed the death penalty for marijuana; it doesn't seem likely that they will presently regard it as acceptable for medical use, so the attempt to portray Islamic law as "more liberal" about these things is misleading. I think it would not in general be a good idea to ask a doctor for medical marijuana in Saudi Arabia.Jayzames (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the presentism problem with respect to these articles has apparently spilled over to blogs.Jayzames (talk) 05:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The area around modern day Lebanon has traded in hashish for a long time but it was sold for recreational purposes. It was allowed due to a lack of interest in scrutinizing the legal implications rather than institutionalization of the drug as a medical treatment.

Aquib (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terror Law Citation description in Origins

According to Muslims, Sharia Law is founded on the teachings of Allah and the acts and sayings of Muhammad as found in the Qur'an and the Sunnah.^[1]

These seem to have been in here for some time. sheesh. Aquib (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is cited, relevant and presumably true, but it was removed

Islamic law is now the most widely used religious law, and one of the three most common legal systems of the world alongside common law and civil law (Roman law).^[2] During the Islamic Golden Age, classical Islamic law may have influenced the development of common law,^[3] and also influenced the development of several civil law institutions.^[4]

Is this paragraph correct or not? I have heard it said someone didn't like this because of the impression it leaves. If that is a valid criteria for removing true statements, then I can apply that principle to several other areas of the article.

Aquib (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence you have above looks fine, though ideally a more current source would be best for a statement about which systems are most common today. The second sentence makes use of Weasel_words, in the use of the passive 'may have influenced', and such vague claims of possible influence are unencyclopedic and misleading. The third sentence may be true, but should specify which institutions, either in the text or in a quote in the footnote, and as written is problematically vague. Also, the Makdisi 1999 citation lacks a page, which makes the claim harder to check. It is good practice to tag or remove weasel words when you find them, rewriting the sentence to an unambiguous verifiable statement if possible.

Dialectric (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Dialectric, Thank you for your response. I agree the information has problems as you point out.

@Everyone, it is also important information, and should not have been discarded in it's entirety. Discarding entire paragraphs or sections, containing multiple independent statements, because one or more of of them are problematic strikes me as careless or malicious behavior.

If a person does not have time to treat the material in an article with care, they should not be editing it.

Aquib (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually even the first sentence has problems because the majority of Muslim countries in fact use dual court systems, with sharia courts relegated only to ruling on family affairs. Sharia courts are the general courts only in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and perhaps some marginally functional nations like Sudan. Sharia in countries like Egypt or Lebanon may be on paper, the "inspiration" or "source" of the law, but in practice the laws in the Middle Eastern countries are actually modeled on Western (typically French law). I do plan to get to the real world status of sharia eventually, but to describe it as "one of the three most common" is weaselly and a reality distortion. "Widely used" is also for the same reasons weaselly, all religions have rules and laws of one kind or another denoting belief (e.g. the Nicene Creed), and Islam is not the most prevalent religion. It is more accurate to say Sharia is the form of religious law to enjoy the most widespread official enforcement by the state, but even this is problematic as it is the official law of the land in only a handful of countries, making it less than widespread. Hence the paragraph in question was martyred and sent to jannah.

There is rather much use of the weaselly subjunctive mood here as Dielectric has noticed, and I will be tagging it. Since I now have Westlaw access again, over the next few days I will be taking a closer look at the refs.Jayzames (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your reason for deleting the FACT that Sharia is the third largest legal system is because it is not truthy enough. Apparently mere truthiness does not qualify a statement for insertion in an article, but it is grounds for it's removal.

I should not have to guard this article against the deletion of factual material. I have noted other deletions of cited material such as the "salaam alaikum" you did not like, and paragraphs you did not like because they supposedly used a faulty citation - when it turned out you were checking the wrong book. Am I to assume these are being corrected and replaced since they were brought to your attention? Am I to assume these are the only deletions of cited material? Are you keeping a list of all the citations you are deleting and accounting for each of them?

Aquib (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're guarding only the edits of Jagged 85. You can even check what the article used to look like before he got here in the article history. The problems with Jagged 85's edits have been exhaustively demonstrated.

"Sharia is the third largest legal system" may have been a meaningful fact 150-300 years ago when it was the law of the land in the Ottoman Empire and Moghul India. Since it is now the default legal system in only a handful of countries (two if you're being strict), such an assertion is no more meaningful than saying that "John McCain won the second largest number of votes in the last Presidential election." "Sharia is now the least used of the world's major classical legal systems," is just as true; either way of saying it is weaselly apologetics, and no good for Wikipedia.

The same goes for "salam alaikum," the fact that it is the common Muslim greeting has no relevance to sharia's doctrine on diplomacy or international relations, i.e. the legal definition of "peace" as in "peace treaty," not "inner peace;" this is, after all, an article on Islamic LAW. The greeting itself ("Pax Vobiscum" in Latin, "Shalom Aleichem" in Hebrew) has been around for at least centuries, maybe millenia, before Islam. It is not at all unique to Islam.

Again, as I've said repeatedly, I'm sure that there are dawahpedia sites where "defending the faith," i.e. "apologetics," constitutes sufficient grounds for putting things in. That kind of site is certain to be more to your liking. Wikipedia has policies like verifiability, including "exceptional sources for exceptional claims."Jayzames (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to "Principles of International Insolvency" by Phillip Woods p. 55, based on population and GDP figures from "Pocket World in Figures" from The Economist and The Statesman's Yearbook 2005 edited by Barry Turner, Islamic law is the 7th most common legal system, accounting for 3% of jurisdictions, 1% of GDP, 1% of population, and 3% of global area (this almost certainly classifying nations using the dual court systems mentioned, where Islamic courts handle only family matters and not ordinary legal affairs, as "civil" or "common law" jurisdictions). See chart here. It is 7th after English common law, Napoleonic law, American common law, Roman Germanic, "New," and Mixed civil/common, and is ahead of "unallocated." The cited assertion in the paragraph is to a 1978 article by Gamal Moursi Badr in a legal journal whose full archives are not available on Westlaw. At any rate, as there are reputable sources that contradict the claim, and for all the other reasons stated above, it doesn't belong here.Jayzames (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, got the Makdisi article from Westlaw, it's about 84 pages long, so it might be a while, but so far from what I've read, nothing I've come by so far is history and all of it is conjecture. After I'm through though, we might be able to finally clean up the vast number of articles on Wikipedia with apologetic claims that rely solely on this source.Jayzames (talk) 06:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK fair enough, I'll take 3rd largest back out until I can look at it more closely.

As for the fundamental human right of all Muslims to live in peace and dignity in an Islamic society, (Salaam Alaykum), please see my last response here. Please note especially I am quoting a small, introductory book on Islam that covers only it's fundamental tenets. I have little hope that you will read or bother to try to understand what I am saying. Others will note the significance of what has happened, and it's implications.

Aquib (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I hereby make use of the technique of qiyas to likewise conclude that since the greeting in Israel is "Shalom Aleichem," Israel must have a fundamental disposition towards peace.

Furthermore there are two commonly used words in Arabic for peace, salam (سلام) and sulh (صلح), with different meanings, and "sulh" is the one that more closely corresponds to "peace" in the sense of absence of war or peace between nations. Ataturk's dictum of "Peace at home, peace abroad," for example, was "Yurtta sulh, cihanda sulh."

"Salam alaikum" is too vapid and superficial as evidence for pacifism for anything but a dawah apologetics site. One need only point out the vast amounts of jurisprudence on how to conduct warfare (probably the most war related jurisprudence of any form of religious law), and many rulings on the enslavement of captives, and the seizure of booty, etc. to note that sharia doesn't necessarily teach pacifism.Jayzames (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And on top of that, the Sulh-e-Kul ("peace for all") article here specifically contrasts the tolerance policy of the rather heterodox Moghul Emperor Akbar with sharia.Jayzames (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]