Talk:Sharia/Archive 5

Sex segregation

We need a section on sex segregation in Islam.--478jjjz (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I see you have added the category of sexism to the article. That is a somewhat loaded term, isn't it? From looking at the possible meanings and implications of the term (hatred or prejudice for example), I would not say it is neutral.

That is not to say I am against explaining what Sharia means in terms of (in)equality of the sexes. I am against the use of inflammatory language.

Aquib (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The addition of the category does seem like overreach to me. Certainly, regardless of one's position on sexism in sharia, there are large areas of sharia that have nothing to do with a person's sex or sex segregation. The current article could benefit from a 'criticism of Sharia' section which would address such things as claims of sexism; currently the best section for such claims is the confusing heading 'current issues' with the subheading 'women' Dialectric (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

@Dialectric and @478jjjz, yes, and putting criticism of Sharia, including claims of sexism, in one section would make the article more readable. In this format, I assume no balancing would be required in POV. Otherwise we will end up with point/counterpoint scattered through the article.

Current issues is a somewhat confusing title, as I would expect the section to remain largely critical over time. Also, many criticisms of Sharia would seem to go back further than what we call current events.

Regards

Aquib (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet more problems with sources- Al-hibri

I Westlawed the al-hibri article that furnishes the source for some of the claims in this article "Islamic and Constitutional Law: Borrowing Possibilities or a History of Borrowing," and found only 8 cites. Since exceptional claims are made solely on the basis of this article, the source should be reliable, and there should be multiple sources, but this article has received relatively little attention, and much of the attention it has received is dismissive.

Khaled Abou El Fadl in Constitutionalism and the Islamic Sunni Legacy says:

I believe that these types of arguments are for the most part vacuous; they are the product of intellectual restlessness induced by the rather abysmal fortunes of the Islamic heritage in the modern age. As noted earlier, constitutional practice appropriates the values and intellectual heritage that prevails within a society. Although sparks of constitutional thought were definitely generated in the Islamic intellectual heritage, it would be an exaggeration to claim that constitutional values or normative orientations are a consistent part of this tradition.

Anver Emon in "REFLECTIONS ON THE ‘CONSTITUTION OF MEDINA‘: AN ESSAY ON METHODOLOGY AND IDEOLOGY IN ISLAMIC LEGAL HISTORY" says

Al-Hibri does not properly illustrate the basis for asserting that the founding fathers, let alone the general public in post-Revolutionary America, had an opinion about Islam, whether negative or positive.

Jayzames (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted reference to Rosen's The Justice of Islam

Been looking through The Justice of Islam and nowhere does Rosen suggest that common law institutions were derived from or "adapted from" Sharia. The comparison he makes is one of analogy to something already familiar to readers. He also suggests that Confucian "law" is akin to a civil law system, and that Iroquois "law" is akin to a common law system, neither of which are meant to suggest family trees.Jayzames (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"Law of the United States" - Sameer S. Vohra as source is misrepresented

The article relies heavily on a reference called "An American Muslim's Right to Die" from the Journal of Legal Medicine as the source for a number of highly exceptional claims. The source has zero citations on Westlaw. The article at present says

Sameer S. Vohra says the United States Constitution is similar to the Qur'an in that the Constitution is "the supreme law of the land and the basis from which the laws of the legislature originate."[90] Vohra further notes that the legislature is similar to the Sunnah in that the "legislature takes the framework of the Constitution and makes directives that involve the specific day-to-day situations of its citizens."[90] He also writes that the judicial decision-making process is similar to the qiyas and ijma methods, in that judicial decision-making is "a means by which the law is applied to individual disputes," that "words of the Constitution or of statutes do not specifically address all the possible situations to which they may apply," and that, "at times, it requires the judiciary to either use the consensus of previous decisions or reason by analogy to find the correct principle to resolve the dispute."[162]

The legislature ("Congress") is an elected body of representatives. The Sunnah is the biography and orally reported sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (SAAW). This is (again using qiyas. see how inane the parallels are?) like comparing the Federacion International de Football Association (FIFA) with the Diary of Anne Frank.

What Vohra says:

The United States Constitution is akin to the Qur'an. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the basis from which the laws of the legislature originate. Yet, the difference between these two sources is that the Constitution can change by the will of the people. The Qur'an is fixed for all time as the word of God. It is timeless and will always remain so.

The laws of the legislature are akin to the Sunna. The legislature takes the framework of the Constitution and makes directives that involve the specific day-to-day situations of its citizens. The laws of the legislature also can be changed by the will of the people. The Prophet's words, actions, and tacit approvals, however, are timeless. Further, unlike the legislature, the Prophet's actions were considered infallible and synonymous with the words of God *348 articulated in the Qur'an. There was no Supreme Court that could declare that the Prophet's actions violated the Qur'an

This amounts to saying that "The Quran is a lot like the Constitution if the United States had never been able to abolish slavery and give women the vote, and the Sunna is a lot like Congressional lawmaking if the Congressman had died 1400 years ago and no new laws had been made since then." In other words, a comparison that would make the Constitution no longer the Constitution and Congress no longer the Congress. Vohra is clearly making parallels in only the broadest sense by attempting to restate some aspects of Islamic law in terms familiar to American readers. He is not actually saying that the Quran and the Constitution are really functionally similar.

In fact the article is directed at health care practitioners, and is concerned with the issues of terminally ill Muslim patients, and only incidentally and in the vaguest way, touches on constitutional law. The similarities noted by Vohra are only of the most trivial kind, the fact that the Constitution can be changed by the will of the people, and that the legislature is considered by not a single American to be infallible (in fact quite the opposite) constitute differences so profound as to render these parallels meaningless. The use of reasoning by analogy (qiyas) in both systems is also by itself meaningless. Such reasoning is universal, I've myself used it almost half a dozen times on this talk page alone, you might as well say (again more qiyas) that "sharia and US law are fundamentally similar because they are both defined with words." Jayzames (talk) 11:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The (Sharia) article also says:

"He also writes that the judicial decision-making process is similar to the qiyas and ijma methods, in that judicial decision-making is "a means by which the law is applied to individual disputes," that "words of the Constitution or of statutes do not specifically address all the possible situations to which they may apply," and that, "at times, it requires the judiciary to either use the consensus of previous decisions or reason by analogy to find the correct principle to resolve the dispute."

In what society on earth is judicial decision making not "a means by which the law is applied to individual disputes"? How possibly could the "words of the Constitution or of statutes... specifically address all the possible situations to which they may apply"? Where on earth does the judiciary not "at times ... use the consensus of previous decisions or reason by analogy to find the correct principle to resolve the dispute"?

The article (Vohra) is not even about constitutional law, it is about the ethics of "assisted suicide," voluntary termination of life support, etc. for Muslim patients with terminal illness.Jayzames (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Read it again, and it's still fluff. I can't put up a link here, but the Vohra article consists of "introduction to Islam" i.e. the 5 pillars, "Demographics of American Muslims" (younger, richer, better educated than natives), the same stuff already here about the sources of islamic law (usul al fiqh), very loose and trivial comparisons to American law made solely to phrase sharia in terms non-Muslim Americans can understand, and then to the actual point of the article, what to do for terminally ill patients. It goes on to say that Muslims don't have views that are drastically different than the current status quo (it's alright to pull the plug on vegetative patients, not alright to have physician assisted suicide), and after all this it's grand insight for dealing with Muslim patients?

"Muslim patients need their health care practitioners to be aware of their religious views when presenting medical advice."

That's it. This isn't really a quality source for any kind of exceptional claims about the main principles of Islamic law, except maybe for the sharia position on pulling the plug on comatose patients. Everything about big issues of constitutionalism is mentioned only in passing.Jayzames (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And Vohra was a third year law student at the time.Jayzames (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Exceptional claims?

I question the premise that there is anything particularly exceptional about people taking useful things they find and adapting them. It's simply how we make progress. Aquib (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Because there is no evidence that (in this case, the Founding Fathers) have actually done so, making this theory no more credible than the Da Vinci Code. Ideally, Wikipedia should be about verifiable facts (cf. WP:VERIFY, WP:A), and not guesses and speculation (cf. WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE). There is a place for conspiracy theories (like the Da Vinci code) on Wikipedia too, when they have gained a degree of notability in the popular culture. There is also a place for speculative theories in science and the humanities when they are advanced by a significant minority of people and become notable enough for their own article, e.g. the "Shakespeare authorship question". What we have here, however, is an article with no actual evidence and only five citations, indicating that the level of interest and support in this theory is far from a groundswell. It's not even a molehill.

Just to compare, Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations is a theory with which I most emphatically disagree. I don't like it, but it has been cited more than 10,000 times, and no matter how much I don't care for it, it cannot be regarded as simply a fringe theory and therefore ignored. The allegations here are made based on a piece with infinitely less support. It is an exceptional claim for these reasons

• surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known;
• surprising or apparently important reports of historical events not covered by mainstream news media or historiography;
• claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents of such claims say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Let's see how the sharia theory stacks up

• Is it widely known that the common law/US law etc. might have been derived from Sharia? No.
• Has the influence of sharia in common law US constitutional law etc. been covered by mainstream news media or historiography? No.
• Is the possible Islamic origin of common law/US constitutional law the prevailing view in the legal community? No. In fact as can be seen by the small number of citations, few have even heard of it or addressed it. It is the view of a tiny minority.

Essentially, you are confusing "exceptional" with "impossible." Is it completely impossible that the Founding Fathers were influenced by Islamic law? No. Is the theory advanced by (in this case Al-Hibri) an extremely exceptional claim as per WP:REDFLAG? Yes.

@Jayzames thank you for your thoughtful reply. After re-reading your explanation and following some links, I agree this "Sharia contributed to Constitution" could be considered an exceptional claim, if it were claimed to be true. But if I understand the situation, no such claim is made.

I take it the Sharia article made no such claim, but rather suggested the possibility, and cited Al-Hibri (and others?). If so, the citation is a valid citation of the fact that Al-Hibri made the suggestion. The question then becomes can a serious, bona fide suggestion of a possibility from a reputable source be introduced into Wikipedia?

1. I just Googled Al-Hibri and skimmed her article. I am stunned by her work. She is obviously a well regarded feminist and scholar, and her article contains ample footnotes. It is printed in what appears to be a prestigious journal. Do you agree?

2. I would assume the Wiki Cosmology article cites the theories and speculations of physicists on the origin of the universe and the possible contributions of subatomic particles, strings, other speculative material. And the Anthropology articles cite speculations on, for instance, how modern man evolved, arrived in the Americas, why some were buried with red ochre smeared on them, why the Mayans built where they did, etc. This is the nature of science, to speculate. Do you agree?

No, it is the nature of science to be skeptical (cf. scientific scepticism. I know nothing about cosmogony but the theories about how man evolved and arrived in the Americas are well supported with tangible fossil evidence, genetic evidence, anatomical evidence (comparing for example the shapes of incisors in the Americas versus those in Asia), etc. It is not at all empty speculation, is covered by mainstream media, and is the prevailing view.Jayzames (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

3. My question is, why would a line of investigation such as the one documented in Al-Hibri's article (and others?) have no place in the Sharia article?

No evidence, few cites (of the article by others)Jayzames (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Regards,

Aquib (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I have mentioned before, the British East India Company was heavily involved in the study and adaptation of Sharia in Bengal during the era the U.S. Constitution was being developed. Sharia was topical among British merchants politicians, and Colonial lawyers. To whatever extent lawyers were involved in the drafting of the American Constitution, they were British Colonial lawyers.

So comparing "some principles from Sharia were adapted to the U.S. Constitution" to the Exceptional belief "the world is flat" seems an absurd comparison.

Not saying they did, others have said that. Just saying it is not an exceptional claim.

Aquib (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The term "British colonial lawyers" is equivocal, including different groups with different interests. It may be argued that those dealing with the East Indies were familiar with some concepts of Sharia. More important to your argument, however, you need to cite reliable sources that demonstrate specifically:

1. Whether those "British colonial lawyers" in the Americas had the same interests as their legal cousins dealing with the East Indies,
2. Whether (and to what extent) they knew the concepts of Sharia and
3. Whether and where they applied Sharia concepts in their development of the constitution.

Failing such documentation, such arguments (whether yours or your printed sources) remain pure speculation. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

@Steve, thank you for your comments. I apologize, this thread is somewhat jumbled and ~evolutionary. The connection between Colonial lawyers was an observation I made some time ago and repeated here. I find it interesting, but I am not a scholar. I now have a better grasp of the implications of the concept of "exceptional claims", and a better grasp of Al-Hibri's article. Her article, which has recently been de-cited, is breathtaking - at least to me and after a quick skim hah.

al-Hibri, Azizah Y. (1998-1999), "Islamic and American Constitutional Law: Borrowing Possibilities or a History of Borrowing", University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 1 (3): 492?527 [508]

http://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/conlaw/articles/volume1/issue3/al-Hibri1U.Pa.J.Const.L.492(1999).pdf

As this article has been removed from a section containing comparisons between Sharia and American Law, it should be easy (and fair) enough to cite it in support of similarities between Sharia and the American Constitution - in that same section.

Although Al-Hibri's work may not be admissible to the article in terms of it's speculations on Sharia's contribution to the U.S. Constitution, it certainly contains a wealth of legitimate comparisons. By the way, Al-Hibri only asks the questions and makes no overreaching claim; she actually goes to suggest that constitutional law is not foreign to Islamic states for these reasons. Finally, she wonders how big a leap it really is to constitutional democracy from Sharia. Interesting, and totally pertinent as representativr of a modern school of thought in an article on Sharia, yes (no?)? I would hate to lose this article.

Regards,

Aquib (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You might hate to lose it, but it's been dismissed by Enver Amon and Abou El Fadl for good reasons, namely that it makes exceptional and unsupported claims. It also has only a handful of citations in the academic literature indicating that it does not represent the views of even a significant minority. For that reason it should go to jannah. Surely there are better arguments out there for the compatibility of Islam (not necessarily "sharia") and constitutional democracy that do not have to rely on apologetics and bald assertions without any evidence.

Just as another example of qiyas, I could make an offensive argument that because the words "sharika" ("????" company, association) and "shirk" ("??? " polytheism) share the same root: "SH-R-K," (roughly "to share"), then Muslims must be inherently suspicious of companies and associations. Is this any kind of reasonable claim? Arguments that rely on such similarly broad, trivial, and superficial resemblances do not belong in this article.Jayzames (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And another example of the broad, trivial, superficial, and weaselly parallels made in this article: "Sharia allows freedom of speech in a broad sense, granting people the right to talk."Jayzames (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? I know Abou El Fadl is the Bush-era "religious freedom" appointee that's a law professor at UCLA. But I can't seem to pull Enver Amon up on Google. Maybe you misspelled the name?

Aquib (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Anver Emon. The attempts to pronounce guilt by association on Abou El Fadl are rather petty, he was actually tortured in Egypt for his moderate (at least by Salafi standards) views and has been threatened with death in the US for the same.Jayzames (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

OK... Right, Anver Emon. Associate Professor, University of Toronto. Got a book coming out. UCLA, UT Austin... Suppose he knows El Fadl?

By the way this is interesting. It Cites all 3 of them.

http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v11n1/hosen111.txt

Aquib (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wherein he talks of Hibri's "alleged parallels," which is far from an endorsement, elsewhere he notes "Al-Hibri’s argument could be considered to have fallen into an apologetic approach." The number of people who have cited this article is tiny, countable on one hand, and for all of the other reasons mentioned above, this cannot be regarded as a reliable source.Jayzames (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's not selectively edit his thoughts on the subject. Hosen's entire statement in this regard is as follows: 57. Although Al-Hibri’s argument could be considered to have fallen into an apologetic approach, [39] there is a school of thought that Al-Hibri has attempted to show some similarities between the two traditions, using the American standard as the standard of evaluation. The comparison between two legal traditions is, borrowing Patrick Glenn’s term, a multivalent thinking. Glenn takes the view that all traditions contain elements of others. Western legal traditions may contain some of Eastern legal traditions. In other words, “there are always common elements and common subjects of discussion”.[40]Therefore, Glenn rejects the claim that a religious legal tradition is incompatible or incommensurable with secular legal tradition.

Citation 39 is none other than the gentlemen you refer to in support of your claim of rejection.

[39] El Fadl, above n 22;See also Anver Emon, ‘Reflections on the “Constitution of Medina”: An Essay on Methodology and Ideology in Islamic Legal History’, 1 UCLA J. Islamic & Near E.L. 103 (2002)

The Glenn he refers to is H. Patrick Glenn. Are you familiar with his work?

[40] H. Patrick Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World, New York, OxfordUniversity Press, 2000, p. 35.

So let's recap.

A. Notwithstanding apologetics, Hosen sees value in Al-Hisri's work. This is my guardrail position, I am currently aligned with Hosen. Quoting my statement from earlier in this thread, "Although Al-Hibri's work may not be admissible to the article in terms of it's speculations on Sharia's contribution to the U.S. Constitution, it certainly contains a wealth of legitimate comparisons."

B. Glenn, on the other hand, is characterized by Hosen as believing "all traditions contain elements of others". A truthy delight indeed, as it fits nicely with circumstantial evidence and intuitive notions of how Colonial law would spread new ideas through the British Empire. Just glancing at Patrick Glenn, he appears to be the Peter M.Laing Professor of Law at McGill University, Montreal, Canada

Here is a review of the book Hosen is citing from

http://www.paclii.org/journals/fJSPL/vol06/12.shtml

An excerpt from the review: Legal Traditions of the World: A Sustainable Diversity of Law received the Grand Prize of the International Academy of Comparative Law and was favorably reviewed in a number of European and Asian law journals. Although the book received comparatively little critical attention in American law reviews,i it has been used frequently in comparative law courses in United States law schools.

I wonder if the academic circles familiar with these matters would be interested to know what you are up to here on Wikipedia. I wonder if any of them, including Al-Fadl, would approve.

Aquib (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

A grand total of five cites. One of which is at best ambivalent, two of which dismiss her entirely. The article itself contains exceptional claims. Wikipedia really shouldn't be in the business of appearing to endorse these fringe theories by association.

You can always try reporting me to El Fadl, like you did to the Arbitration Committee and the Administrator's Noticeboard (twice). I'm sure he's a nice guy. You can RFC me for misuse of sources too.Jayzames (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Islamophiliac authors

Take the opinions of Islamophiliac authors like Christopher Weeramantry with a grain of salt. I don't know much about him, but he seems like Maurice Bucaille and other non-Muslim charlatans.--478jjjz (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Court proceedings section does not belong at the top of the article

A description of court proceedings is useful. It is not more important than the definition of Sharia.

The most important section in this article is the definition Next is a general description Court proceedings could follow the general description, or be a subsection in it ?Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquib american muslim (talk ? contribs) 13:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

 DoneJ8079s (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Aquib (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Filled out Etymology

I've been meaning to do this for some time. I was in the process of doing it a month ago when other matters took priority. Dictionary of the Holy Quran (Omar) makes it quite simple. Aquib (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually you've gotten it wrong. "Sharia" is not a an English spelling of the classical arabic word "shara'a." Sharia is an English spelling for the classical Arabic word "Sharii'a." The word "sharii'a" is a derived word from the three letter root SH-R-'. I don't know if you can actually read or understand Arabic (I'm guessing "no," from what I've seen), but most Arabic words start with a three letter root, to which you add vowels and prefixes to make different words. For example, as I previously mentioned, SH-R-K- roughly "to share" and also "to entrap." This becomes "shirk" - polytheism- sharing other gods with god, idolatry, "sharika" - "company," "mushrik"- idolater, polytheist, infidel. The reference to the Edward Lane dictionary is perhaps needlessly complex and overwhelming, so for the purpose of convenience I will refer here to Google translate which provides some modern uses of the bare triliteral. Suffice it to say that "path" is definitely a quite adequate general meaning of the root as the common Arabic word for "street" is "shaari'," very close to the other derivation "shari'a," differing only in the length of the vowels ("street" has a long a (?) sound, "law" has a long i (?) sound) and the addition of the feminine ending "a" (?) to "sharia." Compare "????" to "?????" Google translate for ???? here.

BTW, Arabic dictionaries for native speakers are usually arranged not in alphabetical order as in English but with the triliteral root word first, and all derived words following, just like the Edward Lane dictionary that had been referenced previously, so the derivation as per Edward Lane is quite obvious to natives.Jayzames (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks I'll do some more looking Aquib (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You might actually want to read the article Semitic root, sorry if it's filled with too much obscure linguistic jargon for you, but it does show the Arabic/Hebrew root system using the root K-T-B, "writing," from which you can get "kataba" he wrote, "aktub" I write, and then other words like "kitaab" book, "kaatib" writer, "maktab" office, "maktaba" library. K-F-R "unbelief" becomes "kaafir" infidel, "kuffaar" infidels, "takfir" to declare someone an infidel. D-R-S "to study" becomes "mudarris" teacher, and "madrasa" school. Basically, it was actually correct before; you might want to brush up on the Arabic alphabet and understand the root system before you try to explain etymology to others. Jayzames (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree I took a hop when I said Sharia is a modern spelling of Sharaa. I said it because I have seen many references to Sharaa law. I skimmed up a few below

http://books.google.com/books?id=i5EaydrZ1BsC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=sharaa&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=BUgOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA45#v=onepage&q=sharaa&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ozgYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=sharaa&f=false

The books I found using this spelling are older works. Modern English seems to prefer an intervening vowel to an apostrophe when representing a glottal stop.

I find your statement that Sharii'a is a classical Arabic word interesting. I would like to know more details about this word Sharii'a. I don't have a complete classical Arabic dictionary, and the word Sharii'a does not appear in the Quran. My questions revolve around whether this word predates the Quran, if so, when it came into common use referring to Sharia law. It would also be nice to know how that happened.

Actually ????? isn't really a "classical arabic" word it's a modern arabic word, as there is no new word used at present, so even saying "classical arabic word" is incorrect. The differences between "classical" arabic and "modern" written arabic are mostly in vocabulary and style, and things like full pronunciation of case endings, the languages are in other respects the same. The big difference is not between "classical" and "modern written" arabic, which is only used for writing and for television news, it's between both and the spoken varieties of arabic, which are very different grammatically from both classical/modern arabic and each other. The references you cited are probably misspellings characteristic of the time. I don't think you understand what "classical arabic" is, it doesn't differ from "modern literary arabic" in the same way that italian differs from latin. "?????" is also used in all varieties of spoken arabic today, it's not really a "classical" term at all.

Of course this word likely predates the Quran. There is probably at least pre-islamic poetry where the root word is used. The more abstract derived meanings are likely of a later date.

Modern English does not "prefer" an intervening vowel to apostrophe, that is how the word is spelled in arabic.

I speak very little Arabic and cannot read or write in Arabic. But I understand the principle you are explaining with regards to triconsonantal roots. According to Omar, Shara'a is a transliteration of the root word SH-R-'. Whatever differences you have in that regard can be worked through as well, but please help me understand the etymology of this word Sharii'a first. I can not find this word.

Thanks

Aquib (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Arabic uses sha ra 'a, i.e. the 3rd person singular male past of verbs (not all are "verbs"), as a shorthand convention to refer to the three letter root. The concept of the root, however, was already in there and was correct. The etymology of the word was already explained previously in the reference to the very complete Edward Lane dictionary of classical/modern literary arabic, which shows the root and derivations, provided you can at least read and understand Arabic letters. If you can't read and understand arabic letters you are not going to make much progress understanding etymology (as no dictionaries I know of use roman transliteration), and really shouldn't be writing about it here. "Path to water" as originally written is correct.

This is etymology. Saying Sharia denotes a camels path to water is not what we are looking for here. It's not where we denote the meanings of words.

This root has more than one meaning.

Ya allah, is this going to be like explaining the word "codification"? Etymology is the study of the history and origin of words, semantics the study of their meaning. I wonder if Simple English Wikipedia might be a better choice for you.

The first entry in the Edward Lane Arabic English Lexicon for the three letter root ??? p. 258 is "???? ?????? ?? ?????" or "The beasts entered into the water and drank of it." "????" is the verb "to go to the water and drink," " ??????" means "livestock," "??" means "in" or "at," and "?????" means "the water." (The verb comes first in strict classical arabic).

On the next page (259) for???? and ????? there is "A watering place, a resort of drinkers (both men and beasts), a place where men come to drink there from and to draw water, a way to water, a place of descent to water." Thereafter, "The religious law of god, consisting of such ordinances as those of fasting and prayer and pilgrimage, and the giving of the poor rate, and other acts of piety, or of obedience to god, or of duty to him and to men; a law, an ordinance, a statute, and a religion or way of belief and practice respect of religion; a way of belief or conduct that is manifest."

And 45:18 does not use the word Sharia. The word Sharia does not appear in the Quran, and neither does the root.

I'm going to scan in this English/Arabic Quranic dictionary page and show it to you so you can see what I'm looking at.

Aquib (talk) 06:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The word actually does appear in the Quran 45:18 (I had previously just assumed what was there was previously correct, but upon confirmation)

????? ??????????? ?????? ????????? ???? ????????? ????????????? ????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ??? ???????????

Again you have to be able to read Arabic, but the fourth word is clearly "shari'a." You've gotten it wrong once again.

Etymology is going to be a tough slog if you cannot read an Arabic English dictionary. You really should actually know what you're talking about.Jayzames (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

----->Shara'a etymology according to Omar is here. Aquib (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, derived from Edward Lane, pp. 258. 259, 260, which is in fact a complete dictionary of classical Arabic, and the standard reference work in the field. It is, unfortunately, a huge 24 volume work, inevitably its definitions have to be greatly slimmed down for convenience in other uses, and of course it's useless for people who cannot read Arabic. I don't think whatever dictionary you're using is going to be considered more authoritative than Edward Lane. Again not being literate in Arabic is a problem in being able to reliably consult dictionaries, and will make you unable to confirm simple facts like the word "sharia" clearly appearing in Sura 45:18.

The Edward Lane lexicon is a "classical" Arabic dictionary, and does not contain "modern" words like "tilifun" or "bank," its definitions also tend towards the "classical," as the root would have been originally understood by nomadic people that actually did use a special word for herding animals to water. The various other meanings, including "to commence," "to legislate," "to prescribe" "to make manifest" come later as they do in the Edward Lane lexicon. Jayzames (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to get the opinions of outside experts on this. I will see what I can do. It may take a little while. Aquib (talk) 03:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

????, I'll leave this (somewhat mistaken) part in for the moment as I'm busy with the much more outlandish whoppers elsewhere in this article. However, as you yourself have admitted, you do not understand and are not literate in Arabic. You have also made ad hoc, and clearly erroneous claims about the word's occurrence in the Quran (which you could have easily checked if you were literate in Arabic). Since you've established yourself as less than credible on this issue, if this sits around for very long, someone will have to get around to it.Jayzames (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

OK I've done some more checking.

1. The triconsonant root is not necessarily of etymological importance. Quoting Introduction page X in Hans Wehr's A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (edited by J Milton Cowan): "In the presentation of the entries in the dictionary, homonymous roots are given separately in only a few, especially clear instances. The arrangement of word entries under a given root does not necessarily imply etymological relationship". Wehr does not refer to the root in his definitions as they are not necessarily of etymological significance. "Path to water," is simply one of several definitions of Sharia, in Wehr's dictionary (pg 466). No etymology stated or implied.

2. According to Wikipedia, Etymology is the study of the history of words and how their form and meaning have changed over time.

3. Omar's dictionary of the Holy Quran arranges words by their "Quranic root" and not their triconsonant root. Therefore I am presenting the correct etymology of Sharia as of my update this evening.

If you wish to discuss this matter further, please present sound, verifiable English-language references to back up your position.

I'm not sure this is really apposite or even coherent, what have I said that doesn't involve the history of words, and how their form and meaning have changed over time? Sharia: path to water--> path on which one leads life. It's not all that different from a word like "Shinto" (神道)the Japanese word for "Way of the Gods," which literally means "gods' road."Jayzames (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Aquib (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, first, you might want to recheck your sura numbers.

This is sura 45:13

????????? ?????? ??? ??? ???????????? ????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ????????? ???????? ??????????????

" ???" does not appear here.

Second, it really is worth it to invest the time to learn to read the Arabic alphabet if you're a Muslim. It only takes about 1-2 weeks and the Quran at least always shows all the vowel symbols. I don't know how you've managed thus far, unless you're using a transliterated Quran.

Also what is the difference between a "Quranic root" and a "triconsonant root"? This must be some new ad hoc category previously unknown to philologists.

And finally, it's indeed true there are occasions when the triliteral is not necessarily of importance, it just is the vast majority of the time. The same way homophones exist in English, one triliteral can have two unrelated meanings, and dictionaries will list them separately and point this out the same way they do for the English language (homo meaning "human, versus homo meaning "same" is one example). Even ???, for example, can mean "sail." This root is listed separately from the other(s), particularly the one meaning "path to water," and "religious law" in the dictionary, which are listed under the same root.

Triliterals are critical in etymology. For example the triliteral S-L-M goes back about 5,000 years or more to Akkadian, a dead Semitic language spoken in the Biblical Old Testament Babylon, and the second oldest written language. S-L-M meant the same thing then that it does now in Hebrew and Arabic (in fact a number of words, the Arabic "??? " for "sun," for example are still recognizable from the Akkadian "Shamash"). If you want to understand etymology for words in Arabic and other Semitic languages, triliterals are of essential importance.

I actually think I owned the Wehr dictionary at one time, and in reality, the reason that words are not arranged according to root is because it makes it much for convenient for non-native speakers to find a word (native speakers, however, have no problem). Saying that the triliteral is of little significance is really quite funny.Jayzames (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Also why English for sources? We are talking about Arabic here, by definition Arabic has to appear in any source that's consulted.

For now, here's one source that shows the role of the root in Arabic etymology, and I think it's also mostly transliterated so it won't be too overwhelming for you.Jayzames (talk) 06:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

And more, without Arabic letters:

In Arabic, Sharia means "the clear, well-trodden path to water".

Shariah, quite literally, translates to a path leading to a water hole; figuratively, it refers to a clear, straight path.

Sharia literally means "path" or "path to water," referring to the path a Muslim must follow to salvation.

Jayzames (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

OK I'll take a closer look Aquib (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yadda yadda, List of proto-semitic stems here. Mashallah, it's cute when you say "please present sound, verifiable English language references."Jayzames (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Overkill, but this site notes both the use of roots to understand etymology, and also mentions the Edward Lane Arabic-English lexicon.Jayzames (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The only top-flight authoritative sources I have been able to check are notably silent on the etymology of the word Sharia. There is a lot that can be inferred from looking at the word and it's definition. There is a lot of generally consistent content on the internet. But I have yet to see a really good, authoritative source come right out and say "Sharia comes from sharaa, it was used to refer to divine law at the time of the Quran, a form of the word is at 45:13" or "Sharia wasn't really used to refer to law until the Middle Ages, it came from an older meaning for path" or any of those things. It's quite tempting to pick something from the context, the definitions, the root (maybe NOT), the volumes of web based discussions and pages. But I find it disturbing that I have not yet seen a simple definitive statement from a really top shelf source. Lane's Lexicon isn't going to have it. I will go back through some of the links you have posted. If there is no such first class definitive statement, the section should be deleted. Aquib (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

A form of the word does not appear at 45:13, I've put up the sura above. I suppose this is going to be a debate with "truth from the gut" again. The actual word "sharia" appears in 45:18, it is translated by Marmaduke Pickthall as "road."

And now have We set thee (O Muhammad) on a clear road of (Our) commandment; so follow it, and follow not the whims of those who know not.

????? ??????????? ????? ????????? ????? ????????? ????????????? ????? ????????? ???????? ????????? ??? ???????????

I'm not going to follow Quranic Arabic conventions and pronounce the full case endings (which would change the ending of "sharia" to "shariatin"); it does indeed say "sharia min al-amr" which means the "path/law (sharia) from (min) the command (al-amr)."

You can look through various translations here.

Let's go through the list:

• You've been provided with a ref to a 24 volume Classical Arabic English dictionary. Lane's lexicon is a very authoritative source, by the way, as "Every serious classical Arabic scholar, for the last hundred years and more, has been indebted to Lane's work."
• You've been provided with multiple mainstream sources that indicate the derivation of the word including from the BBC and Newsweek, who do actually have people to do fact checking.

Versus you:

• Who cannot read Arabic.
• Who keeps getting things wrong about where the words are written in the Quran (which you could see if you could read Arabic).

But somehow, in spite of all the references you've been provided with their vastly greater scholarship, you just know that all these people (even Marmaduke Pickthall) are wrong. Mashallah!Jayzames (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

More roots that produce words you are probably familiar with. "Amr" meaning "command" above is the same root as "emir," meaning "prince" or "leader."

A more elaborate example similar to "sharia" above, "dh-h-b" the classical literary Arabic word for "to go" (not used in spoken Arabic) becomes madh'hab, by meaning "take as a way," which then becomes "school of law."

I'm just curious, without any knowledge of Arabic, and without the ability to consult a dictionary, what makes you able to pronounce a source as authoritative?Jayzames (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You have a citation from Pickthall as to the etymology of the word Sharia? Because all these links you keep posting are nice, but they are not authoritative. For all I know, they got the definition off Wikipedia. Aquib (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I just gave you the citation from Pickthall where he uses the word "path" for sharia. Again, how is someone who is illiterate in Arabic and who cannot read a dictionary supposed to know what an authoritative source is? I've cited the major dictionary of classical Arabic used by everyone for decades, I've explained the root system and given you several examples of how it is used in the etymology of words like "emir" and "maddhab." I think by any reasonable standard, and especially vis-a-vis someone who can't read Arabic this pretty much covers it, but again, it's hard to argue with truth from the gut. Somehow, a person who is illiterate and inexperienced in the language in question just knows, more than people who actually know the language, who have written dictionaries, and who have translated the Quran.

I'd like to humor you as much as I can as you've had a rather rough go of it on Wikipedia, but really there's no need to be petty about it to the point of interfering with getting things like your sura numbers and your definitions correct.Jayzames (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

OK fine, if you don't like my etymology saying Sharia is derived from shara'a, I'll delete the etymology section until you can come up with a good quality citation indicating the meaning of Sharia evolved from path to law. Aquib (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This book says, "The term sharia stems from the Arabic root word shar which means 'the road to the watering place, the clear road to be followed, ...'" (search for "watering place" to see this). this page of another book says that Sharia literally means "source of water". There are lots of other citeable sources about this out there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they do say something like that. But, in fact when I look at these sources, I see problems with them.

• In the "Pollution in the promised land" book, the author is writing about groundwater pollution. The reference to Sharia "literally means" water hole is used to make a point on a completely different subject. Besides, the statement is with regards to meanings, not etymology. It is interesting though, I've never heard it explained that way. Sharia "literally means" water hole.

• In the Google book snippet, "The sacred law of Islam..." (with regards to women in modern Iran) the author seems to be quoting someone else (note closing quotes in the book's text). The statement made is (paraphrasing) "Sharia stems from Shar, which means watering place, clear road, canon law...". But the Arabic root SHR does not have all those meanings, and Wehr (who is authoritative in these matters) states clearly etymology of Arabic words does not necessarily derive from their roots. This is consistent with Wikipedia's Arabic grammar article which says the root is not a word itself but a semantic core.

The reason I am pointing all this out and being so fussy is because the best sources make no claim as to how or when the word Sharia appeared. I would like to see a really good quality source that explicitly makes that sort of definitive statement. All I know for sure at this point is Sharia has several definitions, one of which is law.

I am looking for a higher quality source that specifically states the etymology. I just don't think these sorts of sources are reliable enough for this. I don't see the connection in the really high quality sources. I really would like to see one. Surely there is one, isn't there?

Aquib (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this, and mentioned those books just hoping to be helpful. As WP:V says, though, we should present verifiable content here rather than content which some of us consider to be absolute truth; and WP:DUE says that we shouldn't cherrypick between differing sources. I see that the Online Etymology Dictionary, an apparently well-regarded source, disagrees with those books I mentioned, saying, sharia : Islamic religious law, 1855, from Arabic shari'ah "the revealed law," from shar' "revelation."[1] Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I find this useful and interesting. I have no problem presenting competing viewpoints and letting the readers sort it out for themselves. Particularly in a case like this where the experts, for reasons as yet unclear to me, seem to differ. Perhaps this is not unusual when one examines language under a magnifying glass. Let me see if I can get closure.

And I am not a scholar. To be honest, I don't even have a recurring role on television where I play a scholar. Aquib (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know how someone who's as inexperienced as you, illiterate in Arabic etc. is going to have any idea what a "high quality" source on Arabic etymology is, especially if you're going to pronounce the extremely large and well used Edward Lane lexicon as "not authoritative," something only a novice would do. You really should consider taking a class in Arabic, as you've clearly misunderstood Wehr, you don't understand how the Arabic root system works, and you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

That said, in a continued attempt at humoring you I have finally hoofed it over to ???????(the library):

From "Understanding Islamic Law: From Classical to Contemporary, Irshad Abdal Haqq, "Islamic Law: An Overview of its Origin and Elements, Irshad Abdal Haqq, p. 4:

"Shar'iah, or more properly Al-Shari'ah, literally means the pathway, path to be followed, or clear way to be followed, and has come to mean the path upon which the believer has to tread'. In original usage Shar'iah meant the road to the watering place or path leading to the water, i,e,, the way to the source of life. The technical application of the term as a reference to the law of Islam is traced directly to the Qur'an, wherein the adherents of Islam,the believers, are admonished by Allah (God) to follow the clear and right way, the path of Shari'ah: Thus we put thee on the (right) Way of religion so follow thou that (way), and follow not the desires of those who know not."

In fact this is referring to sura 45:18 as I had mentioned previously, "???? ??? ?????", "the path from the command"'

And from Bernard Weiss's The Spirit of Islamic Law:

"In archaic Arabic, the term shari'a mean "path to the water hole." When we consider the importance of a well-trodden path to a source of water for man and beast in the arid desert environment, we can readily appreciate why this term in Muslim usgage should have become a metaphor for a whole way of life ordained by God."

In fact it's all there in the dictionary (sorry for the blurry type):

Just to provide you with another example, as I still don't think you really grasp the Arabic root system,

T-L-B (????) is a root with the general meaning of "to look for something, to search, to seek after." Building on this root of "to seek after" one of the Arabic words for "student" is "Talib," (???? ) because a student is someone who "seeks after" knowledge. Of course the rest of the world is familiar with this word because of the "Taliban" who named themselves using this word. This is how etymology works. The word "sharia" evolved in the same way from a root meaning "way to water. (BTW since you can't read Arabic, the relevant material for T-L-B is on the lower left and lower right)

I could also see if I could find a copy of one of the medieval Arabic dictionaries online (but this will be in Arabic only), where it clearly explains the derivation of the word. The derivation of sharia has been known and understood for centuries, it's not at all controversial and it's only your inexperience that is causing you to make such a fuss (both on this issue, and on Wikipedia in general).Jayzames (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say these two sources you have listed could form the basis for a quite presentable etymology section. I would like to quote them directly and cite them at the beginning of the section.

In addition, I would like to quote and cite this Online Etymology Dictionary entry Wtmitchell (see above) found. Online Etymology Dictionary, sharia : Islamic religious law, 1855, from Arabic shari'ah "the revealed law," from shar' "revelation."[2].

Finally, the Quranic context is useful, as per the connection at 45:18. For this reason, I will include the etymology of shara'a from Omar's Dictionary of the Holy Quran, which utilizes the system of 'Quranic Roots'.

Aquib (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Aquib, you can't quote the Online Etymology Dictionary to contradict a source such as Lane's lexicon or the other sources that have been given here by Jayzames: the Online Etymology Dictionary is simply not a reliable enough source to contradict (or even call into doubt) those other sources. (See the Talk:Online Etymology Dictionary page amongst other places for some background on that source.)

And, as Jayzames has repeatedly pointed out, the material you are using about the 'Quranic Roots', whatever they might be, is simply irrelevant and is not giving the etymology of the word. You have been provided a mass of authoritative references here by Jayzames, with more patience than I have ever had in my entire life: If you cannot understand that these are authoritative then I would suggest that you should not be editing anything to do with this.
All the best. ?Syncategoremata (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern regarding the quality of citations used in this article. Regrettably, I am unable to go outside and play with the other children, as I am much taller than them and will undoubtedly be accused of unfairly stealing their ball.

Are you familiar with the changes Jayzames has made in the article since April? If so, do you endorse these changes? Let me give you one tiny (although prominent) example of his work. In your opinion, what is the quality of the citations used directly below, and do the citations support the assertions made? In addition, do you believe the placement and tone of the statement are representative of someone with a neutral POV?

Quoting from the lead section of the Sharia article:

Imposition of the Sharia is often accompanied by controversy, and even violence, due to discrepancies between Sharia and internationally recognized concepts of human rights and gender equality

Aquib (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

citation 1 http://atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/HA14Ae04.html

2 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/19/islam-religion

3 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/660239.stm

4 http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Hopefully this fixes the citations for the sentence Aquib (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Aquib when you fail to make an apposite response, it's called a non sequitur, see also derailment. This raises doubts about your competence, and in a much more fundamental way than "he needs to know more about the material."Jayzames (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

@Jayzames, please do not respond to questions I have addressed directly to people other than yourself. Thank you. ?Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquib american muslim (talk ? contribs) 13:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, a non sequitur, as I wasn't actually responding to your question. I was commenting on your tendency to make Forrest Gump-like non-sequiturs.Jayzames (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed "Law of the United States"

After consulting the Asifa Quraishi article which constituted the source for this section, I removed this because of its weaselness, i.e. "similarities between Islamic law and the common law of the United States have been noted," and the fact that Asifa Quraishi is only noting similarities in methods of interpretation , including doctrines like "original intent," and not making the exceptional claim of functional similarity between the Quran and the Constitution or Sharia and US law. In fact the methods of interpretation noted by Quraishi are shared with all interpretations of texts, and are not unique to the US or the Constitution or even law.

Again using Qiyas, I will say that stuffing these weasel words in here to imply more commonality than is stated in the source is as bad faith as me insisting on stuffing references to Luther and the Protestant Reformation in the Salafism article, solely on the basis of the very crude similarity between the Lutheran doctrine of sola scriptura, and Salafist attempts to "return to the sources." While drawing such attention to such crude resemblances are useful to make Salafism understandable to someone who already comes from a Protestant background (and is in fact all that Quraishi is doing in attempting to introduce Islamic law to people with an American background) Salafism and the Protestant Reformation are really very different phenomena, and treating them as fundamentally similar is grossly misleading, and would probably be offensive to both Salafis and Lutherans. Jayzames (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Archived the talk page, and went through the archives

Which of course showed numerous other people objecting to the fringe theories spammed by jagged 85 all over Wikipedia and the general "rampant apologetics."

• Surely one of the most disturbingly biased articles in the entire Wiki galaxy, a veritable black hole of prejudice, exaggeration and tendentiousness. Ninety percent of the discussion focuses not on Sharia's own origins but on Western jurisprudence's highly dubious indebtedness to sharia. A scandalous breach of scholarly norms.
• The entire section comparing Sharia with common law is fringe theory bologna. Please delete this or move it somewhere else!
• While I don't know enough about the history of law to edit, the article gives a strong feeling of having been taken over by tangential fringe theories to which verrrrry long sections are devoted. for example:
• A very long article full of unlikely explanations of how English common law is related to sharia; how no one need worry that hands and feet or heads will be amputated unnecessarily as Sharia punishment and other apologia. This article is not very useful to the general public or anyone else. It needs major changes.
• The article Christianity - and the article Islam - are both good articles. They describe their subjects neutrally. This article on Sharia is not neutral. It reads more like an apology for how wonderful Sharia is.

Etc etc. mostly negative comments, with

• I find this article a fine introduction to Sharia Law. But as an introduction, I understand that some precepts may well be emphasized at the expense of others.
• This one is a nice article literally putting all the facets on the top which one can glance with minimum efforts. Nice work team.

With this, I think it need hardly be said that the consensus is NOT in favor of Jagged 85's edits, and even more so after the "case law" of "Jagged 85 v. Wikipedia"Jayzames (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Restructuring and expanding definitions

As a result of the recent introduction of controversial materials into the head of the article, it is necessary to more fully distinguish Sharia along it's axes of differentiation (tradition, modernity, fundamentalism, schools, sects, and now even Islamism) at an earlier point. The article cannot do justice to controversies, comparisons and generalizations without making these distinctions. Otherwise it will collapse into a muddle of apples-to-oranges comparisons, contrasts and examples without the necessary contextual cues.

One important aspect I have included in Definitions is a paragraph which puts Sharia in its historical political context and sets the stage for further differentiation among it's modern variants.

Aquib (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

/* English common law */ Removed speculation on the origin of jury trials

Slowly going through John Makdisi's extremely arid article. This source has various problems including:

• It makes exceptional claims.
• It puts forth no real evidence, documentary or otherwise, for its claims
• It is not well cited (by others), and there are no critical responses in the literature, making it not credible as representing the views even of a significant minority.

As for the comparison between the jury trial and the lafif, Makdisi is comparing the assembly of twelve peers to deliberate a finding of fact, about which they have personally seen or heard at a trial with the lafif, an assembly of twelve witnesses who are to attest about what they have personally seen or heard outside a trial. I can't really be all too sure about what exactly the institution of the lafif is, as Makdisi seems to deliberately obscure its nature for the purpose of polemics, but the lafif is an assembly of twelve witnesses to testify on the behalf of a particular plaintiff or defendant. Since twelve witnesses per se are unlikely to have seen a particular fact personally, I'm guessing that these twelve witnesses are assembled to testify to the character of a particular plaintiff or defendant and not any actual fact. This arises out of the unique importance sharia courts place on oaths, which in contrast to other legal systems, are themselves used as evidence. In other words, where secular courts use "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" to guarantee the accuracy of the following testimony, which is used as the actual evidence, sharia courts use "I swear to God I didn't do it," or "I swear to God he is not a rapist" as the actual exculpatory evidence (again on the assumption that no one would so endanger his soul) (While this may sound like a recipe for frequent perjury, in practice the fear of perdition apparently provided strong incentives to tell the truth, I'll eventually dig up a source somewhere, as this is something I should have put in the court proceedings section). The lafif is a team of witnesses (what we might call "expert witnesses") assembled in exceptional cases that provide evidence for a plaintiff/defendant, which the judge is bound to recognize (though Makdisi does not explain what happens when both sides assemble lafifs), they are definitely not a jury that listens to presentations and then deliberates whether something is true.Jayzames (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

/* Human rights */ Removed Makdisi quote for misrepresentation

What Makdisi actually says is this (in a section tellingly called "Justice Not Morality") "(Islamic law) was concerned with civil sanctions for failure to do one's duty, not with moral sanctions for having a bad intention. Thus, it was a system focused on ensuring that an individual received justice, not that one be a good person. This approach stands in marked contrast to that of an activist state in which government manages the lives of its people and steers society towards the good life through its own comprehensive theory of what is best for its people." This statement was made in the larger context of an implicit comparison between the inquisitorial system of civil law (where the supposed goal for everyone is "finding the truth" and trials are like investigations) versus the common law adversarial system (where two sides do battle and the truth is assumed to be on the winning side). This has nothing to do with "human rights" or some abstract concept of justice, both of which involve some concept of morality, this is about both sides seeking the maximum remedy for plaintiffs) or the minimum damages or sentence (for defendants), i.e. "fairness over truth," and is therefore related by Makdisi to the common law system. Jayzames (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

/* Economic and social rights */ Removed dubious claim of right to privacy under Islamic law

I have removed the claim that sharia gives a right to privacy and that this was granted since the beginning of Islam and long before the West. This claim comes from two Quranic verses that say Muslims should not enter the homes of others without permission, and should not spy on others.

In fact, according to Sadiq Reza in "Islam's Fourth Amendment: Search and seizure in Islamic doctrine and Muslim practice" such assertions do not withstand serious scrutiny, and that while "authority for Fourth-Amendment-like protections certainly exists in Islamic law (from the Quran), assertions that such protections do so exist, or have ever been routinely practiced before the modern period, are unsupported by the doctrinal and historical records." Unlike Weeramantry, Sadiq Reza does not rely solely on bald assertion and actually provides examples based on what jurists have said about search and seizure as well as the practice in the premodern Ottoman empire. There is no exclusionary rule for evidence seized unlawfully, no penalty for violating privacy to perform a search, and very little evidence that there was any routine practice of protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Basically, even though the Quran can be interpreted as providing protection of privacy, such protection was not actually practiced nor even so interpreted by classical jurists.

This again suffers from presentism, imposing present day practices on people who did not think like we do.Jayzames (talk) 06:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. In this edit, I've restored the removed claim. When I saw that there was a supporting cite, I checked it and didn't find support. However, I searched in that source for the word "privacy", and found what looked like the snippet intended to be cited in support of the removed assertion on page 133. I'm no expert on any of this, but it looked to me as if there was support in the cited source for the removed assertion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but if you have access, the article by Sadiq Reza is a better, and more scholarly cite, with specific evidence put forth. Weeramantry is a problematic source as noted by another person on this talk page, it's just bald assertion from the verse I already mentioned in the Quran, Reza shows that in fact regardless of what the Quran says, protections of privacy were not routinely practiced, and that jurists like Marwardi gave broad powers to authorities to enter homes without permission, that there was no need to obtain judicial authorization to enter homes without permission, and no sanction or penalty for entering homes without permission, etc. In other words, while the grounds for privacy do indeed exist in the sources of Islamic law, they were not in fact practiced or recognized, and thus the assertion that Islam granted the right of privacy long before the West is not tenable.Jayzames (talk) 06:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

To use more analogy, the New Testament says "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s." This verse, in practice, did not actually result in the widespread practice of secularism in Christian countries, which is a product of the Enlightment rather than the Bible (though you can legitimately argue that the New Testament provided the potential for secularism). It would be a mistake to argue that the New Testament actually preaches secularism, in fact many Christians would object to such a claim; in the same way the verses from the Quran did not actually result in protections from search and seizure in Muslim countries and the interpretation that Islam gave the right to privacy long before the West is imposing present day ideas on the past in a way that is not supported by jurisprudence or the actual practice in history.Jayzames (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't put up articles here, but an excerpt from Abraham Marcus's "Privacy in 18th century Aleppo"

"On the night of May 26, 1762, several residents of the Syrian city of Aleppo entered a house in the neighborhood uninvited. The owners were not in, but several unveiled women sitting in male company were there to greet them. If the scene proved less compromising than the intruders expected, it did confirm their suspicion that the house was a meeting place for illicit relations. The following day they turned in the owners, a man and his mother, to the court and secured the qadi's consent to have them expelled from the neighborhood."

Simply saying "The right of privacy was recognized in Islamic law from the beginning" is not accurate, especially when there are reliable sources that say otherwise.Jayzames (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

/* English common law */ Removed more exceptional claims, Makdisi has said these are similar due to the differences between activist and "reactive state," he stopped short of saying "influence"

The original article contained the following exceptional claims:

"Other possible influences of Islamic law on English common law include the concepts of a passive judge, impartial judge, res iudicata, the judge as a blank slate, individual self-definition, justice rather than morality, the law above the state, individualism, freedom of contract, privilege against self-incrimination, fairness over truth, individual autonomy, untrained and transitory decision making, overlap in testimonial and adjudicative tasks, appeal, dissent, day in court, prosecution for perjury, oral testimony, and the judge as a moderator, supervisor, announcer and enforcer rather than an adjudicator." from John Makdisi, whose issues as a source have already been described.

However, Makdisi here describes the emergence of doctrines like a "privilege against self incrimination" as the end result of a state orientation characteristic to civil law "activist states" versus common law "reactive states," and does not suggest direct borrowing of all the above from Islamic law.Jayzames (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

/* Freedom of speech */ Removed weaselly paragraph

Removed this from "freedom of speech"

"Sharia allows freedom of speech in a broad sense, granting people the right to talk. However, Sharia does not allow freedom of speech that results in the harm of others unless there is a legal dispute, a public benefit, or a proven right to complaint."

This of course isn't cited. Also if sharia does not allow "freedom of speech that results in the harm of others," without specifying what "harm of others" means, "harm of others" can only be interpreted in a very "broad sense," and therefore cannot be regarded as resembling the concept of freedom of speech as it is generally understood.Jayzames (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

/* Freedom of speech */ Removed irrelevant material

Removed reference to description of event from Abbasid period because it is not actually about freedom of speech (it's closer to freedom of religion, but not quite there either). Furthermore, such anecdotal descriptions don't actually show that there is freedom of speech under Islamic law. In fact, there are numerous ahadith where the Prophet (SAAW) ordered the assassination of poets who composed verses mocking him, one can thus argue that there are better grounds for arguing that freedom of speech is not protected under sharia.Jayzames (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

How about we start using better quality citations?

This is the entire paragraph. So far, I only checked the first sentence.

Imposition of the Sharia is often accompanied by controversy,[6][7] and even violence,[8] due to discrepancies between Sharia and internationally recognized concepts of human rights and gender equality[9]. The most contested aspect of the Sharia involves the canonical hudud punishments (e.g. amputation, stoning, lashing, and beheading). Other contested aspects of sharia include unequal rules of evidence applied on the basis of religion and gender, and unequal rules of inheritance applied according to gender. Sharia's prohibitions on blasphemy and apostasy also depart from internationally recognized concepts of religious freedom. The OIC nations have released their own Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam that are in accordance with their interpretation of Sharia.

The first sentence begins "Imposition of the Sharia is often accompanied by controversy". The citation is an article by the Asia Times Online (who are they?) talking about a dust up where a court ruled a on-Muslim could not get justice n a Sharia court and the common law did not provide a remedy. Huh? OK. The second citation is from the Guardian. Well, OK. It's a commentary on how there SHOULD be a big turnout for the protest. Then, in the beginning of the second paragraph this is what it says "Sadly, the turn out in Hyde Park will probably be quite small. " This is a citation for cointroversy due to IMPOSITION of Sharia? Huh?

Continuing the first sentence "and even violence,[8]" links to photographs of people injured in a riot touched off by a protest march against Sharia in Nigeria. That's not very insightful. The injured ladies appear to be Muslim. What actually happened here? There is no article per-se, just photos. Why cite photos of injured people?

Now the end of the sentence "due to discrepancies between Sharia and internationally recognized concepts of human rights and gender equality[9]. " The citation is to the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", an admirable document but it is not a citation as to the statement this sentence makes.

So the citations used in this sentence, which claims controversy and violence is caused due to discrepancies between Sharia and internationally recognized human rights, do not support the assertion made. They are in fact shallow, inflammatory, misleading and baseless.

Come on, people, we can do better than this can't we? Was the dust-up in Malaysia about human rights violations, or a legal matter? Are photos of a riot appropriate or just cheap incendiaries? Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming the assertion is totally off the mark; it has a hardware store, off-the-shelf patina of truth. In other words it is one of the most insidious types of lies. It is a cheap, biased, inflammatory, misleading, distorted generalization covered with a fig leaf of citations. The citations do not support he assertion made in the sentence. The quality and nature of these citations are much worse, sloppier, more misleading, than any of the ones recently removed for the same reasons, by the same person who put these IN the article.

Ask yourself this question: Do these citations prove the controversy and violence are due to discrepancies in human rights, or do they just make you feel like they somehow must?

More on this first sentence, perhaps later. I might share my thoughts on the use of these words IMPOSITION and OFTEN. Then on to the rest of the paragraph if I feel like talking to the wall and wasting more breath. Please note I never once used the word hypocrisy in this entire rant.

Aquib (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this attempt at editing or all these splenetics are even well thought out or coherent enough to merit a response. However ...

Any look through the news on "sharia" will find an innumerable number of references about how imposition of sharia is accompanied by controversy in any number of countries; there could literally be thousands of links. Let's just start with Malaysia, a lovely Southeast Asian country, and one of the most reasonable, stable, prosperous Muslim majority countries, where sharia is relatively limited in its application. I'm going to put large blocks of text here because you don't seem to actually bother to read the links. The State Department reports that:

"In November 2000, the Shari?a high court in the State of Kelantan sentenced four persons to 3 years in jail for disregarding a lower court order to "recant" their allegedly heretical Islamic beliefs and to "return to the true teachings of Islam." The High Court rejected their argument that Shari?a law had no jurisdiction over them because they had ceased to be Muslims. In August the Court of Appeals reaffirmed the High Court ruling. The four individuals subsequently have filed an appeal with the Federal Court."

"In 2001 the PAS-led government of Terengganu State passed the Shari'a Criminal Offence Bill (see Section 5). The bill sought to impose Islamic law against theft, robbery, illicit sex, drinking alcohol, and the renunciation of Islam. However, a suit arguing that state governments have no authority to make criminal law was filed in the Federal Court to block the implementation of a similar law in the neighboring State of Kelantan. Both cases were pending at year's end. According to some women's rights activists, women were subject to discriminatory interpretations of Shari'a law and inconsistent application of the law from state to state."

"Statutory rape occurred and was prosecuted. However, Islamic law provisions that consider a Muslim girl an adult after she has had her first menstruation sometimes complicated prosecution of statutory rape. Such a girl may be charged with "khalwat" or "close proximity" (the charge usually used to prosecute premarital or extramarital sexual relations), even if she is under the age of 18 and her partner is an adult. Thus Shari?a sometimes punishes the victims of statutory rape. Moreover Shari?a courts sometimes were more lenient with males who were charged with "close proximity." However, in many cases Muslim men are charged and punished for statutory rape under secular law. "

"In July the PAS-controlled Terengganu state assembly passed the Shari'a Criminal Offenses Bill (see Section 2.c.). The Government, led by Women and Family Development Minister Sharizat Abdul Jalil, argued that the proposed law discriminates against women, especially in regard to rape cases. Under the new state law, conviction for rape would require four Muslim male eyewitnesses of good standing to testify if adequate physical evidence was lacking. Women or non-Muslims would be barred from testifying. An amendment to an earlier version of the law provides for rape convictions (with lesser penalties) even if four male eyewitnesses could not be produced, in the event that circumstantial evidence was deemed sufficient. Illicit sex is still punishable with death by stoning if the man or woman is married. For unmarried offenders, the punishment is 100 lashes and 1 year in prison... However, this law remained in limbo at year's end, as its implementation required an amendment to the Federal Constitution. The suit filed at the Federal Court challenging a similar proposed law in the State of Kelantan on the constitutional grounds that states have no authority over criminal law was pending at year's end."

"Islamic courts do not give equal weight to the testimony of women. Many NGOs have complained that women do not receive fair treatment from Islamic courts, especially in matters of divorce."

These sound pretty much like what any reasonable person would consider "human rights" and "gender equality" violations as set forth in the UNDHR to me, which is why groups in Malaysia are protesting. The photos of the riots in Nigeria establish that yes, the imposition of sharia is accompanied by violence. There are many more examples, from Aceh Indonesia, where they now have sharia police to patrol the streets for suspected adultery, where they have introduced caning, and where they are trying to introduce stoning, to Somalia, to Pakistan, to Nigeria, to Saudi Arabia.

Despite all your complaints, and your rather comical attempts to report me to Arbcom and the Administrator's Noticeboard, I have been editing this article in good faith and have added affirmative content about how a sharia court actually works. I don't see that you have done the same, and in fact you've added material that is factually wrong and repeatedly exceeded your competence regarding the material. I am not interested in making apologetics here, or counter apologetics, as much as I am in putting up factual material that is in line with the objectives of a free encyclopedia. I think again, you're confusing the objectives of Wikipedia with your own objectives of dawah. Jayzames (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Why doesn't the Arabic spelling of Sharia at the beginning of this article begin with a double aliph?

I don't read Arabic, but Wehr distinguishes between the spellings of Sharia by definition. The divine law definition is spelled differently. It begins with two vertical bars, I am assuming these are aliphs. Anybody?

It took me a minute to figure out what on earth you're talking about. I'm guessing that you're probably confused things again, and are seeing the word "al" in front, as in "???????," or "the sharia." You might want to consider 1. Learning the Arabic alphabet, and 2. Not going too far beyond your competence.Jayzames (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

OK then it would seem that according to Wehr, the correct Arabic word for divine law is Al-Sharia.

File:Al-Sharia.JPG

Aquib (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow what you're trying to argue here. Strictly speaking "Al-Sharia" isn't an Arabic word at all, but (presumably) an approximate transliteration of the true Arabic "???????" into the latin alphabet, with the Arabic definite article "??" transliterated as "Al". The word "sharia", as used in the article, is a perfectly good English word, which means (according to my Macquarie Dictionary) "Islamic law". Neither "al" nor "Al-Sharia" are listed as proper English words in The Macquarie, and I doubt if they are in any other good English dictionary either. So the latter certainly isn't suitable for use in the article as a substitute for the perfectly simple and proper English "shariah".

David Wilson (talk · cont) 22:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful reply. I agree with you there is only one English word Sharia. Apparently, there are multiple definitions of sharia in Arabic, but only one Al-Sharia. I think I will leave this alone for now, thanks again. Aquib (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I do feel the need to remove any ambiguity my last statement may have left behind. I am perfectly happy with the English adoption of the word Sharia as it is. I would not propose to change the name of the article. I do find it odd we are spelling out the English word in Arabic differently from the way it is actually used in Arabic.

The same goes for the definition. We are all looking up Sharia in the dictionary and saying hmmm... way, path, watering hole, law, Sacred Law. I assume if an Arab speaker goes to look up the definition of Sacred Law in Arabic, they will look up the definition of Al-Sharia, not sharia.

It just strikes me as odd.

Aquib (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand your point. The word "??", transliterated into the latin alphabet as "al" is (apparently) just the definite article in Arabic. It may be that when the Arab word "?????" (apparently "sharia") is used to refer to the sacred law it is only ever so used in conjunction with a preceding definite article, but I don't see anything in the extract from Wehr that you posted to establish that that is in fact the case. And even if it is, I don't see how that would prevent the definite article from also being used with the word "????" when it is intended to take on any of its other meanings. Thus if "way", "path", "watering hole" are all valid meanings of "????" by itself, then "the way", "the path" and "the watering hole", as well as "the sacred law", should also all be valid meanings of the word "???????" ("al-sharia") obtained by prepending the definite article to the original.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 03:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. But may I ask, under certain circumstances might the usage imply something akin to our English concept of a "proper noun"? Aquib (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

David, I can assure you that the word "sharia" can be used without the definite article. There are indeed certain words which can only be used with the definite article, notably "Allah" (????) or "the god." In the Quran, the word "sharia" appears without the definite article, "a sharia from the command" i.e. "a path from the command." Arabic "al" is essentially the same as English "the." I think what I'm seeing here is the "exceeding one's competence" thing again. Jayzames (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I think I understand all that. The possibility I was alluding to in the second sentence of my preceding comment was that the Arabic usage of the expression "???????" might be somewhat similar to the usage of the expression "the Constitution" in the US. The word "constitution" has several different senses most of which can be used either with or without the definite article. But when the word "constitution" is referring specifically to the Constitution of the United States it is never (or at least with only a rare debatable exception) used without the definite article. One could possibly make a case that the word "constitution" in the sentence "The founding fathers drafted a constitution" is being used in that same sense, but I would tend to argue that it isn't. Even in that sentence it still seems to me to be being used in the same sense as it is in the sentence "The powers of most governments are determined by a constitution", even though it's referring specifically to the US constitution (or possibly only a preliminary draft of it).

I presume something like this is also what Aqib is referring to when he asks whether the usage might not be "something akin to our English concept of a proper noun". But since I know almost nothing about Arabic, anything I have to say on the matter is pure speculation on my part, and not really germane to the talk page's purpose of discussing how the article might be improved. So at this point I think I'll bow out of the discussion.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I was preparing the citations for etymology this morning, when I noticed that Abdal-Haqq clearly states that Sharia should be properly referred to as Al-Sharia.

From "Understanding Islamic Law: From Classical to Contemporary, Irshad Abdal Haqq, "Islamic Law: An Overview of its Origin and Elements, Irshad Abdal Haqq, p. 4:

"Shar'iah, or more properly Al-Shari'ah, literally means the pathway, path to be followed, or clear way to be followed, and has come to mean the path upon which the believer has to tread'.

I swear this is not a set up. Aquib (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

@Jayzames I have a reputable source. Your knowledge of Arabic seems quite limited.Aquib (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

@David, please do not bow out, I am changing the Arabic pronunciation at the top of the article to Al-Sharia. I also intend to make note of this fact in the article.Aquib (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Aquib you've misunderstood it again, Abdal Haqq simply means "the sharia," "sharia" itself is used without the definite article in the Quran, and depending on the situation, is used with or without the definite article in Arabic the same way English speakers would use it with or without "the" in English. The article itself variously refers to "the sharia." "Islam" likewise is referred to as "Islam" or "Al islam" in Arabic. And David is correct, this isn't really germane to the article, you're well exceeding your basic competence again.Jayzames (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Need to rethink this "way" or "path" in parenthesis at the beginning of the article

The article begins with -> Sharia (Arabic: '?????? ?ar??a; [???riː?], "way" or "path"). I always assumed this was correct, but based on the research that has been done into the definition and etymology of the word, I am reexamining it.

There seems to be a wide variety of styles used for introductory sentences. I assume the form used by the Sharia article is due to Sharia's status as a "recent borrow" word. Helpful insights as to the Arabic are included in parenthesis.

But this article includes either a definition or etymology as the last item inside the parenthesis. Is it supposed to be definition or etymology? Is it correct? Does it need to be here? What standard are we following for this first sentence, where can I find more information on this style of introductory sentence?

Anyone?

Regards,

Aquib (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

/* English common law */ Removed misrepresentation of Gamal Moursi Badr

This is what the article formerly said:

"Islamic law also introduced the notion of allowing an accused suspect or defendant to have an agent or lawyer, known as a wakil, handle his/her defense. This was in contrast to early English common law, which "used lawyers to prosecute but the accused were left to handle their defense themselves." The English Parliament did not allow those accused of treason the right to retain lawyers until 1695, and for those accused of other felonies until 1836."

The reference comes from a brief book review of "The Islamic Criminal Justice System" by Ann E. Meyer. This is what Gamal Moursi Badr actually said:

"Conceding, for the sake of argument, Mayer's point that classical Islamic law, a thousand or more years ago, did not grant a right to counsel, it should be recalled that in common law for countless centuries the Crown used lawyers to prosecute but the accused were left to handle their defense themselves. Only in 1695 did Parliament grant those accused of treason the right to retain lawyers. The privilege was not extended to those accused of other felonies until 1836 when Parliament acted to allow them to retain lawyers.

Meyer responds:

"Professor Badr seems to have missed the point of my discussion of the difficulty of establishing that a right to counsel exists in Islamic law based on the fact that medieval texts give an absent party the right to appoint a wakil. Surely, wakl - or any other word in a medieval text - must be translated by an English term that accurately reflects the usage in the medieval legal treatises. Since lawyers were unknown in the classical Islamic tradition, where wakil is routinely used to refer to an agent, representative, or deputy, translating the word in the context of a medieval treatise as "lawyer" entails an anachronistic back-projection of a modern legal institution."

None of the above in any way suggests that sharia courts routinely granted defendants the right to professional representation, and certainly not centuries before the same right was granted in Britain. Badr is only arguing that the right to an attorney is only a relatively recent development in British common law, and that comparisons to medieval Islamic jurisprudence are unfair. Meyer argues that such comparisons are indeed fair because it is precisely medieval Islamic jurisprudence that is in the process of being revived and reapplied today..

This is what the article originally said: "The Islamic Hawala institution also influenced the development of the agency institution in English common law."

In fact Bawer makes no such assertion, and simply notes that agency exists in both systems.

"The present writer's own research led him some years ago to the discovery of a very curious parallel between the Common law and Islamic law. It is mentioned here for the benefit of those who are interested in parallels between disparate legal systems and, obviously, not to make a case for any interaction between the two."

In fact Badr's article is very far from making the exceptional claims he is misrepresented in the article as making.

"These parallels are an intellectual curiosity and provide some insight into the workings of each legal system. They do not necessarily indicate the existence of borrowing or influence. In law as in many a social science, diffusionists and proponents of separate development rub shoulders all the time. The most valid position would be to avoid any doctrinaire commitment to either point of view. We should keep our minds open to satisfactory evidence of actual borrowing or influence while considering parallels not so substantiated as mere manifestations of what an early Western authority on Islamic law aptly called "l'identite essentielle de l'ame humaine," the essential oneness of man's spirit."

For the same reasons I've removed the following text: "The transfer of debt, which was not permissible under Roman law but is practiced in modern civil law, may also have origins in Islamic law. The concept of an agency was also an "institution unknown to Roman law", where it was not possible for an individual to "conclude a binding contract on behalf of another as his agent." The concept of an agency was introduced by Islamic jurists, and thus the civil law conception of agency may also have origins in Islamic law."Jayzames (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

/* Freedom of speech */ Removed misrepresentation of source regarding Caliph Umar

The article formerly said: "During the Islamic Golden Age, there was an early emphasis on freedom of speech in the Islamic caliphate. This was first declared by the Caliph Umar in the 7th century."

The source is actually favorably comparing Islamic law with medieval Christian judicial procedures e.g. "trial by ordeal."

"In contrast, we have only to quote the instructions given by Omar in the seventh century to the Muslim judges to show what a chasm separated the two conceptions: "Only decide on the basis of proof, be kind to the weak so that they can express themselves freely and without fear, deal on an equal footing with litigants by trying to reconcile them."

In no sense does this constitute a general endorsement of freedom of speech.Jayzames (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

/* International law */ Removed exceptional claim that Islam introduced the concept of good faith, equity etc. to the west

I'm removing this on the basis of

1. No evidence
2. Triviality

As Gamal Moursi Badr has noted with respect to claims of borrowing of Roman law into Islamic law, "Some of (these claims of borrowing) again are so elementary in nature that they have to be considered primary products of the average human intellect, things which anyone can deduce from his own observations through his own reasoning and which nobody needs to borrow from anybody else." I think the concepts of "equity" (fairness) and "good faith" qualify as these.Jayzames (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Another "exceptional claim"? You seem quite liberal with your use of this rationale in order to delete material. Aquib (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless you're going to claim that "good faith" (Latin: bona fide, even the Romans had a word for it) and "fairness" were unknown concepts prior to Islam.Jayzames (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the source in question is almost entirely speculative, saying, "Apart from psychological prejudice which led to the omission of reference to sources, the fanatic zeal of a Christianity passing to the counteroffensive led to the absurd destruction of innumerable works in the reconquered territories (presumably he is referring to the Crusader states, Sicily, and Andalusia, Spain, the only significant Muslim territories to be reconquered until the late Ottoman Empire; Sicily's Arab occupation was only about 100 years). This makes it even more difficult to rediscover concrete traces of intellectual penetration. We must therefore imagine rather than prove."

Sources that "imagine rather than prove" don't really belong in an encyclopedia.Jayzames (talk)