Talk:Sharia/Archive 3

Stray Thread
I have never read an article which was not written based on a Point-of-View, so I am surprised by some of the objections below. Whenever I read a summary of a social, political, or religious belief I sense a POV. It is also probably rather embarassing and/or agitating to read a summary of one's personal beliefs based on "official" writings and other sources. There is usually no way to object. Islam faces the same challenges (embarassments?) any codified belief system faces. POV's both within Islam and externally change over time. So if the law says that women and non-believers are worth less than a male believer, that slavery is ok as long as the rules are followed, and that un-elected courts can chop-up your body if they don't like what you say, then fine. But perhaps your POV makes you a little uncomfortable with this? Why is that? Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakemaneater (talk • contribs) 16:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I find this article a fine introduction to Sharia Law. But as an introduction, I understand that some precepts may well be emphasized at the expense of others. I also understand that it is the duty of the reader to seek additional information in order to supplement and balance all incoming information. As an artist, I am concerned with using critique and satire, somethings biting, in my art without wholesale ridicule for the sake of sensationalism. However, I am concerned also with acknowledging the devoutness of believers of all faiths. Unfortunately the article says little about the distinction between what is considered blasphemy and what is not. (Dmoll415 (talk) 12:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

This article is heavily biased and needs to rewritten. It does not provide any information just some POV comparison with western system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallab1234 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be re written. Its very prejudiced look. I suggest that the article be deleted until a suitable re write can be obtained. If people cn not agree to be unbiased then just leave a brief definition. But it is just not right to have these lies be printed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.157.10 (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The influence of the Justinian Code on the Sharia,the English Common Law etc are not mentioned????.The Justinian Code legacy exists today in law systems throughout the world.

Entirely biased article. A classic example of a self-serving article written with anything but a "neutral point of view." We need to restart the entire article. I'm deleting it, so Wikers can expose the truth about Sharia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacarids (talk • contribs) 01:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this entire page sould be edited with a slightly less biased eye, perhaps by an impartial scholar or legal professional. It shows little Objectivetiy an appears to promote sharia rather that explain it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.173.180 (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the tenets of Sharia law are, and after reading this page know little more. I do know however the difference between facts and objectivity and opinion and point of view. This article needs to be revised so that it is fact based, not POV. I hope that an objective, informed source can contribute and edit this article so that the content is substantive and objective - state what it is and remove the commentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.45.233 (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

==Surely one of the most disturbingly biased articles in the entire Wiki galaxy, a veritable black hole of prejudice, exaggeration and tendentiousness. Ninety percent of the discussion focuses not on Sharia's own origins but on Western jurisprudence's highly dubious indebtedness to sharia. A scandalous breach of scholarly norms. (GJ Tryon June 25 2009)

Amazingly biased
This is a horrible article - everything is a comparison to the Western systems without any real information about the history etc of the Sharia system... Way too biased to be taken seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.189.213 (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

^ This. The entire section comparing Sharia with common law is fringe theory bologna. Please delete this or move it somewhere else! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.34.21 (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. That the first lawsuits took place in Arabia in the seventh century, when they had been common under Roman law 1000 years before? That common law has anything whatever to do with sharia? Total nonsense. 173.16.252.154 (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Women's Rights Under Sharia
The section about women's rights says hardly anything factual about the subject. It merely provides a qualitative comparison to western laws. Please update this section to be more informative.71.187.68.244 (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Vito
 * This lack of real info about woman's 2nd class stature under Sharia is not allowed to be added to the article because of the islamic editors that watch this article like a hawk. Whichever side has the most editors with the most time wins in Wikipedia.  Bluetd (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

> Why is this section nothing but an apologetic tone of how Sharia law treats women? Why are they even comparing what happened in the 19th century? How is that relevant or useful information? Please give the facts today, not sugar coated to sound great what happened 200 years ago. These are nothing but lies considering 200 years ago they treated their women worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.34.21 (talk) 08:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-Muslims section
I find this section quite terribly point-of-viewal. It'd be nice if someone could rewrite it and use sources instead of personal opinions. I'm not an expert on the issue but I think some of the main things about the treatment of Dhimmis are missed, like that Sharia law normally doesn't apply to them, and that they are instead encouraged to be judged by judges of their own religion, applying the laws of their own community; as well as their payment of the jizya being the non-Muslim equivalent of the Muslim zakat, and their being free from military service. I also don't think quoting the same verse twice in 8 lines of text is really necessary, and I doubt that dhimmi means guilty. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Author(s)/writer(s) of the sharia
Wouldn't it be convenient if the person(s) who wrote the sharia would be mentioned in the article, and maybe a section about why the sharia is accepted as the Islamic law.--Tomvasseur (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Gay contemporary issues should be changed to Gay executions and torture
I wrote the following below for that section but it was deemed vandalism. It seems there's a reluctance to accept the truth on the part of the person in charge of the article. You might want to take the one below as a more informative and truthful article.

"Gross human rights violations Gay executions and torture

Main article: Homosexuality and Islam

Sharia law may be considered as one of the world's most homophobic legal system with regards to the complete lack of decriminalisation laws (with executions and punishments commonplace), non-existent anti-discrimination laws, no incitement to hatred laws (Hate crime) neither does it have provision for Same-sex unions or same-sex marriage. It does not recognise fundamental Human rights based on sexual-orientation. In fact, many Western countries now recognise the right of gay people from Iran to claim asylum in Europe and the US as a result of the 2005 execution of two gay minors(children) Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni. The following countries prescribe the death penalty for homosexuality: Iran, UAE, Sudan, Nigeria, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Somalia.

The current President of Iran has said that there are no gays in Iran, a statement which provoked horror and outrage accross the world. Some gay Iranians have successfully applied for asylum in Western countries and their stories are being retold in national and international media and politicians taking up their cause. Although, sex-change operations are legal in Iran, many believe sex-changes are being exploited by the Iranian government to convert gays into something more acceptable to an extremely conservative Islamic society (Be Like Others).

The highly-respected European Court of Human Rights ruled that Sharia was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights as it contravenes: (Article 8 - right to respect for private life) which guarantees certain inalienable rights to all people such as the right to have a private life and family life (including gay people) without State interference, (Article 14 - prohibition of discrimination based on sexual-orientation), (Article 3 - prohibition of torture(lashes), (Article 2 - right to life) and (Article 10 - right to freedom of expression)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.134.201.226 (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, no doubt, but the question is: how much does this actually have to do with shari'a? Claiming that shari'a "does not recognise fundamental Human rights based on sexual-orientation" is strictly speaking true, but then shari'a does not really have a concept of "human rights" comparable to the post-Enlightenment Western idea, only of man's duties to society and to God. The antics of the president of Iran have precious little to do with the matter in hand. I would also point out that, while homosexual activity is illicit under the shari'a, the prescribed penalties differ from one school of jurisprudence to another. 131.111.220.6 (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is shocking that in the 21st century modern world of today you can still be executed simply for being gay. It is equally shoking (but not surprising) that Islam even to this day supports such actions! It is about time that people (Muslims included) recognise that homosexuality is just as normal as hetrosexuality. It turtns my stomach to think that you could be hanged publicaly for engaging in a private actr thet does not hurt or harm anbody else

SJHQC (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that that is true but that was just a statement and is not appliable to the article. Concerning the change made to the article, if you write "gross human rights violations" it will not only contain execution and torture of homosexual people but every other possible violation against homosexuals or non homosexuals so I think this should be changed back if that has not already happened. I do think a section about homosexuality should be added under "Human rights".--Tomvasseur (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

map
is it possible to create a map where it says which countries or regions use the sharia? As for Aceh in Indonesia for example, what the status is there. Mallerd (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nicely POV'ed article
That's a nice job that's been done here to portray the Sharia as almost the best thing since sliced bread. Reading this, one would almost welcome it in their society! It's just too bad this article has almost no relation with real life, and how it's being applied in Islam cultures. Such a shame. Elfguy (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting on the article. If there's additional material you'd like to see included feel free to add it (along with references). Euryalus (talk)


 * I second Elfguy's observations. This article reeks of apologetic bias. Kmanoj (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The modern Islamic law section contains plenty of criticism of Sharia as it is now practiced in Islamic countries. If that's the case, then should I assume that you are referring to the classical Islamic law section rather than the modern section? The article makes a clear distinction between Sharia as it is now practiced in Islamic countries and Islamic law as it was practiced in the classical period. There's no need to drag modern politics into the medieval section, if that is what you're trying to suggest. Jagged 85 (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Be WP:Bold. correct it if you feel the need. Lihaas (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This one is a nice article literally putting all the facets on the top which one can glance with minimum efforts. Nice work team.124.30.235.62 (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Maddy,India

semi lock
should this page needs be semi locked with its apparent controversy and vandalism. at least for awhile? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sharia&action=history Lihaas (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Addition by User: 59.93.178.154
The term Sharia in Arabic means "way" or "path to the water source". Sharia is the body of Islamic religious law—the legal framework within which the public and private aspects of life are regulated based on Islamic principles of jurisprudence and for Muslims living outside the domain. Sharia deals with many of the important aspects of everyday life— politics, economics, banking, business, contracts, family, sexuality, hygiene, and social issues. Sharia does not consist of any static set of laws. Sharia is rather a system, which helps us understand how law ought to serve humanity, a consensus of the unified spirit, based on the Qur'an (the religious text of Islam), hadith (sayings and doings of Muhammad and his companions), Ijma (consensus), Qiyas (reasoning by analogy) and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent. Most Sunni Muslims follow Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki or Shafii, while most Shia Muslims follow the jaafari school of thought and are considered Twelvers. Historical Origin—The Islamic law pivots around the sacred teachings of God and the pious acts and holy sayings of His Prophet, Muhammad; therefore, sharia, Islamic law, is founded on the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Interestingly, sharia was not fully developed at the time of Muhammad's death, but rather it evolved around the Muslim community or Ummah through which it would serve. Geographical Origin—Sharia began its formation in the deserts of Arabia about 1,400 years ago when Islam was born. At that time, a sense of community did not exist. Life in the desert was typically nomadic and tribal. However, Islam challenged this restless nomadic ideology and gathered all those who professed their faith to Islam under the umbrella of the Ummah. Notably, Islam was not just a religion but a way of life. So, to transform those who were once enemies into neighbors, laws had to be instilled and thus the doctrines of Sharia took root. All Muslims are judged by Sharia. After the death of Muhammad, Sharia continued to undergo fundamental changes, beginning with the reigns of caliphs Abu Bakr (632-34) and Umar (634-44) in which many important decision making matters were brought into the attention of the Prophet's closest comrades for consultation. In AD 662, during the reign of Mu'awiya b. Abu Sufyan, life went through an urban transformation and ceased to be nomadic any longer. Consequently, it created matters that were not originally covered by Islamic law. Islamic private international law had to be created because of the vast Muslim conquests and maritime explorations. Elaborate rules for private international law regarding issues, such as contracts and property, family relations and child custody, legal procedure and jurisdiction, religious conversion, and the return of aliens to an enemy country from the Islamic world, were developed. Departing significantly from the previously practiced Roman and Byzantine maritime laws Islamic law also made commendable contributions to international admiralty law. These included Muslim sailors being paid a fixed wage “in advance” with an understanding that they would owe money in the event of desertion or malfeasance.

Removed from main article space as apperred to be duplication and unref - I leave it to editors to sort our benjicharlton (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sharia For Muslim minorities in non-Muslim countries
The United Kingdom is introducing Sharia courts in five cities with sizeable Muslim populations. These will run alongside the conventional judicial system and rule on issues within Muslim communities. This needs to be added to the article, as it has major implications on the spread of Islam - and what does it mean for people who have converted away from Islam, which is their right under European law?--MartinUK (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to clear up a misconception - these Sharia courts would only form an "alternative dispute resolution" process, in the same way that you can take your case to arbitration or the Jewish Beth Din. They won't actually have any legal powers beyond those of normal arbitation and would be strictly voluntary. This in no way affects the jurisdiction of any of the courts in the UK. As such European law won't really be an issue, though if they WERE binding there would certainly be serious problems under the ECHR through article 6 (right to a fair trial) and aritcle 9 (freedom of religion including religious practice).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.1.66 (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You could add a sub-section dealing with this topic under the "Contemporary issues" section. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * thorougly cited, of course. Lihaas (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Common Law and Shari'a
I do not buy the assertion that English Common Law( I think this is ok to leave English law, because they never had Laws but laws of the Romans) -- let alone the law of Trusts and so on -- was borrowed from or influenced by shari'a. For one thing, the Common Law in its infancy was clearly 'at least' contemporary with King Arthur, who predates Mohammed by about half a century. For another, many elements of shari'a may be found in tribal legal traditions worldwide -- e.g. among the Hebrew nomadic herdsmen, the legal doctrine laid out in Exodus 21ff -- which resemble ECL in a number of ways, the most notable being that most property crimes are regarded as matters moderns would call "civil" rather than "criminal" -- the latter category being reserved for crimes against the unity of the tribe, blasphemy and so on.

Humans seem to have an inherent sense of fairness, along with a sense of what is required to hold the tribe together on a planet where most of the world not covered with ice is inhabited by tigers and hostile tribes and sea monsters and elephants and such. This is reflected in ancient legal systems from the Celts to Rome to the Navajo; it is not surprising that we find echoes of it among the ancient Arabs. -- Craig Goodrich 68.58.135.168 (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly suspect the post above is correct. While I don't know enough about the history of law to edit, the article gives a strong feeling of having been taken over by tangential fringe theories to which verrrrry long sections are devoted. for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Comparisons_with_common_law  In short, it's a mess. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * King Arthur? You do know that when the Normans took over England, they replaced the Anglo-saxon law to their Norman-Arab law? Faro0485 (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to be a stickler here but the Norman conquest of Sicily was in 1060 and the conquest of Britain began in 1066

The theory put forward is that of one person, John Makdisi. While it is an interesting theory, it is also just that.

I agree with the above poster's thoughts on tribal law. Several tenets of Sharia are lifted from Halakha, which is Jewish law, which is in turn lifted from tribal law. I would argue that this is a case of simply multiple groups coming to the same or nearly the same conclusions.

Human rights
the "Human rights" sections doesn't have much to do with Human rights in the conventional sense. What does "successor" and "democratic participation" have to do with this? Lihaas (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Article needs work
Below is a sentence from another wikipedia article concerning Sharia:

Victims of private crimes, such as murder or rape, can exercise a right to retribution (Qisas) or decide to accept "blood money" (Diyyah or Talion Law).

The idea that murder is a "private crime" - not to mention what exactly a "private crime" is - ought to be covered in any wikipedia article on sharia, but its particuarly important for articles written for non-Muslim cultures, such as this english-language article. Until recently sharia concepts such as "private crime" were completely alien to English-speaking countries/cultures and english-speaking/reading people. Such people are likely to be looking for and expecting to find information in this article on stuff like "private crimes" vs. crimes that violate the rights of god, on the different categories and reasons for them in Sharia law.

What do they get? A very long article full of unlikely explanations of how English common law is related to sharia; how no one need worry that hands and feet or heads will be amputated unnecessarily as Sharia punishment and other apologia.

This article is not very useful to the general public or anyone else. It needs major changes. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sharia incompatable with Human rights
The House of Lords has said that Sharia is incompatable with Human rights. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/23/religion-islam Discuss! (Hypnosadist ) 06:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Human rights are preserved in Islam, Sharia has the principle of Justice. So for Execusion: If someone takes a life, then his life should be spared. That is only Just for human nature.This will minimize crimes. An eye for An eye, and Tooth for a Tooth is a principle in Islam.

Sharia Law perserves the Human race from being lost due to human factors.. such as Being gay may actually cause the los of human race. Gay people will have less human, therefore the human race will turn gay and not become productive any more. More gay crimes will happen such as rapping of kids that are adopted by gay couples because they are not thier parents. If gay is in the genes, so is violent person. why would it be ok to be gay if you have gay gene, but can not be a free criminal if you happen to have that gene. Human rights is created by humans or westerners that do not know about the east or the middle east or thier cultures.

-being gay doesnt mean you rape children, it means you like people of the same sex, rapping children is done by perverts which could be anyone and which is wrong-but has nothing to do with the average homosexual. Being gay and being violent are completely different. Gay people are just like everyone else except they have a particular sexual orientation. This does not harm anyone else, why should i care if someone i know is gay? As long as he -like any heterosexual- doesn't steal or do something violent etc. then there is no problem. As to gay people reducing the population... there not a bloody plague, for one thing its pretty hard for a gay person to spread any form of gay 'gene' that may exist as self-evidently they are gay, by talking to/befriending a gay person you do not contaminate yourself or 'become gay', you cannot become gay, it is something you are or you are not and its not your fault either way and shouldnt be a problem either way.

Whats the difference between racism and the homophobia you propogate? Coming back to the article, the human rights the House of laws are refering to protect gay people as much as anyone else and so Sharia law is imcompatible with it, if you wish to believe that people dont have the right to be whatever sexual orientation they are then so be it. Although i would hope you would realise that this is wrong, and that the 'Human rights [that are] created by humans or westerners] are just simply human rights and are correct and just. (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

More apologia
The following was recently deleted from the article:


 * IslamOnline Shariah researchers conclude that Islam defends freedom of speech and fosters freedom of ideas.

The citation leads to a short article answering the question ''What does Islam say about terrorism and the fight for religion? ''

A short section in the article says:


 * ''Islam Defends Tolerance And Freedom of Speech:


 * ''Islam is a religion, which fosters freedom of life, ideas and thought. It has forbidden tension and conflict among people, calumny, suspicion and even having negative thoughts about another individual.


 * ''To force anyone to believe in a religion or to practice it is against the spirit and essence of Islam. Because it is necessary that faith be accepted with free will and conscience. Of course, Muslims may urge one another to keep the moral precepts taught in the Qur'an, but they never use compulsion. In any case, an individual cannot be induced to the practice of religion by either threat or offering him a worldly privilege.

That's all it says.

Does this really qualify by wikipedia regs as a proper source? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

13 yr old rape victim stoned to death
In Somalia 1000 people enjoyed watching a live Snuff film of a 13 yr old rape victim be stoned in a football stadium. -->http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/11/01/amnesty.rape.somalia.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview (Hypnosadist )  06:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is due to the fact of Media and Stoning of a victim is not Islamic, but it is a culture in Somalia. This is Media and can not trust media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mralmawri (talk • contribs) 08:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Stoning of a victim is not Islamic, but it is a culture in Somalia" I would laugh at you but your attitude is going to get the next girl stoned to death. Until muslims who "claim" this is not islamic get of thier ass and do something about it, very few people will believe you. (Hypnosadist )  16:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Raped girl, 13, stoned to death in Mogadishu
I'm not sure where (or whether) this belongs in this article, but here's a news story i just stumbled across reporting that A 13-year-old girl who said she had been raped was stoned to death on on October 27 in Mogadishu, Somalia after being accused of adultery by Islamic militants

"A 13-year-old dead girl who said-" How can someone report being stone to death if in fact she's already dead? Did she come back to life and said "They rape me and stone me to death"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.146.130 (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Those Islamic Militants are not really the islamic jurisdicts, and also this is just news not facts. This happens in may third world countries and does not have to do with islam..

At the time of Mohamed(PBUH), a woman came and told him she is pregnant from adultry, he let her go and told her to repent... not until she was really wanting to die after she gave birth to her kid about 2 years after... So this is a cultural thing, not islamic to prosecute them like that.:. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See above. And yes it should be in as it is a prime example of Sharia in action. (Hypnosadist )  07:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A later report on this by the BBC says, "She was asked several times to review her confession but she stressed that she wanted Sharia law and the deserved punishment to apply, ..." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol, using a quote from the article that misles you into thinking she actually wanted Sharia law. I just read this same BBC article and was horrified Sharia Law approves of this -- except it doesn't apparently she was too young to be punished this way... and the next quote illustrates Sharia's opinion of mercy: "They said: 'We will do what Allah has instructed us'. She said: 'I'm not going, I'm not going. Don't kill me, don't kill me.'"  124.138.185.194 (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)(Sorry, forgot to login Darkpoet (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC))

If anyone should be stoned it's the people who contributed to this ficticous and apologetic article on Sharia. People have actually come to trust Wikipedia as a source of information, and this article's presence undermines that trust completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.167.255.152 (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In the segment about 4 men witnesses required for rape victims
The current article reads:

"In instances of rape Sharia law require for an allegation to be validated, victims must have four Muslim-Male witnesses to the crime or else the victims risk being charged with fornication or adultery making a rejected allegation a potential death sentence for the victim."

But the cited source from CNN reads:

"Another factor that impedes victims from coming forward is some interpretations of Sharia, or Islamic law. Some authorities rule for a rape to be validated, victims must have four witnesses to the crime. If not, the victims can be charged with fornication or adultery."

The phrase "Some interpretations", and "Some Authorities" is conspicuously missing from the wikipedia article, replaced with a categorical statement that includes all Sharia law as though the matter is unanimously approved by all authorities. I will rewrite this statement to better reflect what the cited source claims, rather than what the writer of the source chose. In addition, the same cited source does not mention at all the "risk" of a "death sentence" thus it will be omitted.

Medfreak (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sports and wife beating
Is the section on sports really necessary? It is not sourced and of little relevance. The article should deal more with the main principles and issues concerning Sharia than give the detail of the status of archery and horses in Sharia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, There is a long discussion on wife beating in the "penalties" section. It is not introduced correctly and the discussion is much too long. It should rather be put with the other human rights issues and largely shortened to say beating one's wife lightly is in theory allowed under this and that condition, but is nevertheless discouraged. I'm not sure it should be mentioned at all in fact, as I don't think the declaration of human rights actually says something about beating one's wife.

Right to bear arms
The WP article Right to keep and bear arms claims that "Under Sharia in Islam, all men are policemen and soldiers. All men have the right to bear arms. Jews, Christians, and women are prohibited from bearing arms."

Although there are seemingly references for this, I remain sceptical of them. The singling out of Jews and Christians does not sound plausible to me. I would ask that any Sharia expert has any comment about this and if possible to give more scholarly sources either in support of the claims or else a refutation of them as appropriate. --Hauskalainen 18:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this article solely based off what Shariah law supposedly says or what is actually practiced? In the Ottoman Empire, which was dominated by Shariah Law, non-Muslims and especially Jews were not allowed to own weapons.  I think we need to focus more on the realities of Shariah and not gift-wrap it. Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that documenting what Sharia law really says is in no way "gift wrapping" it. What a law says and how it is interpreted are two seperate issues and they should be addressed seperately. I suggest this article focus primarily on what Sharia says, and then include a section (with perhaps a link to a new article) on different ways Sharia is interpreted or practiced.---Puff (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Good question. Either way we need a more ready reference for this claim or else anoriginal source for the claim in the citation we do have.--Hauskalainen (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Unstandardized Spelling
I've read a few articles on Islam and have found that several different spellings of "Qur'an" are used in different articles, including several different spellings in this article alone. I suggest that a standards romanization be used in Wiki articles to help avoid confusion and facilitate editing. I'd start making changes myself but I don't have a lot of time, and something like this could more easily be taken care of by a simple search & replace bot. Also, the Qur'an isn't the only victim of this lack of standardization, so others should be sought out and corrected as well. ---Puff (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Jews did fight in the Ottoman army.

While for the most part there was a Military Substitution Tax it was abolished in 1910. There are also reports of Jews serving in non-combatant roles such as doctors.

Christian equivalent of Sharia
There is a related branch of law which is structurally close to canon law, but which only becomes applied when the Roman Catholic Church and/or Eastern Orthodox Church is selected as the State religion. This has not happened in a long time, although it was the de facto situation in certain South American States until the late 1980s. This branch of law is called Civil ecclesiastic law, which is roughly the Christian equivalent of Sharia and/or Halakha. There is a stub here on WP-FR which might be translated into WP-EN if sufficient and correct sources on the topic can be found. ADM (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, usually when Christianity have tried to influence legislation it has been attempts to introduce Mosaic law. There are some differences however: Mosaic law preceeds the defining scripture, which is the New Testament according to Christianity, while Sharia is a development after the defining scripture Quran according to Islam. And what I can read from the french article you are referring to is more like a law for how catholic cult is to be performed and by whome, i.e. a monopolisation of catholic cult. Not very much of an equivalent, and by a wide-spread Christian opinion, legislation pertains to the state, not to religion. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 11:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sunni/Shia
How abotu a section on the [subtle] differences over each version of SHaria law? For example the recenet issue in Afghanistan has to do with Shia demands for such a provision which were, apparently, not in the SUnni versions. Lihaas (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

??what's going on with WIKI?
The first thing an objective, distanced reader born in a predominantly Muslim country notices is that, all the Islam related articles are 'juiced' and 'sugarcoated' and Point of viewed like a sweet popsicle to promote whatever his/her view of religion.All the rules,traditions,etc are really Kur'an's way of Islam,way to Allah is only these,you only have to veil yourself,you have to fast 30 days,refrain from pork and alcohol,and pray namaz.All intricate roads mysteriously wind up to this moulded image. No ladies and gentlemen,yours is a mold,to justify all the beheadings,cruelty on women,cruelty on nature,animals,artifacts and cruelty on the whole world.Yours is a very capitalistic (Islam is a social democratic religion if examined throughly) view of a religion.That's why US and UK is very friendly with you no matter what they pretend to do.That's why US is harboring Fetullah Gulen,a very weasel like seemingly low profile 'summe hasa(god forbid)' self proclaimed near prophet opening schools all over the world to promote evangelist Islam and CIA likes him too much. This is a way too long issue but Wikipedia is not on the right track.Provide an objective scholar to right articles. Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.215.28.213 (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not know that Florida was a predominantly muslim country, perhaps we should add that to wikipedia Florida article? Faro0485 (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Florida is not a country!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.223.120 (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally agree this article is sugar coated. I tried to edit this article a couple of years back, to show how women are second class citizens under Sharia, and I was hit with an avalanche of extremely protective editors that didn't like my sources and didn't like my tone.  The same thing happened when I tried to add info about Mohamed's child and slave wives to the Mohamed article.  Basically, whichever side has the most editors wins on Wikipedia.  As the time before the internet, it is the victors that write history, even on Wikipedia.  This soured me on Wikipedia and I have mostly stopped contributing to it. Bluetd (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Quranic verse
Isn't there supposed to be a quranic verse or verses that state the need for the god's law on earth accepted over all other methods? I'm not sure that the verse mentioned is the only one, or the most relevant one regarding shariah. Faro0485 (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

National variations
In this article, a very important section is not mentioned: national variation of the sharia. It should be noted that depending on the country in question, huge differences can be determined. For example, most harsh penalties as the chopping of a hand for thievery, deathpenalty, stoning, ... have been dismissed in most developing countries. However, in some countries as Saoudi arabia, Irak, ... stuff like this are still legally possible.

Please include this in article, the article sounds like sharia is always bad which is untrue. For certain developing countries -where a western-style court cannot be implemented any time soon- sharia is still a possibility if offcourse too harsh penalties are dismissed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.180.13 (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition of sharia
A definition has been deleted "to improve neutrality of article" * "the real effective way out of all sufferings and problems," —the Muslim Brotherhood, in its pamphlet, "Initiative" 

Among the problem with this article is the short shrift given to explaining the importance of sharia in the Islamic revival and the divine power attributed to it.

Here is Muhammad Rashid Rida: `those Muslim [rulers] who introduce novel laws today and forsake the Shari'a enjoined upon them by God ... They thus abolish supposed distasteful penalties such as cutting off the hands of thieves or stoning adulterers and prostitutes. They replace them with man-made laws and penalties. He who does that has undeniably become an infidel.` [from Emmanuel Sivan, Radical Islam: Medieval Theology and Modern Politics, enl. Ed. (New Have: Yale University Press, 1990), p.101]

Sayyid Qutb: "The Prophet - peace be on him - clearly stated that, according to the Shari'ah, 'to obey' is 'to worship'. ... Anyone who serves someone other than God in this sense is outside God's religion, although he may claim to profess this religion. [Milestones, p.60]"

If the MB definition is somehow lacking in neutrality, some other definition should be added that gives an indication of this belief --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Racing
What kind of racing does this refer to? It is unclear.--Bored of the world (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Questionable edit
this edit removed the following; "Of course, since this point in history the aforementioned exploration of freedom is no longer true — that is to say that whilst it is arguable that women had more extensive legal rights under Islamic law than they did under Western legal systems." Citing

The edit summary said, "(→Women's rights: Unreliable source)".

Some googling around turned up this Cornell University Library page describing Barazangi, Nimat Hafez as a visiting academic staff fellow in "Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies (FGSS)", and listing one of her publications as Islam and Early Childhood Education: Implication for Women's Education. Al-Ittihad Journal of Islamic Studies, 17, 1, January-March (1980), 33-38.

Some more googling turned up the book, where note 5 cites that paper.

Some more googling turned up this, which lists The Position of Women in the Contemporary Muslim World. In Al-Ittihad Journal of Islamic Studies, 13, 1, April (1976), pp. 18-25. as another publication by that same author.

So, one wonders what criteria were used to determine that the Al-Ittihad Journal of Islamic Studies is an unreliable source in the area of Women's Rights. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It was clearly a case of POV censorship. I've restored the paragraph and removed an uncited bit of apologia in that section.

Shariah-compliant finance
The financial implications of shariah (see Islamic economic jurisprudence )have their own wiki articles, but I should think a sentence or two in this article would be sensible given the importance of the field in the world today, no? --Christofurio (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Time Line Of Sharia
We seriously need a timeline of how sharia was formed, codified and applied upon the people. Faro0485 (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Truly The Worst Article I've EVER Read
I don't even know where to begin. From women's rights to freedom of speech the whole article is a load of crap. A big steaming load of it. If i was 1/2 as skilled as i know many wikipedians are i would re-write this. Sadly i do not think my writing skills are that good. Someone please fix this before our children read this and think its the way it is! Hondaracer (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In short, this article tries to describe Sharia, neutrally and dryly. There are a few other articles that tries to describe criticism of Islam, hopefully also neutrally and dryly, for example:
 * Criticism of Islam,
 * Women in Islam,
 * etc. It's just a matter of size and loading time that this specific article is about Sharia itself, and no more. However, fixes, such as improvements of formulations (of course neutral) links within and outside Wikipedia, are always welcome. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 12:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the truth. I know several people who were born in Islamic nations, and the Sharia laws give women no rights. In fact, if a girl was raped, she'd be stoned to death for adultry. That is the true face of Sharia. Don't believe me? Look it up on a real website that actualy tells fact, and not this website, which is in fact not very acurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.190.62 (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I was about to make the same comment. This is unbelievable! It's not even worth re-writing with actual citations as you know that any edit will be reverted. TokenPassport (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting note
We start with:
 * Many interpretations of Islamic law hold that women may not have prominent jobs, and thus are forbidden from working in the government.

Which is unsourced, and untrue. Then we continue with:
 * This has been a mainstream view in many Muslim nations in the last century...

Again unsourced, and again untrue. Then comes:
 * Islam does not prohibit women from working, as it says "Treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers."

Which is sourced, and directly contradicts the first two sentences. I am going to remove the first two un-sourced sentences. Unflavoured (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

, and slaves were treated as equals
This is an oxymoron and I am removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guacamel (talk • contribs) 20:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

FrontPage Magazine
Is Front Page Magazine considered a reliable source? Unflavoured (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Congrats to the Wiki-Dawaganda team
This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, so why do so many Islam-related articles read more like apologetic pieces? -- Ibn Kaafir (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably because these articles are edited primarily by Muslims with a bias toward promoting Islam? I don't know myself.
 * Actually, there are good Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. I think Muhammad is an excellent article, for example. What, specifically, do you find wrong with this one? ~Amatulić (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

For starters; the Freedom of speech section is laughable. Sharia law consists of the Qur'an and Sunnah (the way of the prophet), so why is there no mention of:

or the fact that the prophet asked Muslims to kill several people who insulted him:

and no penalties were imposed on the murderer. Like in the case of a blind man's mother who was murdered for (you guessed it) blasphemy:

"Abu Dawud:38:4348" These are what form Islamic laws, so why are the not mentioned? Ibn Kaafir (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Because those topics are instead treated here: Criticism of Islam. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 12:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Then that is an unacceptable WP:POVFORK. This article needs to include both positive and negative sources on Sharia. The lack of balance in this article is breathtaking, even by Wikipedia's standards. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't a POV fork to create articles on separate but related subjects. A POV fork occurs when multiple articles give different treatments of the same subject.
 * An article on Sharia should describe Sharia, so a reader can learn what it is. Tangential subjects such as criticism and controversy can be mentioned, with appropriate links to the relevant main articles, but those things are separate from the scope of the primary subject. That's how most good articles on Wikipedia are arranged. See Christianity for example. The article is about Christianity, not about critics. And it was a featured article. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The article Christianity - and the article Islam - are both good articles. They describe their subjects neutrally. This article on Sharia is not neutral. It reads more like an apology for how wonderful Sharia is. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)