Talk:Legal system of Saudi Arabia

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legal system of Saudi Arabia. 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://www.webcitation.org/5zFLXuDJL?url=http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/08/khaled-al-johani-the-bravest-man-in-saudi-arabia to http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/08/khaled-al-johani-the-bravest-man-in-saudi-arabia

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Legal system of Saudi Arabia. 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/20130122181125/http://www.democracyweb.org/rule/saudiarabia.php to http://www.democracyweb.org/rule/saudiarabia.php
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65hefRv2y?url=http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-19/saudi-court-tries-militants-for-planning-attacks-on-u-s-troops.html to http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-19/saudi-court-tries-militants-for-planning-attacks-on-u-s-troops.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111223142538/http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-24/world/saudi.arabia.lashes_1_lashes-al-watan-saudi-city?_s=PM:WORLD to http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-24/world/saudi.arabia.lashes_1_lashes-al-watan-saudi-city?_s=PM:WORLD
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150412002242/http://www.sagia.gov.sa/Documents/Laws/labor_law_en.pdf to http://www.sagia.gov.sa/Documents/Laws/labor_law_en.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Wahhabism
Wahhabism is very much a school of thought. How would it make sense for it to not? Heard of the four schools of thought?How does it make sense to follow 2 movements. Salafism and Wahhabism? Wahhabism is the school Ibn Abd al-Wahhab made a book on that isn't all to do with politics. Such as graves User1527 (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You’re making a mess of the article. Please revert your changes. There are four Sunni schools of fiqh. Please refer to our article on this: Madhab. The four are Hanbali, Hanafi, Maliki and Shafi'i. Wahhabism and Salafism are not schools of fiqh. They are “movements’ which is a different thing. Look at this map. The dark green are Hanbali countries: that’s Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
 * Furthermore, your edits just don’t make sense. For example you’ve changed one sentence from “In Arabia, a preference for the Hanbali school was advocated by the Wahhabi movement, founded in the 18th century.” To “In Arabia, a preference for the Wahhabi school, founded in the 18th century.” Additionally, the inline citation to that remains in place and that says that the Wahhabis preferred the Hanbali school.
 * You’ve tried to use Sharialaw.com. As a source. That is not a reliable source and can’t be used on Wikipedia.
 * Finally read WP:BRD. This says that if you are reverted (which you are) the article should be left in the original form until you have consensus report for your changes. Therefore, revert your changes. DeCausa (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Why did you avoid what I said? How can you follow two ideologies? The hanbali leaders went against him. That map is outdated. Wahhabism talks about "devotion to graves" the other scholars of thoughts allow this how does that make sense? User1527 (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Also read Kitāb at-Tawḥīd and you'll see it goes against your reference is unreliable it talks about how 'they struggled' and how this is 'a law created by men' not very neutral is it? User1527 (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You’re not making any sense. I don’t understand what you are saying. Your edits in the article are in poor English. Please revert your changes now. Hanbali is the current school in Saudi Arabia. All the sources in he article say so. Wahhabism is not a school of fiqh. it’s a religious movement. Please revert your edits before you get blocked. we can continue discussing it here but you need to revert first - especially as your edits are written ion bad english. Do you understand? DeCausa (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Mate you avoided what I said again. How can you follow 2 movements? Read Kitāb at-Tawḥīd and you'll see it's not all to do with politics. Your source isn't neutral at all it doesn't use 'claims' 'believed to be' it says 'a law created by men' how is that neutral? Sharialaw.com clearly shows the Qu'ran verses with its chapters and verses written and clearly explains misconceptions. I don't want to go over and over agian User1527 (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hanbali isn’t a movement, it’s a fiqh. Wahhabism isn’t a fiqh. also, it isn’t “my source”: it’s multiple sources in the article. Kitab al-Tawhid Can’t be used on Wikipedia in the way you want to. It’s a 1000 year old primary source. see WP:PRIMARY. You can only used modern works of scholarship like the ones in the article. What do you mean by “ it doesn't use 'claims' 'believed to be' it says 'a law created by men'”? DeCausa (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

When did i say the Hanbali school was a movement? Kitāb at-Tawḥīd created by Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was made in the 18th century don't making it much less than a thousand years old. On this website it says that and it looks quite unreliable considering other more reliable sources haven't gone over this http://veil.unc.edu/religions/islam/law/ User1527 (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I meant how can terrorist groups such as ISIS follow Salafism and Wahhabism User1527 (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. I don’t know what you’ve linked to. it’s irrelevant. there are only 4 schools of Sunni figh. Wahhabism and salafism isn’t one of them. Saudi Arabia follows Hanbali fiqh and the wahhabi movement. they are two different things. It’s quite simple. What is it about that you don’t get? Read this and this. DeCausa (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The last paragraph on page 76 the second source. It literally says Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal did something Ibn Abd al-Wahhab mistaked as a prostration. In Wahhabism they have a book called Kitāb at-Tawḥīd written by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Which attempts to explain Qu'ran and hadith. You avoided what I said again how can you claim to follow 2 political movements? In Kitāb at-Tawḥīd he talks about what he perceives as shirk (ascribing partners to God). His book calls people who don't follow him 'kafir' (non- Muslim) he has more than enough for it to be considered a school of thought. If you read sharialaw.com and go over what it said you'll see there is more than enough evidence to say it isn't 'strict' so how can the Hanbali school be as well since it hasn't had the same recorded history? User1527 (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to say that Wahhabism isn’t true to its Hanbali origins? That it says things which you believe contradict Hanbali fiqh and that’s why it can’t be “both”. That may well be true. But if that’s the reason for the way you’ve changed the article you’ve done it wrong. Before I go further can you confirm that that is your basic point? DeCausa (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes.It isn't true to its 'hanbali origins' But when I said 'both' I meant Salafism and Wahhabism. E.g. ISIS claims to be a Salafi and a follower of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Making it follow 2 movements which doesn't make sense unless it's a school of thought. For your 2nd last reply. The author on the second source called Wahhabism a 'school' as well which further proves the point. https://www.academia.edu/17329459/The_Hanbali_and_Wahhabi_Schools_of_Thought_as_Observed_Through_the_Case_of_Ziyarah — Preceding unsigned comment added by User1527 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * What is the relevance of salafism and Wahhabism being two different movements? Multiple sources say Saudi courts apply Hannibali fiqh in their judgments. And multiple sources say that the Saudi government supports Wahhabism. Both are true. What is your problem with that? DeCausa (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Ibn Abd al-Wahhab calls people who don't follow him kafir (disbelievers). Kitāb at-Tawḥīd talks about non political things such as'devotion at graves'. How can terrorist organisations follow two movements Wahhabism and Salafism? User1527 (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * But what’s that got to do with the changes you’ve made to the article? It doesn’t explain them. DeCausa (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It does explain them well. They don't use the Hanbali school and so it shouldn't say they use the Hanbali school User1527 (talk) 09:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi,, you seem to be very unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. On Wikipedia, content has to be verifiable, based on reliable sources and written from a neutral point of view. We do not publish original research. According to WP:SOURCETYPES, When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. In addition, please note that this is a good article and that, accordingly, there are high standards for additions or removal of content. With that in mind, let’s take it one by one, shall we?


 * This is inconsistent with the body of the article.


 * These changes are not consistent with the sources that are cited. Besides, the statement In Arabia, a preference for the Wahhabi school, founded in the 18th century does not even make sense on its own, because Wahhabism is not a school of Islamic legal thought.


 * From what I could double-check, no change that you made is consistent with the cited source. I could not verify the Al-Farsi book but based on your other edits I expect you to provide us with a full citation of the text in order for me to accept your edit.


 * Not acceptable, sorry. On Wikipedia, scholarship has precedence over self-published websites and we won’t remove published sources to make room for a (until proven otherwise) unreliable website.
 * JBchrch (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Again how can you follow Salafism and Wahhabism if they are both movements? Why does Ibn Abd al-Wahhab call people who don't follow him'kafir' (disbelievers). If you read Kitāb at-Tawḥīd (written by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab) it has sections such as ' devotion at graves' which isn't political and is about normal beliefs. Also this source further proves the point https://www.academia.edu/17329459/The_Hanbali_and_Wahhabi_Schools_of_Thought_as_Observed_Through_the_Case_of_Ziyarah User1527 (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

By 'follow 2 movements' I mean terrorist groups such as ISIS User1527 (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Whether or not what you've written is true - it has nothing to do with the changes you've made to the article. has detailed why what you did was incorrect you need to respond to each of those. DeCausa (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

They don't follow the Hanbali school so why write they follow the Hanbali school? User1527 (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Because that's what scholarly sources say. If you have contradictory scholarly sources, please do provide them. --JBchrch (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Also the fact that they destroyed lots of Islamic grave sites further proves the point they use Kitāb at-Tawḥīd page 62-64. User1527 (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am going to stop answering now. If you have scholarly sources to back your claim, please provide them. Otherwise, the article stays as it is. --JBchrch (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

https://www.academia.edu/17329459/The_Hanbali_and_Wahhabi_Schools_of_Thought_as_Observed_Through_the_Case_of_Ziyarah User1527 (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * DeCausa has already answered you regarding the non-relevance of this source. Besides, unpublished MA thesis are not considered scholarship. JBchrch (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

They still called it a school I don't seem to understand why you avoided what I said either? The explanation was crystal clear User1527 (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Also on his 5th reply on the second source he provided the author was the same User1527 (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Also this https://archive.org/details/greatpowersregio00kaim/page/162/mode/2up
 * Look, if you want to discuss, you need to state your ideas clearly. I have read 5 times what you just wrote and I cannot figure out what you mean or how these documents relate to the disputed changes. --JBchrch (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Show me actual proof of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab preferring the Hanbali school rather than some random people who have are 'scholarly'. Explain why Kitāb at-Tawḥīd goes against the four schools of thought User1527 (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

to sum it up how exactly is the hanbali school 'strict' or 'literalist'? I want an explanation not a source repeating what you wrote. I don't mind if you copy and paste one.

Also Ibn Abd al-wahhab calling people who don't follow him kafir is a well known fact alreadry https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xExC_Xf4fRs — Preceding unsigned comment added by User1527 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM and article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article. To sum it up, there are reliable sources describing Hanbalis as strict and I can find another one with just a quick google search. So give us contradictory reliable sources if you want to change the article.--JBchrch (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Does Saudi Arabia follow the Hanbali school (Madhdab)?
As far as I can tell User1527 seems to be saying he thinks Saudi Arabia doesn’t, and the article should reflect that. For the record, below is a selection of reliable sources confirming the position. DeCausa (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC) And on the relationship between Wahhabism and the Hanbali School: “Generally speaking, the Wahhabi movement opposes innovations (bida’) within Islam and confines its recognition of sources of religious authority to the Qu’ran, the Sunnah (the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad), and the teachings of the four schools of Islamic law, principally the Hanbali.” Peterson, 2020, Historical Dictionary of Saudi Arabia pp.287-8 DeCausa (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Islam is the state religion and the particular juristic school of thought officially followed in Saudi Arabia is the Hanbali school." Zweigert, 2003, International Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law 37, p.17
 * "The Qurʾan and Sunna serve as the constitution of Saudi Arabia, and the jurisprudence of the Hanbali school governs implementation of the law." Warren, 2010, Islamic Criminal Law, p. 23
 * "The Hanbali "school" predominates today in Saudi Arabia.", Gordon, 2005, The Rise of Islam, p. 102
 * "The Hanafi came to predominate in the Arab world and South Asia; the Maliki in North, Central, and West Africa; the Shafii in East Africa and Southeast Asia; and the Hanbali in Saudi Arabia." Esposito, 2002, What everyone needs to know about Islam p.43
 * "Today, the Hanbali school forms the basis of the legal system in Saudi Arabia." Wynbrandt, 2010 A Brief History of Saudi Arabia p.90
 * "The majority of Sunni Muslims in Saudi Arabia, including the state-employed clerics and scholars and educational institutions, follow the legal school of Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855 CE/241h.)" Zuhur, 2011 Saudi Arabia p.176
 * "The Hanbali school is officially recognized in Saudi Arabia." Khadduri and Liebesny, 2008, Origin and Development of Islamic Law p.70
 * Thanks for this research . Unfortunately dealing with all of this has exhausted my daily wiki-time, however this page from the Oxford Dictionnary of Islam may be useful as well if you plan to add citations: http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e799. --JBchrch (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks also for all your efforts on this. Hopefully when the user gets off their block there can be a more effective engagement, based on policy. DeCausa (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I’ve made this edit to cover off the point about whether Wahhabism has diverged from the Hanbali school. I think the mainstream view (per the above listed sources) is that Saudi Arabia is Hanbali but there is this alternative view. I hope the way I’ve written conforms to WP:DUE but happy to be reverted (or edited) if anyone feels it has given it too much prominence per WP:NPOV. DeCausa (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Again all your sources just mentioned that it follows the Hanbali school. No explanation of how they interpret hadith and Qu'ran. If we're going to write that the kingdom of Saudi Arabia does follow the Hanbali school. Then I suggest you read this sharialaw.com which while you could claim it to not be realiable it explains most of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's laws to not be in line with Islam User1527 (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * User1527, I’m afraid it doesn’t matter what it says on sharialaw.com. Wikipedia can’t be based on anything from that website. If you want to edit Wikipedia there’s no alternative but to read and understand how it works - or you’ll just end up blocked again. As editors on Wikipedia we’re not trying to make articles represent “the truth”. All we are trying to do is make the articles reflect what mainstream scholarship and other “reliable sources” (like mainstream news organisations) say on a topic - whether or not that is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. It might be helpful to read this: WP:NOTTRUTH. If you can’t accept that then you should probably not edit Wikipedia. If you intend to stay editing Wikipedia (and I hope you do) you must read and really get to know these important rules, which we call ‘policies’:


 * Neutral point of view
 * Reliable sources
 * Verifiability
 * Citing sources
 * No original research
 * What Wikipedia is not


 * If you don’t read them and try to follow them you’ll just end up blocked again. DeCausa (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of Saudi Arabia
For those editors out there that think Saudi Arabia doesn't jail or fine critics, well, just take a look at these Wikipedia articles:

1)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loujain_al-Hathloul

2)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raif_Badawi

3)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dina_Ali_Lasloom

4)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_of_Saudi_Arabia#Daughters

5)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

Then of course, Jamal Khasoggi was also made to disappear.103.246.39.46 (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello IP. Looking at the edit summaries, I can't see anyone commenting on KSA's attitude towards criticism. In the end, the opinion of individual users is not important anyway. What matters is what reliable sources are reporting. However, making general assertions based on multiple other Wikipedia articles or single-event related news reports would be a form of original research, which is not in line with our guidelines/policies. – NJD-DE (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to note that Sydney-based IPs have been edit-warring (and been blocked) over poor quality edits on this article for the last 2-3 weeks. As noted above, there is a common theme around misuse of sources. Also, the Saudi government’s political repression is already in the article with appropriate sourcing. DeCausa (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Administrative note The user who keeps changing IP and edit warring to insert this edit is considered indefinitely blocked. If they return they may be reverted as a block evader. Block evasion reverts are 3RR exempt. Please be sure to refer to WP:3RR and provide a diff to this post of mine here in your edit summary to avoid getting a 3RR block from an admin that does not know this.If an editor in good standing wishes to make this edit, or a version of it then regular editing rules apply. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)