Talk:Sharia/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

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

Drafting vs. content

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

My opinion, an informed opinion, but still an opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussing conflicts with Western concepts of universal Human rights

The article has made great progress over the way it was a few years ago in describing Sharia in an informative and NPOV way. The editors who are responsible for this are to be greatly commended. The section on Criticism is inevitably controversial and has been marked as in need of being made more balanced. I recommend keeping it as a separate section but further improving its balance. In general this section, and the article as a whole, does a pretty good job of fairly explaining and contrasting Islamic versus western notions of universal human rights and obligations, including what might be called their partially conflicting claims of universality. But there are a few places which seem to tacitly adopt the western views, e.g. as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). To make these places more NPOV, I reworded a few of them to say essentially that Sharia as interpreted by some scholars conflicts with rights enumerated in the UDHR, rather than saying that Sharia, or even the some countries' Sharia-justified criminalization of apostasy, conflicts with human rights per se. This may seem like a small point, but in such a controversial matter, it is essential to be scrupulously and unambiguously fair. With a little more effort, this section and the whole article can become, in the best Wikipedia tradition, the most informative and universally accessible place for people all over the world, both Muslims and non-Muslims, to go for a fair-minded and informative introduction to this important subject.CharlesHBennett (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Misleading insertion of sharia definition into lead

IP address 2.220.6.36, aka 130.88.0.245, has been trying to add the following to the lead - The Arabic word ‘Šarīʿa (شريعة)’ means ‘law’ and is used in particular to refer to the divine law as established in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

After being challenged for source, Encyclopedia of Islam was cited. This Encyclopedia is a reliable source. The source, however, in any of its 5 parts, makes no such claim. Yes, it does cover Judaism and Christianity; I have revised the language to reflect what the source actually states. See this section.

Please see WP:LEAD. Wikipedia guideline suggests - "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Greek and other language translations is not the most important point to be included in lead. Nor are terms like sharīʿat Mūsā, sharīʿat al-Madjūs etc. Therefore, I have moved them out of lead into a relevant section. RLoutfy (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

RLoutfy, I confess that I'm not sure what the problem is. I'm not the one trying to make the additions, but I don't, at least, see them as "misleading" (whether they're misplaced in the article is another question, I dunnno). The EI (New Ed.), in the article "Sharī‘a" in vol. 9, says that the term sharī‘a had, by the 10th c. CE, "become a central component of the religious vocabulary of the Arabic-speaking Jewish community." And for Christians, "[s]harī‘a refers to a system of laws brought by a prophet and subject (perhaps) to abrogation by later prophets." So, on p. 322: "The question of when this cluster of Arabic terms emerged as part of the self-expression of Jews and Christians is unclear. But, whatever model is adopted for the emergence and early development of Islam, it is necessary to acknowledge the co-existence or prior existence of Arabic-speaking Jewish and Christian communities. The development of an Arabic vocabulary for the expression of concepts and ideas integral to the prophetic religions of the Middle East is perhaps best understood as the common achievement of several communities engaged in polemical encounter throughout the 7th to the 9th centuries A.D." Muslims are likely to think of sharī‘a in terms of Islamic law, but noting that the Arabic word is used by Christians and Jews to refer to divine law is noteworthy. It's like "Allah" is the Arabic term used for God by Christians in the ME. But I'm not sure any of that addresses your concerns, because I'm not totally clear on what the issue is. Dmvjjvmd (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It is noteworthy. That is why I clarified the contribution from EI as sharīʿat Mūsā etc, then moved it in appropriate section. This sentence can be misunderstood - "Šarīʿa is the divine law as established in Judaism, Christianity, (Zoroastrianism) and Islam." It can be interpreted as "Šarīʿa is a superset of all those divine laws", which is neither correct nor what Encyclopedia of Islam is suggesting. RLoutfy (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

RLoutfy, ah, yes, you're right, that could be misleading if read that way. Perhaps, to make everyone happy, edit the sentence so that it's clear that the word is used by all those different groups to apply to divine law as understood by them internal to their religions, as opposed to the concept capturing all divine laws for everyone? Dmvjjvmd (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

RLoutfy, I liked that edit. I think that works well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmvjjvmd (talk • contribs) 17:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Potential sources to improve the quality and comprehensiveness of the etymology section

This informal discussion, "Root and meaning of shariah شريعة", at Wordreference.com is almost certainly not sufficient to cite directly, but at least two of the posts within the discussion cite at least two sources that are likely to be high quality. Some of the other posts are enlightening, but seem to lack citation. I suspect that integrating some of the knowledge from the above thread into this Wiki article would improve the quality of the article, especially because the above link connects ancient words (i.e. shar3, path) to contemporary derivatives (i.e. الشارع, street).

Using my rudimentary Arabic skills, the following may be a comprehensive list of citeable sources from the above link, in order of appearance:

1. Lisan Al-Arab
2. Arabic-English Lexicon by "Lane"
3. Taj Al-Arus dictionary
4. مقاييس اللغة [literally "Language Standards"], author, publisher, and date all unknown based only on the thread, but the implication is that the community using the above forum is familiar with the source, so it might be relatively easy to find the source

[P.S. I apologize, but for personal reasons, I do not watch pages. While my comment might seed a conversation or a change, it is unlikely I will participate in a conversation: that is a personal limitation, and I do not intend to offend.] hunterhogan 10:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I find it weird that the article states that sharia "means the moral code and religious law of a prophetic religion", but each citation on this sentence, the following sentence, and the rest of the article references islam directly when they mention sharia on its own. Is there a sharia law outside of islam? Source??? Whenever 'laws' from other religions are referenced they are qualified with additional description and are not considered sharia on their own. Whenever Sharia is mentioned in the rest of the article it is without qualification it is in the context of islam. Should these other sharia be off on their own? Does the law of Moses' belong translated into another language like that? We don't call sharia the torah in Hebrew. "The Arabic word sharīʿa has origins in the concept of ‘religious law’; the word is commonly used by Arabic-speaking peoples of the Middle East and designates a prophetic religion in its totality. Thus, sharīʿat Mūsā means religious law of Moses (Judaism), sharīʿat al-Masīḥ means religious law of Christianity, sharīʿat al-Madjūs means religious law of Zoroastrianism.[2] The Arabic expression شريعة الله (God’s Law) is a common translation for תורת אלוהים (‘God’s Law’ in Hebrew) and νόμος τοῦ θεοῦ (‘God’s Law’ in Greek in the New Testament [Rom. 7: 22]).[43] In contemporary Islamic literature, sharia refers to divine law of Islam as revealed by prophet Muhammad, as well as in his function as model and exemplar of the law.[2]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.250.2 (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sharia and Qānūn-e Islāmī

It may be true that in Arabic Sharia by itself means "body of religious precepts" without specifically applying to Islam, but then it cannot be pronounced in the very same sentence to be "also known as Qānūn-e Islāmī", which literally means "The Law of Islam" or "Islamic Law".

On the Arabic Wikipedia "Sharia" (شريعة) redirects to "Islamic Sharia" (شريعة إسلامية), so the identification of "Sharia" with Islamic Law is more general than just English usage.  --Lambiam 00:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No go zones, alleged medieval classical interpretations

I have removed the ballooning paragraph on no-go zone, because it is tangentially related and offtopic to Sharia. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTOPINION. If someone feels otherwise, please explain how it is relevant, due and of encyclopedic value. RLoutfy (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

User @99.150.243.62: please stop disruptive edits such as deleting sourced content, and violating guidelines explained in WP:WWIN. If you have concerns about a specific source, you are welcome to discuss them on this talk page. RLoutfy (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

POV issue/typo?

"Adherence to Islamic law has served as one of the disgusting characteristics of the Muslim faith historically, and through the centuries Muslims have devoted much scholarly time and effort on its elaboration.[6] Interpretations of sharia (fiqh) vary between Islamic sects and respective schools of jurisprudence, yet in its strictest and most historically coherent definition, sharia is considered the infallible law of God.[7]"

Is the word 'disgusting' meant to be distinguishing? (TYPO) otherwise (POV) 2601:1:9200:677:DCDC:9685:FE93:1BC1 (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Just simple vandalism and already reverted.TMCk (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Reversion

NeilN, could you explain this revert [1]. The content was attributed, citing Frank Gaffney, a well-known scholarly source on the Middle East plus a prominent policy maker. Thanks, JoeM (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Frank Gaffney is a right-wing media columnist (not a "scholarly source") writing for Breitbart (not a scholarly source) who sees conspiracies and jihadists everywhere.--NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Since when does the anything-"wing" creator or source of material render it non-informational? Shall we also disallow left-wing sources for similar reasons? QuintBy (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is this article entitled "Sharia" while its URL refers to "Sharia#Extremism"?

How is this not POV given that Sharia law in the eyes of most in the word is inherently "extremist"? QuintBy (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The URL is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

the url only has "#Extremism" at the end if the link was supposed to lead to the section in the article with the headline "Extremism" (Sharia#Extremism). It's a technical thing. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Edits by user at 217.42.221.75 and hopping IP

User at 217.42.*.* – Please discuss your changes here, or any concerns you have. They seem disruptive. You should not change the title of cited references, to words you prefer, than that the words the author uses. You changed, for example, "The Sharia, Islamic Family Laws and International Human Rights Law: Examining the Theory and Practice of Polygamy and Talaq" title to your preferred "The sharia, Islamic family laws and international human rights law: Examining the theory and practice of polygamy and divorce". The cited title can be seen here. Please explain why you are changing the title, as well as the rest of your changes? RLoutfy (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I used English words. Anyway, I am not adding that again. Regarding those images, those shouldnt' be used. Especially that taliban who was beating a woman, who has not do anything at all with islamic law. 217.42.219.110 (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I will check the images. If the image is not obviously sharia-related, we must cite a reliable source that can verify its link to sharia. RLoutfy (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Those are talibans. There is not any proof that those women are being beating for having removed the veils. Moreover, Sharia does not say to beat women regardless to this action. 217.42.219.20 (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Official from the Department of Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, beating a woman in Afghanistan for violating local interpretation of sharia.[1][2][3]

Did you check the cites? Here are representative quotes from each -

1. RAWA Photos, Quote: "It shows two Taliban from department of Amro bil mahroof (Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, Taliban religious police) beating a woman in public because she has dared to remove her burqa in public."

2. Taliban mistreat women, Associated Press, Quote: "a woman described how her 8-year-old sister had been caught outside without a burqa and beaten by religious police."

3. SK Moore, ISBN 978-0739149102, Quote: "The Department of the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice enforced their version of Sharia Law. A woman could not appear in public without being accompanied by a male relative. The burkha remains a symbol of oppression in Afghan society... women resisting these arcane restrictions were beaten publicly by the Taliban clothes police whose mandate it was to patrol city streets in search of malcontents, enforcing their version of Sharia law."

Thus, there is ample support, in these sources, that the image is relevant to this sharia article. Your claim "Sharia does not say to beat women regardless to this action"... is your personal POV, which we must discard. Are you okay if we add the image with cites that embed the above quotes inside? RLoutfy (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy, The image is about Taliban mistreating women, at best that would suit the Taliban article and not the Sharia one. --HakimPhilo (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@HakimPhilo First of all, there are references to the Taliban using a strict version of Deobandi Sharia to justify their treatment of women on the Deobandi page. Specifically, Abrams, Dennis (2007), and Skain, Rosemarie (2002). But this point is moot anyway, because what you call "Sharia" is not a universal code of law. As it exists today, you can't really defend the Sharia by alleging the Taliban are not following it, because you don't have a universal definition of what "sharia" is. Different sects and subgroups have their own Sharia, this is a fact. The source material used by every group differs, so there is nothing currently stopping the Taliban to include the Pashtunwali in the derivation of their Sharia, just as there is nothing stopping the Sunnis from including their own sources of Fiqh. So until you can achieve a universal definition of "sharia" (my suggestion is, look solely to the Quran, and use deductive REASON, logicians, lexicologists and constitutional lawyers, instead of maddrassah educated mullahs) you can't argue that the Taliban are not following "sharia", because they will claim that they are and you have no argument currently to stop them (try telling a Taliban commander that he isn't following "Sharia", and watch what happens next...) Code16 (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Code16 I think you're failing to realize that no society, now or in the past, could enforce Sharia, because no human had complete and correct knowledge of its content. Strictly speaking, what traditional Islamic courts enforced was not Sharia, God's law, but fiqh, jurisprudence, the imperfect human attempt to deduce from religious sources what the law ought to be. Aside from that the question is whether an image of a member of the Taliban mistreating women can fit the Sharia article, the answer will depend on whether the Taliban enforces an orthodox and widely recognized conception of fiqh. The answer turns out to be negative. (source: Skain Rosemarie - The women of Afghanistan under the Taliban. page 41.) So it shouldn't.--HakimPhilo (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@HakimPhilo: You're not understanding the problem. If there is no universal or axiomatic definition of "sharia" then you can't deny the Taliban's claim that they are following it, irregardless of how many people follow their version. You can't simultaneously hang-on to sectarian conceptions of "sharia" and make such an argument logically. Any attempt to do so will result in a argument from authority fallacy. Also, your claim that no one could ever enforce sharia is irrelevant and based in an incorrect understanding of what God's law is actually supposed to be (combined with the assumption that it is impossible for humans to have complete knowledge of His laws in the Quran via the "clear and simple" verses.) Although, you are correct that no one can ever enforce the corrupted/man-made sharia that mainstream "muslims" like to cling on to, that were actually engineered to be defective on purpose, which is another known fact. We know that after the Rashidun Caliphate era, the laws were corrupted on purpose by the rulers to serve their vested interest. Even today, you have the Saudi Monarchy justified by the Wahhabi clergy, and the same goes for Iran. Don't blame this corruption on the Quran, these are not God's imperfections, these are your own.

@Code16: Look, for a supposedly version of "sharia" to be applied it must have a basis, this basis must come from fiqh, but are major Islamic experts on fiqh adhering to the thesis that the Taliban have a basis on fiqh? No! (source: Skain Rosemarie - The women of Afghanistan under the Taliban. page 41.) So it shouldn't be incorporated to the article. Furthermore, "corrupted/man-made sharia that mainstream "muslims" like to cling on to" there's no such thing as man-made sharia, sharia is by definition the idea of God's law, and fiqh is an approximation to what God's law is. --HakimPhilo (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@HakimPhilo: You're still not understanding the problem. Your statement that "fiqh" must be the basis for God's Law is rejected by other sects e.g. Ahl-e-Hadith. Your statement; therefore, only applies to your own sect, not universally. Even the sects which use "fiqh" don't use the same "fiqh". This is the problem. Why should we listen to your "experts" above the Taliban's? The bigger question is: if all these "experts" are doing a proper job, why is there any disagreement on the matter in the first place? Are you, after all, claiming that God is so imperfect, that He could not reveal a book from which a clear law could be derived? Really? Why would you worship such a god who doesn't even know how to reveal his own laws? Or maybe the problem isn't God or His Quran. Maybe the problem is all these "religious experts" (of all the sects) who've been brainwashing you into thinking that their "fiqh" and "approximations" aren't what they actually are: deliberate corruptions. As yourself what's more likely: That God is incapable of revealing His laws clearly (even after stating in His Quran that His laws are based on the "clear and simple" verses), or that the corrupt clergy-ruler nexus has been corrupting their so called "approximations" on purpose (which is exactly what God warned you they will do in His Quran). Pick wisely.

@Code16: Ahl-e-Hadith do not reject fiqh because - in simple terms - the 4 madhabs used hadiths to derive their rulings. "Even the sects which use "fiqh" don't use the same "fiqh". This is the problem." This just demonstrates your problem, fiqh is only a guess at what sharia may be. And I never claimed that my fiqh was the truest one, just that since the Taliban don't follow a particular madhab they aren't to be considered as legit when talking about Sharia. --HakimPhilo (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@HakimPhilo: You're not making any sense. Your claim is that they accept fiqh because they accept hadith? lol. Fiqh came AFTER hadith. You can only claim that if someone accepts fiqh, they accept hadith, not the other way around. This is the classic mistake you fiqh followers make against the ahl-e-hadith, but their argument is stronger then yours. As for your secondary argument, it again begs the question: on what authority are you claiming that following a particular madhab is a necessary requirement to following sharia? That's just your own sectarian claim. By the way, the Taliban are basically a subsection of Deobandis, so that argument would still be false, even if your claim was true.

@Code16: "Fiqh came AFTER hadith." My claim was that they accepted the 4 madhabs rulings since they were based on the Qur'an and Hadith (as well as the opinions of the Sahaba which they acknowledge). "on what authority are you claiming that following a particular madhab is a necessary requirement to following sharia?" That's a really obvious thing. "That's just your own sectarian claim" What? "the Taliban are basically a subsection of Deobandis" What does that even mean?

@HakimPhilo:

I'll respond point by point:

* Your claim was the following: "Ahl-e-Hadith do not reject fiqh". Please show me a neutral source which backs up this claim.

* How is it an "obvious thing" that following a madhab is a requirement for sharia?

* What about that sentence did you not understand? Do you understand the word "sectarianism"? I'm saying your views are clearly biased.

* It means the Taliban came from the deobandi school of thought. The majority of their leaders were influenced by Deobandi fundamentalism. Source: Maley, William (2001). Fundamentalism Reborn? Afghanistan and the Taliban. C Hurst & Co. p. 14. ISBN 978-1-85065-360-8.

@Code16:

• Ahl al-Hadīth are the people most familiar with Hadīth, the most strict in adherence to it, those who follow it in words and deeds in their manners, their conduct, their worship, their dealings, and in their beliefs both openly and in private. Those who are focused on the study, compilation, writing, and teaching of Hadīth, transmitting them understanding them, and sorting the authentic from the weak are most worthy of being included in this group. Furthermore, the Ahl al-Hadīth are Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamā`ah. And since the 4 madhabs are part of the Sunni conception of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah it follows that Ahl al-Hadith do indeed follow one of the madhabs.
• You can't make up your own conception of what Sharia ought to be without recoring to fiqh which necessarily requires an understanding of the 4 madhabs.
• "That's just your own sectarian claim", makes no sense to me. Also stop making accusations, please read WP:ACCUSE.
• That doesn't show that the Taliban follow a specific school of thought nor whether that claim is true in reality (Hint: it is not, see Skain Rosemarie - The women of Afghanistan under the Taliban. page 41..

@HakimPhilo:

• You failed to provide a neutral source which states that Ahl-e-Hadith follow fiqh, you're just repeating a refuted point.
• I'm not "defining" anything. I'm using an objective definition derived deductively from the Quran. It's your sectarian "sharia" which seeks to change that definition, since it adds and subtracts laws from the Quran which is not allowed. I've provided references to John Burton's work to back this point up.
• You're the one who's trying to censor something from this wiki by hurling accusations, not me:
• You have not shown that following any "school of thought" or fiqh is a necessary requirement, please provide a universal definition which states this as a condition. Code16 (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Code16:

• I don't need to, by defintion Ahl al-Hadith follow fiqh.
• "since it adds and subtracts laws from the Quran which is not allowed." Where did I substract or add laws from the Qur'an?
• Again you're accusing me, please read WP:ACCUSE.
• "It's certainly not in the Quran." There are many things that aren't the Qur'an but that are mentioned in the Sunnah or the opinions of the sahaba or tabe'en.

@Code16: And BTW while you're at it, why don't you add a picture of a beheading of ISIS and say it is "according to local interpretation of Sharia"? Why don't you add a horrible picture from a terrorist organization and label it as "according to local interpretation of Sharia"? For that matter I simply deleted it. --HakimPhilo (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@HakimPhilo:

• No, by definition they follow hadith, not fiqh. They are two separate things. Do you have a neutral reference to show they follow fiqh?
• Sunni sharia adds laws which aren't the in the Quran and subtract those that are. Take Ribba and Zakat. Read what the Quran says and then compare it with the sunni sharia.
• So you're saying God revealed an incomplete book that left out important things? Even when He said that the Quran is a complete source of guidance for Islamic matters? Are you saying God lied?
• ISIS' opinion is also just as valid as your "scholars": they're all equally nonsensical.

@Code16:

• They get fiqh from hadith.
• They don't substract ribba nor zakat.
• I'm not saying that the Qur'an is incomplete, just that the Sunnah details the Qur'an. (A classic example is that the Qur'an doesn't mention how many times a day a Muslim should pray)
• Huh? All nonsensical? We're supposed to be far awar from POV, which you aren't.

By the way this isn't a forum, we aren't discussing hadith or fiqh here but whether that picture depicting something done by the terrorist group Taliban should fit in the Sharia article.

@HakimPhilo:

• But they don't get hadith from fiqh, so your argument is invalid.
• Yes they do, their corruptions of these concepts like Ribba and Zakat are nothing like what they are in the Quran. Neither is Nizam-as-Salat, which they've made into "prayer" but is much more then just praying.
• The Quran does list the minimum required times of gathering required in the system-of-salat (which is more then just "prayer".) Sunnis think praying 5 times a day, and paying 2.5% a year is what is required, but they have no idea how much more is required for a Muslim. They've tried to corrupt Islam and turn it from a revolutionary "deen" to a status-quo "religion" (just like the Jews and Christians did).
• You are clearly claiming that the Quran is incomplete if your argument is that it leaves out critical details (which it does not).
• The picture fits perfectly, it exposes the fact that the same arbitrary rules by which ISIS/Taliban make their laws are used by the scholars of all the sects. Code16 (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Code16:

• Fiqh relies on hadiths.
• You don't make sense, they didn't corrupt neither the concepts of Ribba and Zakat.
• That doesn't make any sense.
• I didn't say that it leaves critical details.
• There is no basis on which you can claim that the scholars of the 4 madhabs make up laws that seeks to mistreat women. And as I said while you're at it, why don't you add a picture of a beheading of ISIS and say it is "according to local interpretation of Sharia"? Why don't you add a horrible picture from a terrorist organization and label it as "according to local interpretation of Sharia"? --HakimPhilo (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@HakimPhilo:

• and ahl-e-hadith don't rely on fiqh. National Socialism relies on Socialism, but Socialists don't rely on National Socialism. If you can't understand the obvious logical flaw in your argument, then that's not my problem.
• Do your own research, look at the actual definitions Ribba and Zakat in the Quran and compare them to the Sunni sharias objectively. If you still can't see any distinctions then I can't help you.
• Before I entertain your other points, you need to deal with these two points above. If you fail to show competence in the core subject matter as it relates to your original argument, there is no point in discussing other issues with you. Code16 (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@HakimPhilo:, @Code16: Lets get back to the image, the aim of this subsection of this article's talk page, and avoid a side forum-style discussion (see WP:TALKNO policies). The image is clearly labelled "violating local interpretation of sharia." and it is clearly supported by the cites with embedded quotes. The image relates to a local Taliban's interpretation of sharia, is notable and therefore is relevant. According to MOS:IMAGES guidelines of wikipedia, images included are illustrative and relevant. The image meets this guideline. @HakimPhilo - will you respect community agreed wikipedia policies and guidelines in matters relating to this article? RLoutfy (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Code16:

• Can't you follow this basic rezsoning? Ahl al-Hadith follow Hadiths. Hadiths highlight legal issues as well as fiqh. Ahl al-Hadith follow the fiqh mentioned in the Hadiths.
• There's no difference between the Qur'anic conception of Ribba and Zakat and the "Sunni sharia" one.
• Same.

Dear @RLoutfy:. You state "relates to a local Taliban's interpretation of sharia, is notable and therefore is relevant.". No it is not. Why don't you add a picture of a beheading of ISIS and say it is "according to local interpretation of Sharia"? Why don't you add a horrible picture from a terrorist organization and label it as "according to local interpretation of Sharia"? For that matter I simply deleted it. This is a clear case of POV. Regards. --HakimPhilo (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@HakimPhilo:

• Buddy, you can't even spell "reasoning", let alone manage it. The "Fiqh" that you blindly follow was developed by sectarian scholars well after the (already flawed) hadith books were compiled. The Ahlehadith do not follow your fiqh.
• Then you either have not done your research, or you're simply lying. Code16 (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear @Code16:. "you can't even spell "reasoning"" First that was a typo. Second that doesn't constitute an argument. * Where does this reasoning fail? Ahl Al-Hadith follow Hadiths. Hadiths contain legal issues. Therefore Ahl al-Hadith follow the legal issues mentioned in the Hadiths. * Can you show that? And again I'll repeat my main objection: Why don't you add a picture of a beheading of ISIS and say it is "according to local interpretation of Sharia"? Why don't you add a horrible picture from a terrorist organization and label it as "according to local interpretation of Sharia"? Regards. --HakimPhilo (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@HakimPhilo:

* A citation is present on the ahl-e-hadith page that clarifies the matter for you. The Ahl-e-Hadith do not bind themselves to your schools of jurisprudence/fiqh. (Hewer, C. T. R. Understanding Islam: The First Ten Steps. Books.google.com.my. Retrieved 2012-09-24.) So their "following fiqh" is not the same as your "following fiqh".

* Of course I can show that. I already gave you one example of Zakat (2.5% versus "everything above your requirements", as defined in the Quran). For Ribba, read the clear and simple verses 2:278-279. The only technical definition that can be derived from this is the following: [Any amount above the initial principal + rate of inflation.] This is Ribba. Now compare this with what your man-made jurisprudence allows. The so called "islamic finance" system works by trying to cheat this simple and clear definition, because they always allow the investor/lender to gain back more then what they put in (and by the way, "risk" has nothing to do with it, that's simply a lie the "scholars" made up.) Nothing above the [initial principal + rate of inflation] can be collected in return for a loan and/or investment of any type, despite whatever "risk" is incurred by the investing party. This destroys the entire conception of the current economic/financial system which is inherently exploitative. Combined with the definition of Zakat (with which no ribba is possible within a true Quranic System, because there is no extra capital (i.e. massed inequality) in the first place.) This is why the declaration of war is given in the Quran against Ribba.

* If you keep deleting that picture, I'll just keep reverting your edits. I suggest you add another sub-section with a cited counter-argument which shows that the Taliban's sharia is considered invalid. Be prepared for counter-arguments. Code16 (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Code16:

* You're referring to the mid 19s movement in Northern India who were known as "Ahl al-Hadith", and not the Ahl al-Hadith in the general sense who follow Hadiths. And despite that they still follow legal matters mentioned in the Hadiths.

* The 2.5% rate for Zakat doesn't contradict or modify in any sort the Qur'an. You should also mention a citation that the "islamic finance" actually contains Ribba as mentioned in the Qur'an.

* You're misrepresenting my argument, I'm simply telling you that putting pictures from terrorist organizations in the Sharia article isn't justified. Remember what I said: "Why don't you add a picture of a beheading of ISIS and say it is "according to local interpretation of Sharia"? Why don't you add a horrible picture from a terrorist organization and label it as "according to local interpretation of Sharia"?" Regards. --HakimPhilo (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@HakimPhilo:

* They don't bind themselves to jurisprudence of any particular fiqh, so your original argument is moot, because these groups can create their own sharias. So how will you prove that the Taliban are not following sharia? They will argue they're following their own sharia.

* It does contradict the Quran, both their corruptions of Ribba, and Zakat are in contradiction. Here's a citation: The Quranic System of Sustenance, G.A. Parwez, Ch.11, pg 243-261. The book is available in PDF at http://tolueislam.org/urdu-books/english-books-pdf/

* I repeat: "I suggest you add another sub-section with a cited counter-argument which shows that the Taliban's sharia is considered invalid." Code16 (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Code16: * Again I repeat; "There is no such thing as my own sharia, or your own sharia" Sharia is the idea of God's law, humans can only find a good approximation to it known as fiqh. For Ahl al-Hadith (those who follow Hadiths and not the mid 19s movement in Northern India), they follow Hadiths and that includes the legal things mentioned in them. And as I said: "Why don't you add a picture of a beheading of ISIS and say it is "according to local interpretation of Sharia"? Why don't you add a horrible picture from a terrorist organization and label it as "according to local interpretation of Sharia"?" * Which contradictions? Are you saying Malik, Shafi'i et al. were stupid enough to contradict the Qur'an when they derived their legal rulings? * That wasn't my claim, I simply told you that putting images of terrorist organizations in a sharia article isn't suitable: "Why don't you add a picture of a beheading of ISIS and say it is "according to local interpretation of Sharia"? Why don't you add a horrible picture from a terrorist organization and label it as "according to local interpretation of Sharia"?" Regards. --HakimPhilo (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@HakimPhilo: okay, now you've just gone into repeat mode and not actually answering the points raised. I'll leave the rest to the admins, as you're clearly beyond reasoning with. Code16 (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@HakimPhilo: Moore writes, "women resisting these arcane restrictions were beaten publicly by the Taliban clothes police whose mandate it was to patrol city streets in search of malcontents, enforcing their version of Sharia law." So do the other two cites. Why suppress this verifiable and notable information?

You ask, "Why don't you add a picture of a beheading of ISIS and say it is "according to local interpretation of Sharia"? Why don't you add a horrible picture from a terrorist organization and label it as "according to local interpretation of Sharia"?"

Once again, peruse WP:NOTFORUM and stop violating the talk page guidelines on "this is not a forum". If you have a specific image and verifiable cites, we can consider it. Quit asking speculative questions, inviting me to forum like discussions, because wikipedia is not the right place for such questions and discussions. Our goal is to summarize verifiable reliable sources in a neutral way and respect other content guidelines. Neutral neither means criticize Islam nor does it mean praise Islam with your POVs. It simply means "study the sources, present all sides accurately without copyvio, and don't take a side". That said, as Code16 prudently suggests, I too ask you present a reliable cite that discusses the alternate perspective on Taliban's local interpretation of Sharia. If you do, we can add a summary of the other side(s). Either way, with or without that, the image will remain in the article. You are welcome to take this matter through wikipedia's dispute resolution/admin process. RLoutfy (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear @RLoutfy:. My claim (which you didn't address) was that putting such a picture was off-topic, regardless of whether the sources are reliable or not. Regards. --HakimPhilo (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear @Code16:. Why did you revert my edits? You provided no reason for the inclusion of such image in this article. Regards. --HakimPhilo (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Quran's authenticity and abrogation

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

@RLoutfy: I agree, a summary would suffice, as long as it is balanced (previously only Wansbrough's side was presented.) Code16 (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Code16: I don't think a section on abrogation is needed in this Sharia article since it is too off-topic. Regards. --HakimPhilo (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@HakimPhilo: That's fine, I don't have a problem with removing the entire section, as long as both sides of the argument get affected and not just the counterargument to Wansbrough. Code16 (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Code16: Abrogation section is important given its historical and current role in Sharia. There are dozens of recent reliable sources, and this article would improve if we summarize them. I agree with you that balance is necessary and all sides should be summarized for WP:NPOV. I have over 25 recent sources on abrogation and its impact on Sharia in my office, but no time to summarize them for wikipedia. Perhaps you can take the lead, and I will help along when I find time. If you are busy too, please keep an eye. I will get to it in the coming weeks, and would appreciate your critical eye on anything I add and revise on abrogation. RLoutfy (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Sounds good, if you have more sources then I'll wait as there's no point in summarizing before another expansion is incoming. Although, if you have enough material, it might be better to start another page with a redirect posted here, as this is an important issue that deserves a dedicated page. The redirect would also be relevant for the "History of the Quran" wiki. This page is on my watchlist in any case and I'll keep an eye out. Code16 (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear @RLoutfy:. The subject of naskh (which is part of usul al-tafsir) is absolutely off-topic in an article on Sharia. I don't see how you can claim that it had "an important" role throughout history. Regards. --HakimPhilo (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Unreliable cite

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

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

@RLoutfy: I think I made a mistake with the Chapra, cite. I cannot find the original source for it. Here it is! <ref name=Chapra_2000_118>Chapra, M.U. (2000), ''The Future of Economics: An Islamic Perspective'', Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, p.118

It's from:

p.281, Sairally, Salma. 2007. Evaluating the `social responsibility` of Islamic finance: Learning from the experiences of socially responsible investment funds. In Advances in Islamic economics and finance: Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Islamic Economics and Finance, Vol. 1 ed. Munawar Iqbal, Salman Syed Ali and Dadang Muljawan, pp.279-320. Jeddah: Islamic Research and Training Institute, Islamic Development Bank.

Sorry about that!

As for Onislam.net, has there been an incident where it was found to have been inaccurate? if not what exactly, if anything, has made it "not WP:RS"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie, Blogs and websites such as onislam.net are questionable sources and SPS and often primary sources. Such sources cannot be used in this or other wiki articles. We should find, rely on and cite a recent peer-reviewed reliable source, such as a scholarly book, journal article, or other reliable secondary/tertiary sources. If a view is broadly held by scholars, you should have no difficulty in finding such recent sources. RLoutfy (talk) 06:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

In my defense I'll say that at first glance OnIslam looked too busy, too thick with sections and stories ("Ask the scholar", "Ask the counselor"), and too slick to be self-published. On further examination there is no "About us" link, the "scholar" and "counselor" aren't identified, and some (all?) of the functions don't work -- click any "ask" link and no question box to fill appears. SO maybe it can't be called a blog or even self-published, but it sure ain't transparent. I will not contest your deletion of it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is Greece included in the map?

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

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

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

Drafting vs. content

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

My opinion, an informed opinion, but still an opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apostasy is not a crime

Why has apostasy been mentioned as a crime involving death penalty, whereas apostasy followed by preaching against Islam is the actual crime. If a Muslim leaves Islam and starts spreading fitna against it, only then does he deserve a punishment. Such mistook ideas can easily turn people against this religion. Cataleya B (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Sharia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060522000137/http://www.averroes-foundation.org/articles/sex_slavery.html to http://www.averroes-foundation.org/articles/sex_slavery.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060708103623/http://www.averroes-foundation.org:80/articles/islamic_law_evolving.html to http://www.averroes-foundation.org/articles/islamic_law_evolving.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060708103932/http://www.averroes-foundation.org:80/articles/free_and_equal.html to http://www.averroes-foundation.org/articles/free_and_equal.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130817005717/http://iheu.org/content/fate-infidels-and-apostates-under-islam-0 to http://iheu.org/content/fate-infidels-and-apostates-under-islam-0
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130927154118/http://www.eui.eu/DepartmentsAndCentres/RobertSchumanCentre/Research/InternationalTransnationalRelations/MediterraneanProgramme/MRM/MRM2011/ws04.aspx to http://www.eui.eu/DepartmentsAndCentres/RobertSchumanCentre/Research/InternationalTransnationalRelations/MediterraneanProgramme/MRM/MRM2011/ws04.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130903132548/http://www.musawah.org:80/sites/default/files/CEDAW%20&%20Muslim%20Family%20Laws.pdf to http://www.musawah.org/sites/default/files/CEDAW%20%26%20Muslim%20Family%20Laws.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Attention, vandalism

Please take action against this obnoxious act of vandalism. Carlotm (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sharia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130308024100/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/africa/nigeria/sharia_law.html to http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/africa/nigeria/sharia_law.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Dispute that only 2 source for Sharia

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

Administrators of Sharia

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

Lead changes

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

There are some sources I have which would be very useful for this project. I have two of the books by Hallaq on PDF that I can email via PDF to anyone interested in this subject. Professor Hallaq is probably the most respected source in this field.

• Hallaq, B. Wael, “The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law” CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, New York. ISBN-13 978-0-511-26407-8
• Hallaq, “A History of Islamic Legal Theories: An Introduction to Sunni Usul Al-fiqh.”
• Hallaq, “An Introduction to Islamic Law.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, we'll need to reflect these points with due weight somewhere between this and more detailed articles. First, however, I think this article needs a major overhaul to sort out the pervasive confusion between sharia-based legal systems from different historical periods.

To make sure others aren't misled by your use of the word "mainstream": Hallaq is as mainstream a scholar as you can get in this field. He just happens to be an innovative one. Eperoton (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

to clarify, by "mainstream" I meant the traditional scholars of the sunni/shia fiqh. Hallaq is definitely mainstream by academic standards. cӨde1+6^TP 19:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge with Sharia Law

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

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

Rewrite of principles of jurisprudence

I prefer to make incremental changes, but the material on legal theory needed a complete overhaul. I'm not going to enumerate its problems, but if anyone has specific concerns, I'll be glad to discuss them. Suffice it to say that the material bore little resemblance to any of the standard academic references I'm working with. I found only one passage that I could think of something to do with: the recent addition by BoogaLouie, which I moved to Maqasid, since it was too detailed for this article. I'm keeping the other material of that section in the three level-3 subsections, and I'll be working on these next. Eperoton (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

This section appears to suffer from selective quotation. For example, An-Na'im's appraisal of Sharia is far more balanced, in the positive direction, that what the content currently says. The author writes: 'Compared to legal and theological systems of other "state religions" it is clear that Sharia scheme of religious rights was superior from a modern perspective of belief.' Another issue is that is focuses too much on apostasy, even though the major experience of non-Muslims under Sharia has been that of dhimmi, not apostasy. Finally, most references are missing page numbers, making it difficult to determine what was actually said.Bless sins (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, the entire criticism section needs an overhaul. Much of it doesn't even summarize coverage of actual sharia-related controversies found in RSs, but rather aspects of classical sharia that some fellow Wikipedians felt deserve criticism. Eperoton (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"Balanced in the positive direction" isn't balanced, it's biased. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is already pretty censored and pro-Muslim in it's viewpoint. So I don't think there's any reason to change the one critical part :) El cid, el campeador (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sharia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060528154417/http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/29AC6DBD-C3F8-411C-9B97-B42BE466EE7A/0/2004__Wildhaber_Cancado_Trindade_BIL__opening_legal_year.pdf to http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/29AC6DBD-C3F8-411C-9B97-B42BE466EE7A/0/2004__Wildhaber_Cancado_Trindade_BIL__opening_legal_year.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100124050055/http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2001/July/RefahPartisi2001jude.htm to http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2001/July/RefahPartisi2001jude.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130508110838/http://www.pewforum.org/Government/Laws-Penalizing-Blasphemy%2C-Apostasy-and-Defamation-of-Religion-are-Widespread.aspx to http://www.pewforum.org/Government/Laws-Penalizing-Blasphemy%2C-Apostasy-and-Defamation-of-Religion-are-Widespread.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116094053/http://www.law.emory.edu/aannaim/pdfiles/dwnld15.pdf to http://www.law.emory.edu/aannaim/pdfiles/dwnld15.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140903142056/https://www.unaa.org.au/brunei-implements-sharia-law.html to http://www.unaa.org.au/brunei-implements-sharia-law.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

So What Laws Are Part of Sharia??

I went to this page to see what is actually a crime under Sharia, but this pages makes no mention of such things. What is illegal under Sharia? In particular, what does it not forbid that other legal systems forbid, and vice versa? Without describing the body of law Sharia represents, this page seems to fail in what one would think is its primary goal -- explaining to the reader what Sharia is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.24.225 (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

A modern encyclopedia of classical Islamic jurisprudence runs to several dozen volumes, and modern sharia-based state laws is a whole different topic. This article doesn't have space for all that, any more than Law of the United States has room to describe all that is legal and illegal in the US. However, one can navigate to more specific articles that discuss substantive law using the Islamic jurisprudence sidebar, which is featured in the section called Branches of law. Eperoton (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

sharia or shari'a?

The topic of the article is spelled differently throughout the article. About 10% of the time it's "shari'a". I have no idea if that's significant or if it's just a different transliteration, so I'm not messing with it, but some who's more familiar with the subject might want to take a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C001:8278:31CB:ED01:A45D:1FEE (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary lists it as Sharia, giving its etymology from the (transliterated) Arabic šarī'a. I suspect something like that is the source of the variant spelling in the article. Since this is the English Wikipedia, we probably should go consistently with the accepted English spelling (except in quotations or when discussing the Arabic word as a word). --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for semi-protection

This article is susceptible to frequent vandalism, and though ClueBot NG catches almost all of it, one can get tired of seeing the shenanigans of IPs in the history log. Meltingwood ^meow 00:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection can be requested at WP:RPP, but given the relatively low level of recent disruption, my guess is that it would be declined. Eperoton (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Circumcision is Obligatory in Sharia

e4.3 Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris (this is called Hufaad) -Reliance of the Traveller, The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.135.123 (talk • contribs) 23:36, July 16, 2017 (UTC)

Is this a suggestion for improvement of this article? If so, please recast it as a suggestion on how this information ought to be used to improve the article. Also, I noticed that the source you link appears to refute disagree with your assertion above. That source says:

Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. Bazr) of the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert). (A: Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna, while Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.

— The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ‘Umdat al-Salik

by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices

Edited and Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sharia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141020235639/http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/private/ierc/conference_registration/papers/Kuran.pdf to http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/private/ierc/conference_registration/papers/Kuran.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141016010752/http://www.sfb-governance.de/publikationen/working_papers/wp54/SFB-Governance-Working-Paper-54.pdf to http://www.sfb-governance.de/publikationen/working_papers/wp54/SFB-Governance-Working-Paper-54.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sharia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402214135/http://arsiv.setav.org/ups/dosya/48531.pdf to http://arsiv.setav.org/ups/dosya/48531.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Muslim-hating propaganda (unencyclopedic style)

Sharia authorized the institution of slavery, using the words abd (slave) and the phrase ma malakat aymanukum ("that which your right hand owns") to refer to women slaves, seized as captives of war.
This makes literally zero sense, unless it's meant to disparage Islam. First, it doesn't make clear that slavery had existed before Islam. Second, "using the words" is strikingly unencyclopedic. Third, how does the general notion of slavery concern women? It should be specified that it's about female slaves! Fourth, why is the Past Indefinite used? Has Sharia law been reformed not to authorize slavery?--Adûnâi (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Outline

There is a section for Sharia in the Outline of law article, suggest populating that section. If it seems like the article is getting too long, then there will be a need to branch the religious law topics into an Outline of religious law article. -Inowen (nlfte) 20:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources of sharia law

The text currently states that there are four sources for sharia law but only three are mentioned in the opening statement of that paragraph. Teradon (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I read: "Traditional theory of Islamic jurisprudence recognizes four sources of sharia: the Quran, sunnah (authentic hadith), qiyas (analogical reasoning), and ijma (juridical consensus)." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent lead additions

@VenusFeuerFalle: Thanks for trying to improve this article. Unfortunately, the recent additions to lead were problematic for a few reasons, some substantive and some linguistic. You didn't cite page numbers, so I can't consult the sources you're attempting to summarize. If you'd like to have them in the lead, please explain what you're trying to convey and why this belongs in the lead. In order:

1. sharia during the classical era, lacked any codification comparable to Western law, rather the jurists followed their own opinion, derived from earlier reports. It's true that classical sharia wasn't codified and I agree that we could make that clearer in the lead. I think you're suggestion to mention the Mejelle is a good one. Noting that it was the first codification of sharia will help make that clearer. I'll make that modification. However, the comparison to "Western law" isn't really appropriate, in part because the term is unclear. The history of Western law includes a number of different legal traditions, some codified, some not, and some in between. Also, the sort of opinion championed Ahl ar-Ra'y is something quite different from the methodology of legal opinion in classical Islamic law.
2. The first codification of sharia was introduced by Ottoman rulers with Mecelle in 1869,<ref> called by promulgated by their own legal code (qanun) I'm afraid this sentence is broken both syntactically and historically. the Qanun wasn't a codification of sharia and its emergence preceded the Mecelle by several centuries.
3. However, the idea of a possible future caliphate, strives for a sharia based on the four major lega-schools Aside from infelicitous grammar ("the idea... strives"), why the "however", and how is talking about the caliphate due in the lead? The idea of sharia has been championed by various modern movements, and in particular various Islamist movements that the previous sentence refers to. Only some of them have connected their call for implementation of sharia with a vision of caliphate, and we don't have space in the lead to classify their different platforms. I don't recall any of the general concise overviews of sharia in the standard references highlight the caliphate proponents, so doing it in the lead would be WP:UNDUE. If you find that this connection is prominently covered in RSs, please consider developing it with in the body of the article first, ideally based on sources that discuss the topic of the article in general terms, and not solely focusing on Al-Qaeda.

Eperoton (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Eperoton: thank you for contacting me. I will try to respond to each of the mentioned arguements:

1. The comparation to "Western law" was exactly that the source stated, thus I simply transmitted this expression, actually to avoid interpretation on my own. But since you mention it, the expression "Western law" is to ambigious and probably easy to get, while reading the source, but inappropriate for the Wikipedia-lead. I think we should only say, that "Sharia" was not codified earlier. This should make the point clear enough. (It implies the lack of codified law during the Classical era).

1. The law-code established by the Ottoman Sulta was, as far as I know called "Kanun-i Esasi". It is not the first "Qanun". Accordingly, the "Kanun-i Esasi", was the first codification, but not the first law-system called "Qanun". If I linked it to the article Qanun I am sorry for that. I think I wanted to link it to "Kanun-i Esasi" or Mecelle, but unintentionally linked it to the general "Qanun" article, that is, as you sayed, wrong.

1. The last point does not focus on Al Qaeda per se. It rather introduces the development of takfir during the late ottoman period until Islamism movments. In this specific context, introduces the establishment establishment of "Sharia law" based on the works of Hanbal, Hanifa and so on and afterthat states, that this would be the basis for "sharia-law" (unlike Classical islam, where much interpretation was left). I guess I can quote the sentence here: "These laws (the laws of the major school of law in Sunni Islam) gave rise to "sharia" law, which became the unibasis for all Sunni schools of Islam and, therefore, central to Sunnirojections of a future global caliphate." If you want to check the context on your own, you can find it on page 66. My intention was to mention the idea of "Sharia" in modern context. Sunnis usually do not think about a "Sharia" based on Ottoman Law or a "Divine guidiance", but usually call for a "sharia" based on the four Schools of Law during the early Abbasid period. This might explain why I used the term "however", since it differs from "sharia" during the Caliphates (no fiqh, no ruler ando so on). I thought it would explain the idea behind "sharia" in mdoern times, . Since the source specificly mentiones "Sunni ideas" and not "Wahhabi"- "Salafi ideas" (how it does somewhere else), I thought this can be taken into account as a general idea behind contemporary Sunni ideal of "Sharia". But the source might be biased due to its focus on "Takfir" and "Islamism movements" (although it is not limited to them, due to the focus it probably omit other arguements for alternative Sunni-Sharia projections). Since I gave you the page number, you can check the source and its claim by yourself. You can tell me that you think of it or edit it corresponding to that, you think would be the best for the article. The much more important addition (Mecelle) was made and I agrred with you, that the statement now is much better. --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: Thanks for the explanations. It sounds like we're in agreement on the first two points. On the last point, as I think you yourself suggest, since the emphasis of this book on takfiri movements, we should be cautious about using is as basis for general statements about sharia. Let me invite you to take a look at two concise discussions of the subject in standard academic references, both of which are cited for the current statement. One is the entry on sharia Knut Vikør wrote for The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Politics. He has a standard book on the subject at OUP, and this entry concludes with a very condensed discussion of sharia in the modern times. The other is the somewhat more detailed entry written for The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World by Ann Elizabeth Mayer, who's a leading authority on modern developments of sharia. I think these two entries should suffice to convey the complexity of these developments and diversity of perspectives. In particular, among those who have called for full implementation of sharia, some were Islamic scholars trained in traditional fiqh and some were political leaders who used this rhetoric loosely. I tried to summarize this in the lead very briefly, drawing on Vikør's formulation. Let me know if you think the current formulation needs improvement based on these more general sources. The lead aside, the body of this article is still missing the entire topic of the modern development of sharia. I've been meaning to write it for a while now. Hopefully, soon. Eperoton (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Excuse my late respond: You have intriguing sources here, and "Politics" are not my main-focus. I rather touched this topic by accident and thought of making a contributation to this article. I remembered it as incomplete, especially, that alwas bothered me here, is that it does not say much about, that "sharia" actually is or how it developes. My other edit seems to be better fitting into anther section. Unfortunetely, I do not have the time for the following month to make major edits (apart from these I did the last two days. I wanted to do them, before I take a short break). But I am fine with you changes. Although I think this article still needs improvement, I will currently not be able to do much here. Thanks for dicussion--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Referenced Maddhabs

I'm just going to start a discussion here on the referencing of Jafari school of thought from Shia Islam as @Emir_of_Wikipedia reverted my removal from the article. I personally based on my knowledge of Sunni, Sufi, Shia and even Ahamaddiya Islam do not know if there is any reason to reference Jafari. It appears this inclusion is based on a the Oxford Dictionary of Islam referencing that Azhar University compares it to be a fifth Maddhab. That said Shia Islam on its own is not orthodox or considered mainstream and represents a super minority of the Muslim World. Jafari school of thought is one of several in Shia Islam which means its an even smaller fraction of the minority Shia sect. While Oxford is generally a pretty prestigious university their Islamic Studies academics tend to be atheists, ex-muslims, sufis or shias so their writings tend to come from a non-mainstream point of view and not something most Muslims would consider to be authoritative or even credible. Bkerensa (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

There's no question that OUP publications in Islamic studies are reliable based on WP policies and guidelines (WP:V, WP:RS). The authors' religious background is irrelevant for our purposes. We can't change sourced content based on our personal knowledge per WP:OR. If you have reliable sources supporting your perspective on Ja'fari jurisprudence, please present them here and we'll discuss. Eperoton (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a personal position on this particular dispute, but according to WP:NPOV, Wikipedia represents "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". To exclude a particular point of view (e.g., Shia or Jafari) seems to stretch the limits of Wikipedia policies. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Expansion

I'm expanding the article with sections on the pre-modern legal system and modern reforms. These topics usually get significant attention in general academic treatments of the subject, but they have been missing completely from this article, and largely from WP as a whole. This adds over 4K words of readable text to the current 10K words. This is still under the recommended upper limit of 100kb (~20K words), but I'm aware that the article is on the long side, and I'll keep that in mind as I continue working on it. There's a lot of work to be done on the later sections, including a potential spin-off article on sharia and human rights. Eperoton (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Apostate.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)