Talk:Sharia/Archive 10

External Link leads to Page no Found
The only connection between Israel and Sharia is given by the this excerpt of the introduction: "Most countries do not recognize sharia; however, some countries in Asia (such as Israel[25]) ..." but this link leads to a Page not found. The absolutely controversial connection between Israel and Sharia Law should thence be removed. Bpfurtado (talk)
 * "The State of Israel recognized the Sharia Courts, their powers and rulings in accordance with the Law and Administration Ordinance, and even enacted the Kadim Appointments Approval Law which recognized the jurisdiction of the Kadim who served in the Sharia Courts before the State of Israel was created." (The Ministry of Justice) https://www.justice.gov.il/En/Units/ShariaCourts/Pages/default.aspx | "Es gibt neun auf islamischem Recht basierende Gerichte in Israel. Das Familienrecht ist seit der Gründung Israels Sache der Religionsgemeinschaften. Fragen wie Heirat, Scheidung oder das Sorgerecht für Kinder obliegen dem rabbinischen Gerichtssystem, den Scharia-Gerichten sowie christlichen und drusischen Tribunalen." NZZ 05.05.2017 https://www.nzz.ch/international/begeistert-begruesstes-novum-eine-frau-in-israels-scharia-rat-ld.1290309 2003:E8:5F31:3A06:4D19:499C:C1DB:2157 (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Aurangzeb
I'm copying this comment from my talk page, since this talk page is a better place to have the discussion:
 * Hi. this should be kept. It just mentions that he established throughout the indian peninsula, in fact he was one of the few south asian emperors to have done so, nothing more. Also the jizya was stopped during the 3rd mughal emperor's time, but Aurangzeb, the 6th, re introduced, so i see nothing wrong with that part too. Thank you.--81.151.103.144 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. Specifying the region is fine, and I'll add that part. We can also mention that the jizya was abolished by the predecessors and as well as successors of Aurangzeb. However, we need to cite a source that actually supports this statement. I checked the pages you cited from Chapra's book, and found nothing about it there. If I'm missing something, please quote the relevant passage here. The jizya entry in Encyclopedia of Islam says that Akbar abolished it, but says nothing about Jahangir and Shah Jahan. Once we ensure proper sourcing, we we can mention "predecessors".
 * More generally, please keep in mind that the subsection or even the paragraph isn't about jizya, but about a much larger topic, which must be handled as concisely as possible here. The statement about Aurangzeb is only there to illustrate one way in which treatment of non-Muslims sometimes diverged from legal theory in the history of the Muslim world. The portrait of Aurangzeb was an appropriate addition to the India section in Jizya, but in this case it violates WP:PROPORTION and causes misalignment of other images with the text. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Mr Eperoton. Yes I know that jizya is not the main topic here, however I want to add more about Aurangzeb. The sources that i provided (there are even more), talk about his Islamization in South Asia. Sharia in india was present even before him, during delhi sultanates for example, but when Aurangzeb came, India was fully a sharia empire. Its Islamic laws, economy policies, military stratiges, and ethics were fully sharia based, which was the main governing bodiy. It was wholly introduced via Fatawa alamgiri, a book authored by him and many others, which the sources of law India. SO in few words 17th century India was almost comparable to today's saudia arabia, or even more Islamic. So yes i believe the there should be a separate paragapth about india/aurangzeb/mughal empire. The sources are available. Shall we start? Thank you--81.151.133.233 (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

There are a couple of different issues getting mixed up here. One is collection of jizya. Pre-modern Islamic rulers generally collected it. In this respect, Aurangzeb is typical, while the Mughal emperors who abolished it are unusual. The other issue is to whom other provisions Islamic law were applied. According to Islamic legal theory, most of them were supposed to apply only to Muslims, while dhimmi communities were supposed to be governed by their own religious laws. The unusual thing about Aurangzeb is that he attempted to make Islamic law into the law of the land, like sultanic qanun codes, applicable to all religious communities. These are the two kinds of deviations from legal theory on non-Muslims that are illustrated by the sentence you've been trying to change. Perhaps this wasn't made sufficiently clear in the text, so I'll try to clarify. The sentence needs to remain where it was because it provides specific examples for a generalization made there. By the way, Akbar was Aurangzeb's great-grandfather, not successor.

I understand that you want to add more information about general history of Islamic law in South Asia. Unfortunately, we don't currently have a separate section to trace regional legal developments, or even space to do it. It's a vast topic with many different regional trends, and this article only has space for general topics. The best place for this discussion is probably History of Indian law, which currently has nothing about Islamic law at all. However, we could briefly mention here some other aspects of Aurangzeb's legal reforms that are considered remarkable by the sources. This can go into an earlier subsection. The entry by Jones-Pauly we're citing has a good summary. Eperoton (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe a separate section is not added, but some more info are essential. Even before Aurangzeb, you have the Delhi sultanate, bengal, gujarat etc. who established parts of Sharia across India. We can add about them too. Also it is significant to mention about the fatawa Alamgiri. Also, is there any wrong with Aurangzeb's image? After Aurangzeb, you have Tipu Sultan, whose some sharia regulations was liked and supported by Napoleon, (famous quote of Napoleon about Quran and its laws) which we can add.--81.151.133.233 (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In this article, we should only include subtopics that are prominently covered by general overviews of sharia which are similar in scope to this article. This is what the WP:NPOV policy tells us to do, and it's why we shouldn't be making an editorial decision to outline the regional history of Islamic law in South Asia, as you suggest, while leaving out similar summaries for all other parts of the world. Topics which are covered in more specialized sources should be covered in more specialized articles, like History of Indian law, Jizya, etc. In other words, per NPOV, we should select subtopics to cover not based on what we feel is or isn't essential, but based on a proportional representation of the body of reliable sources on the topic. The subsections of this article which do cover regional developments in some detail, like Anglo-Muhammadan law and late Ottoman legal reforms, were based not on editorial decisions, but rather reflected extensive discussions of these topics in general overviews of sharia of length similar to this article.
 * There are two problems with including a portrait of Aurangzeb here. The first one is WP:PROPORTION. His reform aren't covered prominently enough in general overview of sharia to satisfy WP:PROPORTION. The second one is simply space. We already have more illustrative images in these sections, and adding another image would either be MOS:SANDWICHING, not recommended by the Manual of Style, or else it would push other images out of alignment with the text. Eperoton (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not correct to state that Aurangzheb "re-introduced" Sharia, because there is evidence of both Sharia and Islam as a state religion under the reigns of Jahangir and Shah Jahan.Bless sins (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Sharia"
Google Ngram Viewer shows that the word is most commonly written in English as "Sharia", not "sharia". So this article and other articles on Wikipedia should follow the correct capitalization. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Sharia means law in Arabic. I think these Westerners are trying to study something that they do not even know its meaning Rtyuio899 (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sudan no longer implements Sharia law
It would be great if someone could update the map of countries showing which implement Sharia law. Galaxy1011 (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 13 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): J.perales1121.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mjc6876.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead images
I removed a couple of images from the lead that are of questionable relevance and are, in any case, UNDUE. First, both images focused on Iran. Iranians constitute ~4% of the Muslim world, why the undue focus? The first image was regarding coins and I honestly didn't see how coins are such an important feature of Sharia to merit an image at the top (and no, the image did not have to do with Islamic finance). The second was an Iranian cop. Iran may implement a version of Islamic law, but the modern Islamic Republic is but a small part of the vast history of Islamic law.

We can do without a lead image. But if we need one, we should consider what scholarly sources typically use to represent the topic (not our own personal biases): VR talk 22:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sharia by Wael Hallaq and published by Cambridge University Press doesn't use any cover image, just Islamic-themed art.
 * Routledge Handbook of Islamic law by Khaled Abou El Fadl has a photo of a shelf containing books in Arabic (presumably on Sharia) as the lead image.
 * Living Sharia: Law and Practice in Malaysia by University of Washington Press has a photo of women exiting the Putra Mosque.
 * Islamic Law: A Very Short Introduction by Oxford University Press doesn't have a lead image.
 * Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law by Mohammad Hashim Kamali published by Oxford University Press again has no lead image, just Islamic-themed art.