Talk:Sharia/Archive 6

Put Islamism and harsh fundamentalism into definitions. Removed unchangeability for now.

Controversial topics do not belong in the lead. If they cannot be explained in context, they are misleading.

Absorbed Islamism and harsh fundamentalist Sharia into the definitions where it can be seen in context. Added extremism.

The paragraph re unchangeability is a relative, confusing and meaningless digression. It may belong in here somewhere but it was a useless appendage where it was located.

Aquib (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Aquib, please provide non-apologetic reasons as to why "controversial materials" should not be in the intro. Controversy has virtually without exception accompanied the introduction of sharia in every country where it has been introduced, it is inarguably a salient fact about sharia. This has been the case even in countries like Britain or Canada where there is no question of imposing hudud punishments, and where coercive introduction of sharia has been opposed even by Muslims, including by the Muslim Canadian Congress, and Muslims Against Sharia groups in both countries. Polls in Britain show support by British Muslims for anything other than voluntary observance of sharia is far from universal. Virtually the only reason why sharia, versus any other religious law, is in the news at all is because it is controversial; putting it in the intro is merely acknowledging reality and getting to the point the same way acknowledging discrimination in an intro to an article on the Hindu caste system is getting to the point. This is, after all, Wikipedia, not Dawahpedia.

As far as the unchangeability of sharia, this is very much a mainstream position (I'm not saying there aren't others), as Maududi said:

"Where an explicit command of God or His Prophet already exists, no Muslim leader or legislature, or any religious scholar can form an independent judgement, not even all the Muslims of the world put together, have any right to make the least alteration in it."

In fact the idea of the unchangeability of sharia, is important and needs to be mentioned because the idea of "making laws" has yet to become completely legitimate in Islam, since "lawmaking belongs to god." This significantly affects the debates surrounding Islam and democracy, a system where the people, through their representatives, make the law. Even the word "fiqh" relates to "understanding," in the sense of understanding the laws that are already there; a faqih sees his mission as discovering, not actually making the law. Bernard Lewis in "A Historical Overview" noted that an early Muslim visitor to the West observing parliamentary proceedings was baffled by seeing humans making law, as to him all the important laws had already been revealed long ago to the Prophet (SAAW). Said Qutb, a highly influential Islamist thinker, said:

"Any system, in which the final decisions are referred to human beings, and in which the source of all authority are human, is doomed to failure because it deifies human beings by designating others than God as lords over men. This declaration means that the usurped authority of God be returned to Him and the usurpers be thrown out -- those who by themselves devise laws for other to follow, thus elevating themselves to the status of lords and reducing others to the status of slaves."

The assertion that God has already made all the laws and that humans have only limited or no space to make laws for themselves is well supported, and in fact commands many followers today. I am not arguing that nobody holds contrary positions, but simply that this is the mainstream and official position regardless of whether it really conforms to the reality of Islamic states as they have existed throughout time. In fact, and I was planning to get to this eventually, the official position that only god makes laws was in practice not actually followed; the Ottoman sultans in particular were able to encroach heavily on the turf of the ulema and appropriate more power to themselves.Jayzames (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

@Jay I agree these topics, including Sharia's immutability, bear discussion in the article. My changes are stylistic in nature.

In the lead, the topic is framed.

In the Definitions and descriptions, the general context is laid out. You will find Islamism, fundamentalism and extremism mentioned. A section addressing the issues posed by the immutability of Sharia would be useful in Definitions and descriptions under the modern sections, due to the challenge posed. I will make that a priority.

Once the context is laid out, individual issues and aspects can be discussed in more detail in their own separate sections.

Controversial material is not generally handled in the lead of the article on Wikipedia. Insertion of controversial material in the lead will make it top-heavy with point/counterpoint as people with different viewpoints try to balance the material. Let me give you some examples of how controversial material is handled in other Wikipedia articles.

Toyota has a nice clean lead, followed by history sections addressing recent issues (1 sentence for the financial crisis, a paragraph for the safety issues).

Law of the United States Also has a nice clean lead. In fact, I see no mention whatsoever of faulty electric chairs, botched lethal injections, different execution rates for different races, 14 year olds with life sentences, or any of the other issues you might expect anywhere in the article. So this article lead is very clean.

Catholicism likewise, nice clean lead in and, surprisingly, no mention of the problems with pedophile priests.

I assume these other issues have been shunted off into separate articles. Perhaps these main articles have links to them, I don't know.

So, I am not saying the hot issues in Sharia law should not be discussed, I am saying the Sharia should have a nice clean lead, and unfold in an orderly fashion, like most other articles do.

Fair enough?

Aquib (talk) 03:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

For reference, I will refer you to articles like capital punishment and caste system in india where they refer to the salient issues right away. This isn't an article on "Islam," this is an article on "sharia," and without exception, in every Muslim majority country, whenever anyone has promised to "implement sharia," it has meant imposition of hudud punishments. What bothers you about this isn't that it's "out of context," it's that it seems "harsh," but these are facts, these are very salient and critical facts, and we really shouldn't avoid mentioning them purely out of apologetics. There is no reason why we have to avoid mentioning the obvious issue of discrimination when we talk about the Indian caste system, likewise, there is no reason why we shouldn't mention the obvious issues when introducing the topic of sharia.

I have to actually do some real work and go through the sources now, so I don't really consider this a priority, but I do plan to get to it later.Jayzames (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's compare apples to apples. The equivalent "systems of Indian law" articles would be Hindu law (mentions caste system twice - in passing), and Classical Hindu law (mentions caste system three times - in passing). Neither of these Hindu law articles contains criticisms of the caste system. They have clean, short, non-controversial leads that express the essence of what the entire article covers. I do not see a WP article covering any system of law that contains anything like the slanderous, poorly cited, misleading paragraph you inserted into the lead of the Sharia article.

By the way, for the purposes of this particular discussion the equivalent Islamic article for comparison to the Hindu Caste system article is the Hudud article.

I also plan to get around to examining your work in detail.

Aquib (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no reason to remove items solely because you personally find them objectionable, as Wikipedia is not censored. There is no comparable guideline that "controversial material should not be in the intro," and when it is so clearly important, as it is in this case, there is no reason to censor it solely because it is "harsh." This isn't dawahpedia, and we do have to consider the 80% of the world that isn't Muslim here.

Furthermore, none of what was written was at all slanderous, poorly cited, or misleading. In every Muslim majority country from Southeast Asia to the Middle East to West Africa, without any exception, political promises to "implement sharia" have been followed by actions initiated by the state that are in conflict with the interpretation of human rights as set forth in the UNDHR. There is nothing at all misleading about pointing this out, on the contrary it's misleading to avoid mentioning it. Jayzames (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice when I point out the faults in the logic of your argument, you resort to insults and claim the right to do as you please. Aquib (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in the foregoing is insulting, nowhere have I claimed that I have the right to do whatever I please, and I don't see anywhere you have pointed out "faults in the logic." And again, since this isn't actually a response to and does not follow from the immediately preceding statement, this qualifies as a non-sequitur.Jayzames (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

OK let me try one more time. This is my point. You have cited "capital punishment" and "caste system" as examples of articles with criticism in their leads. Based on this, you want to justify criticism of hudud in the Sharia article lead.

My response is that "Sharia" is a system of law, like "Hindu law" or "American law." There is no criticism of capital punishment or caste system in the leads of the articles for these other legal systems.

Please explain why you think the "Sharia system of law" should be compared to "aspects of other systems of law", rather than the "other systems of law" themselves.

In other words, please explain why you do not think the "Sharia" article should be compared with "Law of the United States", "Hindu Law" or "Classical Hindu law" with regards to the insertion of controversial material into the article lead.

This is your opportunity to directly explain your position. You have not done so up to this point. If you do not understand my question, I will explain it again.

Aquib (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Simple. In every Muslim majority country where they have "imposed sharia," hudud punishments have been the center of all of these attempts. Nobody to my knowledge has ever attempted to ban credit cards or banks, two other institutions that are also problematic under Islamic law. Yet, hudud is central to all attempts to impose sharia in every Muslim majority country, without any exceptions. If "Law of the US" uniquely had such punishments, or if "Hindu Law" had millions of supporters intending to coercively reimpose caste segregation, such issues would certainly be worthy of prominent mention too. What reason, besides dawah, censorship, euphemism, and apologetics, is there to not mention them. You haven't come up with anything other than "harsh," i.e. you find it embarrassing.Jayzames (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the "harsh" part. Harsh is how I describe some versions of Sharia in the article.

So you're saying Sharia and had punishment for major crimes is imposed on non-Muslims in Malaysia, for instance? Aquib (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Another incoherent non-sequitur, where did you get this from what I said? Whether or not hudud punishments are imposed on non-Muslims (as they are in the Gulf Coast), or whether they are restricted to Muslims only, as in Malaysia, they are still corporal punishments, and as such, in conflict with the provisions of the UNDHR. Malaysia has a secular constitution, and has a 40% non-Muslim population that is highly productive and critical to their prosperous economy; their ability to coercively impose sharia is realistically limited if they hope to maintain their standard of living and their high levels of foreign investment. It's certainly not for lack of trying by Islamists though. Nik Aziz Nik Mat has said "I cannot see why non-Muslims cannot accept hudud laws which are no different from the colonial laws of the West".Jayzames (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Prohibition and penalties for sodomy and lesbianism

From "Reliance of the Traveler"

• Chapter 10.17.0: Sodomy and Lesbianism

10.17.1 In more than one place in the Holy Koran, Allah recounts to us the story of Lot's people, and how He destroyed them for their wicked practice. There is consensus among both Muslims and the followers of all other religions - sodomy is a major sin. It is even viler and uglier than adultery. 10.17.2 Allah, the Most High says: "What, do you come to the males of the world, and leave your wives whom your Lord has created for you? No, but you are a transgressing nation. (Koran 26.165-166). 10.17.3 The Prophet - may Allah venerate him and give him peace said, 1. Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets it be done to him. 2. May Allah curse him who does what Lot's people did.

• Chapter 9.12.0: PENALTY FOR FORNICATION OR SODOMY

9.12.1 The legal penalty is obligatorily imposed upon anyone who fornicates or commits sodomy provided it is legally established (19.11.2 (O:) ) ) when they: (a) have reached puberty; (b) are sane; (c) and commit the act voluntarily; no matter whether the person is a Muslim, non-Muslim subject of the Islamic state, or someone who has left Islam. 9.12.2 Who is subject to the penalty If the offender is someone with the capacity to remain chaste, then he or she is stoned to death (9.12.6). Some with the capacity to remain chaste means anyone who has had sexual intercourse, at least once with their spouse in a valid marriage, and is free, of age, and sane. A person is not considered to have the capacity to remain chaste if he or she has only had intercourse in a marriage that is invalid, or is prepubescent at the time of marital intercourse, or is someone insane at the time of marital intercourse who subsequently regains their sanity prior to committing adultery. If the offender is not someone with the capacity to remain chaste, then the penalty consists of being scourged (9.12.5) one hundred stripes and banished to a distance of at least 81 km./50 miles for one year.

But I think you already knew this, and made a bad faith edit.Jayzames (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Persecution is "the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group." While homosexuality is not permitted in Islam, this does not in itself suffice to prove persecution. In order to be persecution, the prohibition would have to constitute mistreatment. That is to say, the prohibition would have to be unfair. As you well know, the claim of persecution is subjective. Aquib (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you've succeeded in making a coherent thought anywhere in the foregoing. "Stoning to death" is not at all subjective.Jayzames (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose if you were unable to follow what I was saying, it would appear incoherent to you. But it is quite apparent you are insulting me because you do not have a useful reply. If you had a meaningful reply, you would use it on me. This is the pattern you repeat over and again.

The point is the category "persecution of homosexuals" is subjective. The nature of the punishment is not a consideration in determining whether the category is subjective. Unless you are trying to say homosexuality should be punished in a different way? Aquib (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else have an opinion on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquib american muslim (talk • contribs) 12:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

What section of the article is this discussion referring to? If the question is as to whether it is reasonable to use the word persecution to describe sanctioned/organized punishment of homosexuals, then I would agree that the use of the term is reasonable. Most Western nations recognize attacks against/ punishment of homosexuals for their consensual sexual behavior and/or orientation to be a hate crime. Citations would be needed to establish that such persecution is a regular or common aspect of Shaira implementation. Dialectric (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, Aquib, how about we bury you up to the neck in sand, and lob a couple dozen boulders at your head. How "subjective" will that feel? Is it just going to be a matter of personal opinion that it will feel pretty bad, or is it, objectively, highly likely that the experience will be extremely painful and gravely injurious?

This is not a particular individual saying "homosexuality is immoral," or "homosexuality repulses me personally." It is a law of the state that requires homosexuals should be punished with death, which seems like the dictionary definition of "systematic mistreatment" to me; nothing subjective about it. It is not purely an academic matter either, as more than 100 people have been executed for this "crime" in Iran alone over the last three decades, including at least two teenage boys.

You still haven't succeeded in making any kind of coherent claim. Stoning to death by any reasonable standard constitutes persecution.Jayzames (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As I suggested above, I think Jayzames is right in describing the punishments he describes as persecution. I am not sure why this is even being argued.Dialectric (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Dialectric, Aquib has objected to someone adding the category "Persecution of homosexuals" to this article, as he finds it "subjective."

As far as citations go-"The death penalty is still carried out in other regions of the world and in seven countries the death penalty is applied for consensual sexual acts between adults of the same sex. These countries are:Iran, Islamic Republic of Mauritania, Saudi-Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Nigeria (death penalty applies to 12 Northern provinces with Sharia law)." Jayzames (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

So be it. I suppose this category will be systematically applied to the other articles covering systems of law, cultures, and countries that persecute homosexuals. It doesn't seem to have happened so far. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Persecution_of_homosexuals Aquib (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this falls under "tu quoque" or the "bandwagon fallacy," but a fallacy it is nonetheless. Whether or not other articles have or have not been added to the category "Persecution of homosexuals" does not make the verifiable persecution of homosexuals under Islamic law any less true.

Again, as I've said before, I'm sure that somewhere out there, there's a dawahpedia for you where such counterfactual and bad faith edits can be overlooked, and even encouraged, for the greater good of preaching Islam and bringing people to God (see also pious fraud, noble lie). There is nothing at all wrong with this within the confines of a missionary project. A general purpose encyclopedia, however, necessarily has different goals.Jayzames (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Very good, I'm impressed you have identified a flaw in my logic. A little late, as I have already conceded my point (subjective categories are frowned on in Wikipedia) out of disgust, but good catch nonetheless.

As for the rest of your remarks, I must say they represent a new low point in your dialog. So congratulations on that as well. Your behavior is in fact your most persuasive argument. Aquib (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, please stand somewhere and let us pitch a few dozen rocky projectiles at you (a half hour should be enough), and then tell us how "subjective" it feels.Jayzames (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Article requires cleanup, but...

Agreeing with this statement in principle, but pointing out it is a complex subject. Suggestions? Aquib (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

A few first moves in the direction of a more readable article might include moving content from 'Comparisons with common law' under the 'Parallels With Western Legal Systems' section, structuring each point in 'Modern perspectives on Sharia' as a separate paragraph rather than a subheading, and moving sections having to do with history, such as 'Origins' and 'Classic Islamic law' into a history section. I would also look seriously at each block quote and consider moving it to the relevant footnote if it does not significantly contribute to the article. I might attempt one or two of these changes this week, but don't have a background in the study of law or Sharia. Dialectric (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

These are all positive, constructive and timely suggestions. I would support any or all of these changes. There may be further rearrangement as needed, I have more content in the pipeline. My focus at the moment is more on content than arrangement, please feel free to try your hand. I do not see this as primarily a legal article, but rather a hybrid social/political/legal/religious/historical article. Regards, Aquib (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have collapsed the structure of "Definitions and descriptions" to simplify the numbering in the Sharia article. Many of the subsections under definitions are too small to stand alone as paragraphs within the article, but they are all important points in a coherent, contextual definition or description, of Sharia. Aquib (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the shelf life of most of the "parallels with western legal systems" isn't going to be for too much longer, I do have to go through a lot of rather obscure material and a lot of it isn't even on Westlaw, but after having sifted through maybe two dozen books on islamic law, none of which have mentioned the "unreported origin of Western law in sharia" theory, as well as various general reference books (i.e. professional encyclopedias), which also do not mention the aforesaid theory, I think it can be safely pronounced as representing the views of a tiny and insignificant minority. I think I can save a few bits and pieces, certainly the aval, but even among reliable Muslim sources and experts, like Gamal Moursi Badr (who was by the way, grossly misrepresented here) or Khaled Abou El Fadl, such evidence free speculation is viewed with skepticism.Jayzames (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, once I get through the rather laborious task of despaminating this article, I think it will be a simpler matter to despaminate the rest of Wikipedia, where the same content has been repeatedly copy/pasted in dozens of law related articles.Jayzames (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll hold off on trying to reorganize things, then, until you've completed the removal of dubious content, and could hold off entirely if you want to attempt a cleanup of the structure yourself. It will definitely improve the article to cut fringe theories out, and the strategy of starting here then making the same changes in related articles makes a lot of sense. Dialectric (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

/* Contemporary practice */ Deleted spurious and ad hoc common law comparisons from Mahmoud Gamal

The common law comparisons consisted of a page or so of some off the cuff comparisons in a book of some 200 plus pages that largely deals with other matters, and may have been included solely on the grounds of being the only hardcover source to mention the Makdisi "hidden Islamic origins of Western law theory." Gamal's claim is more that Islamic law is closer in spirit to common law than civil law, based mostly on the common use of reasoning by analogy and the lack of a detailed code, a parallel that is so trivial and elementary, that it is, as Gamal Moursi Badr notes, a "mere manifestation of what an early Western authority on Islamic law aptly called "l'identite essentielle de l'ame humaine," the essential oneness of man's spirit," rather than evidence of borrowing. Since Islamic law does not have binding precedent, and courts do not provide public domain court records, etc. that could make precedent accessible, comparisons to the common law can only be extremely crude at best. The editor who put this here has probably, in his enthusiasm, misunderstood what the fundamental aspects of common law actually are.Jayzames (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

/* Economic and social rights */ Redeleting "privacy" from Weeramantry

Redeleted privacy from C.G. Weermanatry. After looking into the book, Weeramantry just uses a parable from the caliph Umar about not frisking a drunk, because it constituted "spying." In reality rights to privacy were not routinely protected in Islamic states, and there is no sharia exclusionary rule for evidence seized in violation of privacy, i.e. "unreasonable search and seizure." Jayzames (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

/* Human rights */ Removed fact and detail free section

Removed this section for making exceptional claims while being fact and detail free. The article formerly listed a very large number of things that the rest of the world has Islamic law to thank for--> "In the field of human rights, early Islamic jurists introduced a number of advanced legal concepts before the 12th century that anticipated similar modern concepts in the field. These included the notions of the charitable trust and the trusteeship of property; the notion of brotherhood and social solidarity; the notions of human dignity and the dignity of labour; the notion of an ideal law; the condemnation of antisocial behavior; the presumption of innocence; the notion of "bidding unto good" (assistance to those in distress); and the notions of sharing, caring, universalism, fair industrial relations, fair contract, commercial integrity, freedom from usury, women's rights, privacy, abuse of rights, juristic personality, individual freedom, equality before the law, legal representation, non-retroactivity, supremacy of the law, judicial independence, judicial impartiality, limited sovereignty, tolerance, and democratic participation. Many of these concepts were adopted in medieval Europe through contacts with Islamic Spain and the Emirate of Sicily, and through the Crusades and the Latin translations of the 12th century."

This is taken from Weeramantry, who says" "In what specific areas did Islamic jurists fertilize thinking in the field of human rights? I shall have no time to convey this in full but shall attempt to convey some of the width of this impact by listing a number of basic Islamic legal ideas."

He then just makes a plain list of various virtues, "The Notion of Sharing, The Notion of Caring... The Notion of Universalism ... The Notion of Brotherhood and Solidarity ... The Notion of Fair Contract," many of which can hardly be imputed as unique to Islamic law, and one of which, "The Notion of Juristic Personality," demonstrably does not exist under Islamic law. He provides no details or facts or examples, and without any of these this cannot be regarded as a reliable source. The rest was a fact and example free hagiography to Islamic law by Leon Ostorog, which is likewise not detailed enough to establish the claims made therein.Jayzames (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

/* Comparisons with common law */ Removed first part of the Makdisi "hidden origins of Western law" fringe theory

Will be doing this piecemeal as I go through the sources. I've looked over the Makdisi piece and all it can do is conjecture on the possibility of Islamic influence on some common law institutions through an extraordinary chain of events stretching from North Africa to Sicily to Norman England that is as complicated as the single bullet theory. Since Makdisi's theory is speculative, and no real proof is offered for the claims he makes, I think this article can be shelved in the category of "possibly interesting (particularly if it had been written by a more engaging writer than Makdisi), but not a suitable source for an encyclopedia article."Jayzames (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, of the slightly less than 100 books on Islamic law at my library, only one, which has already been referenced here, mentions Makdisi, and that only in passing. All the rest are innocent of the "hidden origins" theory, making this a fringe theory held by a tiny minority.Jayzames (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed more of it, the original editor included a book review that only mentioned, but did not endorse Makdisi's theory; I think this reference was put there solely to inflate the number of adherents when it really is just one guy.Jayzames (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

/* Economic and social rights */ Removed more fact/detail free polemics from Weeramantry

The article--> "Early Islamic law recognized two sets of human rights. In addition to the category of civil rights and political rights (covered in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), Islamic law also recognized an additional category: social, economic and cultural rights. This latter category was not recognized in the Western legal tradition until the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1966."

I think it's already been established that sharia didn't then and doesn't now accord with many articles within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so the first part is false on the face of it. I'm not sure what the article and (Weeramantry) is talking about in the second part, as no details are given; Weeramantry says "Viewing as it did the social order of Islam as God's Kingdom on earth ... it was deeply concerned with rights which are not merely legal but social. Social and economic rights, whose recognition was so long delayed in the West, were recognized in Islam from the very inception."

I am guessing that he is talking about "dhimma," which while providing a limited form of cultural autonomy, is very far from granting equal citizenship and cannot be interpreted as such.Jayzames (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The Individual and the Sharia - H. Patrick Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World, pp. 193-194

The limits on human reason in developing the law and the limits on market activity are, however, indications of the place of the individual in the totality of the Islamic legal tradition. The purely subjective is proscribed; law does not contemplate an individual potestas; in the legal language there is no word corresponding to that of 'right', in the subjective sense (see Geertz, Local Knowledge, 1983, pg 188). There is little doubt, however, of the general importance of the individual in the tradition. In language remarkably similar to that used in the development of the doctrine of rights in the civil law, human beings are described as 'vice regents', 'successors', 'deputies' of God on earth. (see Khan, Islam and Human Rights, 1989, pg 49) The entire structure of Islamic law would be directed to ensuring justice for the individual person and mutual respect, and the treatment of the shari'a would make 'the aristocracies of birth, race, wealth, language... all suspect as disrespectful of persons'. (see Doi, Sharia'h, 1984, pg 9) If rights had become necessary as a means of levering people out of arbitrary hierarchies in Europe, islam rejects hierarchy, even in religion, and rights are both unnecessary and potentially disruptive of mutual obligation.

In giving priority to human welfare over human liberty (ibid), however, islamic law does not purport to guarantee equality of treatment of all persons. Perhaps it should, and perhaps this is its ultimate objective. But perhaps full equality is impossible, and ultimately incomprehensible. (on the definitional problem in western law, P. Westen, "The Empty Idea of Equality", 1982, pg 95 (Harv L Rev 537)) and perhaps a notion of formal, legal equality should not be used to mask the substantive, material injustices that islam has set itself to eliminating. So we find efforts to justify formal inequalities (notably those of women and non-islamic peoples) by collective goals (the old story). There are indications, however, that islamic people, and even Muhammad, may not have convinced themselves entirely of this, and that the insistence of western arguments in favor of formal equality are having some effect. This, however, necessitates change of islamic law, a question which is larger than any particular legal question.

Aquib (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

/* International law */ Removed content lifted in toto from Weeramantry that is not actually about International law

As noted previously, there are various problems with Weeramantry as a source. The book used here has only a fairly short and summary treatment of Islamic law with few details or citations, and its treatment of "international law" mostly describes the medieval laws of jihad and laws regulating dhimmis within an islamic state rather than international law. Al Shaybani's book for example, is a manual for jihad rather than a treatise on international law, with familiar provisions like: "Fight in the name of God and in the path of God. Fight those who refuse to acknowledge God... Whenever you meet your idolatrous enemies, invite them to adopt Islam. If they do so, accept it and let them alone... If they refuse your invitation to Islam, then call upon them to pay tribute. If they do, accept it and leave them alone." There really isn't any kind of developed international law in sharia, any more than one would expect Charlemagne to come up with the OECD or the World Trade Organization.Jayzames (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

/* English common law */ Removed misrep of sources regarding contracts

Former article claimed -->"Islamic jurists also introduced the concepts of recission (Iqalah), frustration of purpose (istihalah al-tanfidh or "impossibility of performance"), Act of God (Afat Samawiyah or "Misfortune from Heaven") and force majeure in the law of contracts.[167] However, recission, frustration and other core concepts in the law of contract are relatively recent introductions into the Law of England, dating back to the Victorian period. Early case law indicates that it was impossible to rescind a contract for frustration even where performance became impossible."

Checked the source used: "Dissolution of contract in Islamic law" by Mohammad Wohidul Islam, and nowhere does it claim that Islamic jurists introduced concepts like force majeure to English common law. The article simply explains the ways wherein contracts may be terminated under Islamic law, and even uses 19th century developments like the Turkish Mecelle and current civil laws in Arab states as its reference for "sharia," which necessarily precludes any possibility of influence on English common law.Jayzames (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

/* Other comparisons */ Removed another Makdisi ref

I don't think the original editor actually read the article that he sourced this from (which is hardly blameworthy as Makdisi is a turgid writer).

Removed "inalienable rights"

Checked the source, and it doesn't really say that "huquq allah/huquq ibad" is really the same thing as "natural rights," i.e. rights one has simply for being human that exist whether the Quran says they do or not. Emon simply says that some Islamic jurists, despite themselves, used some of the same concepts as found in "natural rights" despite the official orthodox stance that all rights must come from revelation.

Huquq allah / huquq ibad in reality is a means for separating crimes offensive to God, for which there are fixed punishments (i.e. hudud) versus "crimes," or something similar to "torts" between individuals, for which discretionary punishment by the judge or discretionary retaliation by the injured party is the remedy. Sharia courts do not have prosecutors, and hence do not maintain a true criminal law where it's always defendant versus the state (e.g. United States v. Nixon), instead all matters, civil or criminal, are considered as disputes between individuals, with "huquq allah" mandating fixed punishments (amputation etc.) for certain crimes.Jayzames (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

origins, legal proceedings and topics under classical law

Aquib (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

/* Welfare and pension */ Removed, one source is from a polemical website, the other is misrepped

Patricia Crone book does not actually say that the caliphate was a welfare state (and she would probably be one of the last persons on earth to do so); she says this about a rather small Ismaili group, the Qarmatians, who are just about as far from Islamic orthodoxy as it is humanly possible to be. They did not observe Muslim dietary law, considered the pilgrimage to Mecca a superstition, desecrated the Ka'aba, AND had egalitarian social relations, and a welfare state.

The other source was from an Islamic dawah site, which, like much else in the sharia article, uses anecdotes about the generosity of a particular caliph (or prophet) in lieu of demonstrating that there were actual lasting institutions which were functionally similar to those of a welfare state.Jayzames (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

/* Other comparisons */ Removed flakey Makdisi ref

Again removed a tenuous Makdisi ref. I'm not sure if the original editor even read or thought through the reference that he put here; as sharia is a legal system that officially does not embrace binding precedent, comparisons between reasoning based on the better precedent as per the American way and istihsan, a form of limited individual discretion for jurists to "choose the greater good" can only be crude. Istihsan is crudely similar to concepts of "equity" or more particularly, "mitigating circumstances" in non-Islamic law, but again, it's hardly surprising that Islamic and non-Islamic law both contain such concepts, as once again they are a "mere manifestation of what an early Western authority on Islamic law aptly called "l'identite essentielle de l'ame humaine," the essential oneness of man's spirit," and should not be used as evidence for borrowing or exceptional and apologetic claims of the functional identity of the two legal systems. Similar arguments for the borrowing of Islamic law from Roman law have been set forth by academics who are vastly better known than Makdisi (i.e. Patricia Crone) ; and such marginal arguments haven't been alloted space here; the Makdisi theory is an order of magnitude more marginal.

Also, istihsan is not one of the officially recognized bases of jurisprudence, and has been opposed by such major figures as Imam Shafi'i and Al Ghazali, and is not by itself sufficient to warrant comparisons to the common law; particularly when sharia and common law differ so drastically on a principle as fundamental as binding precedent. Jayzames (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of revisionist historiography of Islamic law should not be a section in the article

This topic requires some balance. In any case, the subject is not important enough to justify it's own section. Aquib (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course this topic requires some balance, that's why the criticism section was added in the first place, I will remove it after all the references are checked. What doesn't really belong here is unsupported apologetic fringe theories about "the hidden conspiracy to suppress the true Islamic origins of everything meritorious in Western law;" the section was added only to show that Muslim scholars have common sense too, and not every Muslim is taken in by fringe conspiracy theories. Out of 100 or so books on Islamic law that I have access to, only one even mentions this theory, and only in passing, likewise, only one book out of 100 is devoted to the debt supposedly owed by Islamic law to the Roman law of Justinian, and it likewise suffers from a paucity of real evidence. The vast majority treat the respective legal traditions independently and on their own terms.Jayzames (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you plan to remove it. "Who contributed what to whom" is interesting from an historical perspective, but there is other material more deserving of the bandwidth here. I'm not even sure the topic belongs in this article. It would make a nice spinoff if anyone wanted to spend the time and there was anything interesting to say. Aquib (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Women: additional citations provided, section appears to be an accurate description of their status

The flags can be removed from the top of the section. Criticisms of their treatment are dealt with in a separate section. Aquib (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

/* Democratic participation */ Checked sources, removed bogus apologetics

Checked the sources:

The Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World does not say the Caliphs were "ideally" elected.

As for the "rightly guided caliphs," and the idea that they were really democrats because "no one was superior to anyone else except on the basis of piety and virtue," in fact, the first caliph, Abu Bakr argued that the caliph must be of the tribe of Quraysh. The "Rashidun caliphate" only lasted for some 30 years; three of the four caliphs were assassinated; and at least one was appointed and not elected. In no sense was a real institution of elections instituted.

Since the idea that "no one was superior to anyone else except on the basis of piety and virtue," is being used to assert "democracy" among the early caliphs, one might naturally ask the question, what about non-Muslims? This is especially relevant because the early caliphs ruled as conquering minorities over the Sasanid Empire and the Byzantine provinces of Syria and Egypt. Since the vast majority of this population were still non-Muslim and ineligible for political participation, this was in no sense a democracy. In fact, it was an empire.

Christianity also has a similar Biblical saying, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Without institutions, this had little practical effect on society, and it is incorrect to say that egalitarianism and democracy were the typical practices in Christian society until relatively recently. Jayzames (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

/* English common law */ Removed reference to waqfs

After having gone through half a dozen treatments of the issue of the "wagf" including one book solely dedicated to it, and not having seen any of them mention the purported waqf-->English common law trust connection, as well as the sources in question not having any direct evidence, I removed this section on the basis of making exceptional claims without being an equivalently exceptional source. In fact, the book I read, "The Birth of a Legal Institution: the formation of the waqf..." mentions various scholarly opinions about the possible antecedents of the waqf in Roman and Sasanid law.

Since the idea is not a complete fringe theory and has at least a handful of adherents (though probably less than those who locate the waqf's origins outside of Islam), I plan to eventually move it to the Waqf article after despamination.Jayzames (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2010

/* Modern Islamic law */ Renamed section

Renamed "classic" and "modern" sections, as there is no way to establish that a "classic" Islamic law (implying that it is no longer practiced) even exists, or any attempt to explain how "modern" Islamic law, differs from "classic" Islamic law.

The only way to explain the subject is to contrast classic and various modern examples. How can you mix them together and come out with a coherent article? What do you propose to do? Mix them all together, or just speak in generalities? Or perhaps you intend to pick and choose as you go? Aquib (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You have yet to explain the difference between "classic" and "modern" Islamic law, and show that it is a distinction that exists outside this Wikipedia article. I can, for example, readily explain the difference between Classical Chinese and Modern Chinese, or Classical Arabic and Modern Arabic (and especially modern spoken Arabic). Having just finished some more reading, I can also show that the "traditional legal proceedings" are in fact the very same ones being introduced, and even newly introduced, to this day.

In the meantime, I'm going to revert these edits until it can be demonstrated that "modern" fiqh differs significantly from "traditional" fiqh, and that "traditional" topics of islamic law differ significantly from "modern" topics of islamic law. The "traditional legal proceedings" are actually the same ones used today, so I will be removing references to tradition therein.Jayzames (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You did not just revert my edits, you also went through the accompanying section and changed statements supported by citations that used the word "tradition" and "traditional". You should not be changing the meaning of material that is well cited, without checking the citations to be sure they support your change in meaning.

I am reverting your bad faith edit until you can demonstrate there is no difference between classical and modern Sharia. Aquib (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe this sort of fallacy is called shifting the burden of proof or negative evidence; you can't ask someone to prove a negative; e.g. the fact that I cannot prove that there isn't a dancing fairy on your head right now doesn't mean that there is any good reason to believe that there is one there. If you're going to make the claim that there are two different entities, "traditional" and "modern," it's up to you to prove it, not up to me to disprove it. You've been asked to explain what "traditional" versus "modern" fiqh is, what "traditional" versus "modern" Islamic law is," and so far you have failed to do so.

Aside from the section headings, I also removed references to tradition from what I wrote myself with respect to legal proceedings, which are indeed well supported by citations, and I have a pretty good idea whether the citations support it because I added the material myself. I plan to flesh it out some more with new material from the northern Nigeria example.Jayzames (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha yes OK. So, for instance, can you explain this remark does not indicate a modernization of Sharia? H. Patrick Glenn in Legal Traditions of the World on Sharia litigation: -> Legal representation was not an inevitable part of this process, but recent practice has apparently not found it incompatible with any fundamental principle of the procedure. Aquib (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"Recent practice has apparently not found it incompatible" is still oceans away from "sharia courts generally use professional lawyers." They do not, and in fact what might seem like shortcomings by Western standards are actually advantages by other standards. Sharia courts have streamlined proceedings, can adjudicate much faster than secular courts, do not require complicated written evidence, do not require the hiring of expensive lawyers, and especially for litigants in areas where the secular court system is slow and inefficient, can even be preferred by non-Muslims for getting things done, done quickly, and done decisively, as sharia courts also do not have an appeals system. This has made them, if not well liked, at least not universally reviled in northern Nigeria, because the general Nigerian court system is so corrupt and slow, and because professional lawyers are not affordable to the vast majority of Nigeria's people, most of which live in poverty. I will be adding this later.Jayzames (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting.Aquib (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Glenn: The general obligation of care and support of children is a serious argument in Islamic law, which is profoundly supportive of people in need, but adoption has been given legislative authority in some jurisdictions. Aquib (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Which is still not apposite to anything, you have been asked to show that there is some "classic" Islamic law that differs drastically from "modern" Islamic law, and not just in "some jurisdictions." Glenn, by the way, is quite likely referring to the civil law jurisdictions of most Muslim countries, which are outside the purview of the sharia courts, he didn't say that sharia courts have suddenly started ruling that adoption (in the Western sense) is lawful.Jayzames (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Islamic banking, introduced in Egypt in 1963.

Which again, is trying to bring an imported modern institution in line with a longstanding domestic sharia prohibition on interest. The law hasn't changed at all. You haven't shown that there is any separate "modern" corpus of Islamic law that no longer follows the "traditional" corpus of Islamic law to a degree sufficient enough to merit separate treatment.Jayzames (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope you will not be able to impose your version of Sharia here. It is certainly a common point of view in the west, but it is only one of many. Aquib (talk) 07:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be orbiting the questions of a) whether Islamic law is equivalent to Sharia law; b) whether a change in the interpretation and implementation of Sharia is equivalent to a change in Sharia; c) whether a statute that implements Sharia, or implements a law that is specifically compliant with Sharia, is Sharia. Aquib (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Understanding Islamic law: from classical to contemporary Abdal-Haqq. The name of the book generalizes the term to Islamic law. The introduction goes straight to Sharia and ijtihad, pointing back to the need for compliance with Sharia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquib american muslim (talk • contribs) 17:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sharia and National Law in Muslim Countries P. 9 Otto - Different meanings of Sharia enable a flexible discourse: The concept of Sharia as used in religious, legal and political discourse conveys different meanings. In comparative research, we have distinguished the abstract sharia, the classical sharia, the historical sharia(s), and the contemporary sharia(s).

Aquib (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

More hairsplitting and tangential incoherence above which isn't relevant to the point about "traditional" and "modern;" I'm not going to deal with the inanity of "whether Sharia is Islamic law" at the moment.

Back to the main point, like I said, show that "traditional" and "modern" are categories distinct enough to merit separate treatment, and not just in some book you haven't read, but officially in the legal system or the practice of religion. For example, the existence of a new, modernist school of fiqh akin to Reformed Judaism, that is reflected in the official implementation of sharia in some location or for some religious community.

Realistically, this is going to be a tough slog and you have a very weak case for asserting the existence of a "modern" sharia, when Sunni (and especially Salafi) orthodoxy vigorously rejects all innovation in religion as bid'ah.Jayzames (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In your reply, you are labeling the terms "official legal system or practice of religion" as criteria for a law to be considered "Sharia". This surrenders your argument. Any legal system implementing any law based on Sharia qualifies as a distinct form of modern Sharia according to this criteria.

For someone that keeps complaining that I am attempting to impose "my version of sharia," you're rather ready yourself to insist that sharia is "whatever I say it is. This is an encyclopedia article, and we do have to talk about the orthodox, mainstream definitions of "sharia." We can say for example, quite unambiguously, that there are five formally defined official schools of Islamic law whose existence is universally acknowledged; we cannot say that there are these schools of sharia called "abstract sharia," "classical sharia" etc. outside the confines of one particular book, or "traditional sharia" or "modern sharia" or "pink or blue sharia" or whatever ad hoc classification you feel like coming up with (which by the way you haven't yet bothered to define). The legal systems of India and the Philippines have some degree of legal recognition of sharia in their personal status law, but I don't think anybody in their right mind would call the legal system of India or the Philippines in general as "sharia." The same goes for the dual court systems of most Muslim countries, sharia is relegated to personal status law, the rest is under a civil law or common law system 'which is not sharia' and doesn't emerge from the recognized sources. In fact this process was already underway even before the modern era in the Ottoman Empire, which also operated dual systems. If you're going to attempt to assert that there's a parallel system in contrast to "traditional sharia" where, for example, the hudud punishments are abandoned and the right of apostasy is recognized and that this "modern" system is anywhere widely recognized as "sharia," you are way off the mark and just pushing an individual POV.Jayzames (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And just to show how far out and reality distorted your classifications are, I might remind you that you just insisted that stoning to death of homosexuals could not be classified as "persecution," and that such claims were "subjective." Maybe for dawahpedia that will fly, as if you're a believer in god's law, then stoning to death is really what such sinners deserve, but in the non-religious universe, that is the dictionary definition of "persecution."Jayzames (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, you are working with some faulty assumptions.

First, you are assuming I will go to the orthodox ulema in order to find proof there are "official" schools of Islamic thought other than their own. Not that it can't be done, many among the ulema are trained in schools of thought other than their own, it simply is not necessary for me to prove my point in this manner. Likewise, I need not write to attorneys in Indonesia or Libya for their views on how official their versions of Sharia are.

Second, you are asking me to prove it without a book. Which would be laughable if it were not so pathetic.

Third, you are assuming I have not read my references. With the exception of references you have provided me, all (well, I think) my references are at my side as I write. I confess I have not read the Quranic dictionary and I just received Legal Traditions a few days ago, but I have read the rest. Including Reliance. I bought my references on Amazon before I became a Wikimaniac. By the way, you are also implying you have read Abdal-Haqq, since you originally provided this to me for use in the Etymology section. And you are implying you have read all your references.

I have read Abdal Haqq, and yes, I do read my references.Jayzames (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fourth, you are assuming I will accept you in the role of arbiter as to whether I have a case. As you well know, all that is required in order to add material to a Wikipedia article is a source. If it is a highly regarded source, that is better. If there is more than one source, that is even better. I have multiple, reputable sources.

"All that is required in order to add material to a Wikipedia article is a source," is not actually true, cf:"Identifying reliable sources", and the issue of "exceptional claims" even from sources otherwise considered "reliable" has already been explained to you (though I'm not going to be overly optimistic that you've managed to retain it). Anyway, none of the sources you've quoted support the particular claim that you're making, that there are two distinct "modern" and "traditional" versions of sharia whose features can be readily distinguished and explained and which merit being treated separately.

To reason by analogy, I could argue (and this is essentially the claim that you're making) that there are some 1 billion different Islams because there are 1 billion Muslims, and since their individual practice of Islam is likely to vary over time, there are really trillions of Islams. This kind of argument isn't without merit, but it doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia, we have to talk about what most people will generally agree on, and not insist that the opinion of one person (in this case you) is representative. Where an opinion is not necessarily generally held, for example Timur Kuran's claim that sharia's lack of corporations held the Middle East back economically, you should identify where it's coming from.

Just as an example, with respect to your weeping and hysterics and flagellations and rending of garments about my adding material on the "unchangeability of sharia," this is in fact a perfectly mainstream opinion entirely suitable for an encyclopedia. I'm just adding mainstream majority opinions that are not my own. For example, from the Encyclopedia Brittanica, a publication with vastly better standards: "The second major distinction between the Sharīʿah and Western legal systems is the result of the Islāmic concept of law as the expression of the divine will. With the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632, communication of the divine will to man ceased so that the terms of the divine revelation were henceforth fixed and immutable." This doesn't deny that there are others, including academics, who hold that sharia is changeable; nevertheless the unchanging nature of sharia is still the mainstream opinion and the one that belongs in an encyclopedia article.Jayzames (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You are at the distinct disadvantage of trying to block out all points of view other than your own. I probably will not have a problem with the inclusion of your view of Sharia, once you define which one it is. But if you try to proceed with comparing whichever aspects of whichever version of Sharia suits your purposes at the moment, it is you who will find yourself in difficult slogging, not I.

Aquib (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The totality of Islamic law is known as the shari'a and shari'a, like halakhah, means the way or path to follow. Glenn p 174

The variety of meanings of sharia has given rise to a flexible, multi-interpretable discourse about sharia law which moves smoothly from one meaning of sharia to another: The contemporary sharia(s): This contains the full spectrum of principles, rules, cases and interpretations that are developed and applied at present, throughout the Muslim world, at international, national, sub-national and local levels by a wide variety of religious, political, legal and other actors. Migration, modernisation and new technologies of information and communication have decreased the dominance of the legal schools of classical sharia. 'Inter-madhab surfing' has become a new eclectic mode of change (Messick 2005; Yilmaz 2005). Otto p 10

Islamic resurgence: neo-Shar'ism as a practical programme: The neo-Shar'i programmes have undertaken, in effect, to produce deliberately that society which might conceivably have evolved out of the old Islamicate society if a technicalistic mutation had taken place within Islamdom before it did in the Occident. But they do so almost necessarily not in the terms of the resources and orientations of Islamicate culture generally but in terms of the Islamic religion in particular, and indeed in terms of one particular interpretation thereof. This is a latter-day form of the Shar'iah-minded approach to Islam. Hodgson V 3, p 386

Bin Laden's problem was that Saudi Arabia is one of the most closed, authoritarian and security conscious places on earth. There was little prospect of overthrowing the Saudi regime by force - at least as long as it was receiving Western oil money and American military support. Instead he gathered his followers in the collapsed state of Afghanistan, where he was at least tolerated and possibly welcomed by the Taliban regime which had established a sort of rough-and-ready, austere Bedouin style form of shari'ah in the parts of the shattered country they controlled. Horrie and Chippindale p 100.

Aquib (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, little of this is apropos to the issue in question. Explain what the entities "modern sharia" and "traditional sharia" are and how they differ . Note, I don't disagree that there are different interpretations of sharia; why else would there be five different schools of Islamic law? Show that there is some body of law that is "modern sharia" anywhere in practice that differs substantially from "traditional sharia. The one "neo-sharia" example you've provided is even less modern than "traditional sharia."Jayzames (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

/* See also */ changed "crimes against society" to "crimes against individuals" as sharia has no institution equivalent to a prosecutor

I hope to get into more detail on this when I write more on hudud, but sharia courts consider criminal matters, and indeed all matters, as something crudely similar to "private litigation" between individuals; thus it has no public prosecutor, and no one to represent "society" for "crimes against society," whereas secular law considers criminal matters as cases between the defendant and society. Hudud crimes like apostasy and blasphemy though they are infringements on the "rights of god," still likewise refer to individuals, hudud crimes simply having fixed punishments.

I don't understand where you are going with a change such as this. There are no crimes against society because there are no prosecutors? Why would there have to be a prosecutor in order to commit a crime against society? If a kid polluted a well used by the community wouldn't they be punished, where or not there was a prosecutor?

Aquib (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we're coming up against the basic competence issue again here, and a lack of understanding of what criminal law is. The foregoing does not mean that there are no crimes against society in Muslim countries, it means that under sharia there is no institutional recognition of such, and that such matters are treated as matters between individual disputants. Poisoning a well in sharia would still have to be a matter deliberated between individual plaintiffs and defendants, i.e. "Poisoner v. Well Owner," or "Poisoner v. Poisonee," whereas in a secular jurisdiction with a prosecutor, it would be "People v. Poisoner." Civil law (not referring to the Justinian kind here) involves disputes for injuries between individual litigants (who can, unlike sharia, be corporations rather than real people), in general seeking monetary damages; sort of similar to sharia minus retaliatory violence or corporal punishment. Criminal law involves disputes between the state and the accused for committing a crime like murder, which is regarded as injurious to society, the end result is typically jail time or some other form of correction, rather than monetary damages; this is quite distinct from the way sharia does things.Jayzames (talk) 05:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

OK that makes sense; God being the sovereign in an Islamic society, rather than the people. The Umma being a collection of individuals with it's own set of rights and duties. The obligation of the individual to ensure the fulfillment of the Umma's responsibilities. The right of the individual, rather than society, to justice. Quite egalitarian. Aquib (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope, still neither coherent nor apposite to any of the preceding. See also derailment.Jayzames (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to explain it again. In a non-sharia legal system, you have prosecutors who act on behalf of society as a whole. Thus you have cases with names like United States v. Libby or United States v. Nixon (remember Watergate?). Essentially, if you have a prosecutor, all criminal cases are "crimes against society," and not between individuals, the "plaintiff" is always the state.

In sharia legal systems, you don't have a prosecutor, so if, for example, someone murders a vagrant with no relatives to seek retaliation or blood money, nobody has any interest in going after the murderer, and hypothetically , the murderer may get off scot free. If you have a prosecutor, crime is considered an affront to society as a whole, and again hypothetically, the prosecutor cannot sweep a murder under the rug even if nobody cares about the victim in question.Jayzames (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You changed a the word "society" to "individual" in the context of "crimes against society". Your assertion was "there is no crime against society in Sharia". Where does the authority to punish a crime come from under Sharia law? God. And where does the authority to punish a crime come from in the U.S.? The people. Society.

Therefore it seems reasonable to me that you changed "society" to "individual". However I am somewhat disappointed that you cannot see the proof for your own argument when it was politely provided to you, all wrapped up in a bow.

Rather than saying (in a patronizing tone) "That's right Aquib, in a democracy, the authority for government is vested in The People", you proceed to explain that prosecutors are set up in civil societies to protect the homeless people. That is comforting, as there are plenty of homeless men, women and children around here that need protecting. But it does not address the deeper implications of your minor change to the article. Implications that do not seem to be addressed in this article at all. I find this a curious response to my offhand (but not off-topic) ::remark.

Ya Allah, where is this coming from? I did not say prosecutors are set up to protect "homeless people," I said, in a hypothetical example, that they are set up to prosecute crimes on behalf of the state, including crimes against victims who lack any descendants or other interested parties that would bother to press charges for them (which would not happen in a sharia system). The point was that sharia does not have anything that exactly corresponds with what we could call "criminal law" in secular legal systems. Absolutely none of the foregoing had anything to do with democracy or popular sovereignty, or the rights and obligations of individuals, or egalitarianism. You can have prosecutors (virtually all Middle Eastern countries now have them) without being a democracy (virtually no Middle Eastern countries are democracies). You didn't understand that sharia doesn't have something that corresponds to criminal law, and hence no crimes against society, because all matters are between individuals; this was explained to you, as was the reason why criminal cases are United States v. John Doe and not John Doe's Victim v. John Doe. None of this had anything to do with the response you came up with.Jayzames (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Because ultimately this is not an article about how people get their parking tickets fixed in various societies. And if you can not see the importance of the implications of your small change to the article in terms of of these deeper issues, then I would say you are indeed operating beyond your level of competency in the most crucial sense of all. In fact, this brings me back around to Glenn's observations which I posted the other day. I do hope you will bear with me for a moment, as I am having an original thought again; a process which seems unfamiliar to you.

I confess that alas, I don't have such messianic beliefs about the writing of this article, which is to me about little more than the mundane task of reading and then re-conveying sources of reasonable quality written by others. I do think a feeling of dawah would certainly imbue me with a much greater sense of purpose, reverence, and awe, but I think I would then have to move to a different encyclopedia.Jayzames (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

One more time, from "Between God and the Sultan," "In a sense the basic category of 'criminal law' does not correspond to any particular category of Islamic law since the basic presumption of the court is, as we have discussed earlier, not that it works as the state's agent to punish crimes, but that it settles disputes between two parties ..." In other words, sharia treats crimes like torts between individuals, rather than between the accused and "society" as represented via a prosecutor. Hence there is no institutional recognition of "crimes against society."Jayzames (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sharia#The_Individual_and_the_Sharia_-_H._Patrick_Glenn.2C_Legal_Traditions_of_the_World.2C_pp._193-194

Glenn suggests western human rights evolved as an attempt to break down the hierarchies that controlled European life. He points to the egalitarian nature of Islam as a reason parallel processes did not take place in Muslim lands. He points out that in the place of rights, Muslims carry obligations. Obligations to God and to their fellow Muslims. To replace obligations with rights in fact threatens this pattern of civilization we call Islam.

Now, I suppose this is all incoherent ramblings to you. Or perhaps you did not read it at all. I confess I sometimes find it difficult to try to sift through your rude replies, which is a shame, because you do offer useful insights. But perhaps someone else will read my reply and think a moment about what I am saying. In case you are wondering, that process is called reflection. There does not seem to be a Wikipedia article for it, or I would give you a link.

Aquib (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

They are incoherent ramblings because sharia's lack of a separate criminal law (there are, for example, no separate sharia criminal courts) has absolutely zero to do with the doctrine of sovereignty of god (hakimiyat allah). That is a whole separate issue of little direct relevance to criminal law. You didn't understand what criminal justice is and how it differs from torts, and how sharia treats crimes like torts. It was explained to you and then you respond with some completely non-apposite and unrelated derailment. Which again, starts to raise doubts, and not in the "he needs to brush up on the material way," but in the "I wonder what bus he took to school" way.Jayzames (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Bus? School? Aquib (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As in short. bus.Jayzames (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(UTC)

A brief refresher on WP Fringe and WP Exceptional claims

For those of us who seem to have forgotten what these policies entail. A lot of well-sourced material has recently been deleted from this article under allegation of exceptional claim. Here we can clearly see material that is properly sourced should not be deleted, regardless of the dissenting editor's personal opinion of it.

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources.[5] If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Fringe theories

The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be included in articles, and that any material challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence.

Aquib (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I know this might be hard for you to grasp as someone who lives in the dawah universe where all good things must come directly from Allah (SWT)and his Prophet (SAAW), but in the reality based community, the "hidden islamic origins of Western law" is a theory held by a tiny minority that is not mentioned in the vast majority of texts, not in the "Encyclopedia of Islam and the Middle East," not in the "Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam," not in the "Encyclopedia Britannica," and not in 98 of 99 books falling under "Islamic law" in my library catalogue (and only mentioned in passing in one). Since, you don't seem to understand what is meant by "fringe theory" any better than you understand things like "codification," "etymology of sharia," "civil law (legal system)," and "criminal law," let's try again:

From WP:FRINGE:"This guideline advises which fringe theories and opinions may be included in Wikipedia, and to a certain extent how those articles should approach their subjects.

Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is.[1] Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence,[2] it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Reliable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it."

From WP:UNDUE:"Neutrality requires that an article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give "undue weight" to the Flat Earth theory...

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well."

"From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

Now in light of the fact that the theories removed from this article do not appear in the vast majority of mainstream sources, are absent from at least three other encyclopedic treatments of the same material, and do not have prominent adherents, they can thus be regarded as representing the views of an extremely small minority, and were removed in complete and good faith compliance with Wikipedia policy. I'll have to see if I can find a Simple English version of the guidelines because it seems that so much of Wikipedia's policy (and Wikipedia in general) is either too long or difficult for you to read, or just flies way over your head. Jayzames (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And just as another example of how much you don't get Wikipedia, and suffer from a fairly substantial deficit of clues (and not just about Wikipedia), I might mention all the dramatic weeping and rending of garments in your entreaties to Arbcom and the Administrator's Noticeboard, all of which were summarily rejected; one of the admins rather wryly noted that your requests were "mathematically impossible to be accepted."Jayzames (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone is in a bad mood today Aquib (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh no I'm not in a bad mood at all. I actually chuckled a little at "mathematically impossible," which I had just noticed (of course I knew that these requests would go nowhere and probably should have told you so). I know it's wrong to find all your tribulations and missteps on Wikipedia funny, and that I really should try to be more helpful, but some part of me just can't help laughing about it just a little nonetheless.Jayzames (talk) 05:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Mashallah! I hadn't realized you'd also tried editor assistance, requests for comment, and third opinion, and been equally ineffective in all of them!Jayzames (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Problems sourcing "The five branches of Sharia" listed under Topics of Islamic Law

This section has been flagged for possible original research, there are few citations. These "branches" of Sharia are listed:

ibadah (ritual worship) mu'amalat (transactions and contracts) adab (morals and manners) i'tiqadat (beliefs) 'uqubat (punishments)

I suppose this is a logical arrangement, but I cannot find this arrangement anywhere in my texts, including Reliance. Most of these words, and variants of them, also do not appear in Reliance. When I Google these five words, I get back mirror after mirror of the article text.

I am wondering if this arrangement is specific to a Madhab or school of fiqh. I have some basic texts as well, nothing I have arranges Sharia this way.

Al-Misri and Reliance does not categorize areas of law in this manner. I cannot find citations for these "branches of Sharia".

I may have to replace them but I would prefer to find a reliable source that uses them.

Aquib (talk) 02:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The distinction between 'ibadat, or "worship," and mu'amalat, or "transactions" is one that is commonly found throughout several descriptions of Islamic law, it is mentioned (only in passing) in one book I have by Bassam Tibi, but I recall seeing it in a few other general reference books on Islamic law. I haven't seen the other items mentioned, though, but don't think it's a huge big deal or worth getting fussy about either way.Jayzames (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Restored deleted material to lead pursuant to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)

Mashallah! I had been so preoccupied with removing some of the more blatant absurdities here I hadn't even noticed this provision in WP:Lead section.

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence."

There's been quite a lot of clumsy, Gomer Pyle level stuff that's been introduced into the article, which will require clean up someday after I get through all the jaggedizations. For now though, one small victory for the article's Wikipediatude, albeit at some slight cost to its dawah value.Jayzames (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This provision does not allow for inaccurate, poorly cited material to be included in the article. Aquib (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, akhi, here's your chance. Show that imposition of sharia has not been accompanied by controversy, violence, and warfare, and I won't revert.

Let's just start with the Sudanese Civil War:

"As part of an Islamicization campaign President Nimeiry declared his intention to transform Sudan into a Muslim Arab state, divided the south into three regions and instituted Shari’a law. This was controversial even among Muslim groups. After questioning Nimeiry's credentials to Islamicize Sudan's society, Ansar leader Sadiq al-Mahdi was placed under house arrest.[citation needed]

On 26 April 1984, President Nimeiry declared a state of emergency, in part to ensure that Shari’a was applied more broadly. Most constitutionally guaranteed rights were suspended. In the north, emergency courts, later known as "decisive justice courts", were established, with summary jurisdiction over criminal cases. Amputations for theft and public lashings for alcohol possession were common during the state of emergency. Southerners and other non-Muslims living in the north were also subjected to these punishments. These events, and other longstanding grievances, in part led to a resumption of the civil war."

Sounds pretty much just like controversy, violence, and warfare to me. Make the case that it's inaccurate. I can always get many, many more citations.Jayzames (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And today's news from Aceh, from :"| Even jeans are too alluring for the Sharia police in Aceh"

"| Aceh's Sharia police loved and hated"

"Aceh's Sharia Law Still Controversial in Indonesia"

BBC:"Thousands of people have been killed in fighting between Christians and Muslims following the introduction of Sharia punishments in northern Nigerian states over the past three years."

"The civil war resumed in 1983 when President Nimeiri imposed Shari'a law, and has resulted in the death of more than 1.5 million Sudanese since through 1997."

Library of Congress Country Studies: "The factors that provoked the military coup, primarily the closely intertwined issues of Islamic law and of the civil war in the south, remained unresolved in 1991. The September 1983 implementation of the sharia throughout the country had been controversial and provoked widespread resistance in the predominantly non-Muslim south. The Sudanese People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) and its military arm, the Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA), were formed in mid-1983. They became increasingly active in the wake of President Jaafar an Nimeiri's abolition of the largely autonomous Southern Regional Assembly and redivision of the south, and as his program of Islamization became more threatening. Opposition to the sharia, especially to the application of hudud (sing., hadd), or Islamic penalties, such as the public amputation of hands for theft, was not confined to the south and had been a principal factor leading to the popular uprising of April 1985 that overthrew the government of Jaafar an Nimeiri"Jayzames (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

..........

Well, you've had a day to provide some kind of response as to why "introduction of sharia has been accompanied by controversy, violence, and even warfare" is inaccurate or poorly cited. I've used the BBC, and the Library of Congress Country Studies, which are pretty plain vanilla non-polemical sources (though you might object to using Voice of America, I have no problem letting that one go) , as well as the Jakarta Post, the main English language newspaper in Indonesia, and a hardcover book about the Sharia conflict in Nigeria. I could use more hardcover sources, but I do think that at least in this case, the sources should be publicly accessible. I think what's been put up so far is enough to establish "controversy, violence, and even warfare;" you're welcome to show how things are otherwise and I'd love to hear how that can be. Also, there is no reason to remove this material from the lead pursuant to the foregoing WP:Lead section stating that the lead should "explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. Before you edit war about this you should probably try to make some kind of coherent response.

Just as a point of comparison, the Encyclopedia Brittanica, under it's article on Sharīʿah, also has as its photo for the sharia article, a rather large image from AP of a young woman in Aceh being flogged for committing adultery, so candidly noting such information upfront is neither a left-field or unencyclopedic thing to do.

Really I'm not happy to be right about this; I had no idea how much the imposition of sharia had played a part in the civil war in Sudan until very recently. Millions have died in this conflict and been subject to countless atrocities (though you might consider this "subjective"). This is one case where I really wish I was being inaccurate.Jayzames (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Restored deleted content (again) pursuant to the usual

Please make your points on the talk page:

"Attempts to impose Sharia on peoples of other religions has been accompanied by controversy..."

The imposition of Islamic law was bitterly resented by secularized Muslims and the predominantly non-Muslim southerners. The enforcement of hudud punishments aroused widespread opposition to the Nimeiri government.

"Imposition of Sharia on non-Muslims is inconsistent with Islamic law itself."

This is a massive and largely wishful leap from the source used, which says "Today, it is said that the dhimmi are excluded from the explicitly Muslim privileges, but on the other hand they are exempt from the specifically Muslim duties," which nowhere states that Islamic law is never to be imposed on Muslims. There is no doctrine that Islamic law is never to be applied to Muslims, only that it is permitted, in matters between non-Muslims, for such persons to handle their affairs according to their own law. Islamic law of course must be the prevailing law in any disputes involving a Muslim and a Non-Muslim, as well as for certain hudud matters like blaspheming the prophet or proselytizing any religion other than Islam, which is not to be tolerated under any circumstances, and which is obviously an instance of imposing Islamic law on non-Muslims.

From "Crime and Punishment Under Islamic Law"

Regarding the sin of Zina (adultery/fornication)

"There is a difference of opinion among the jurists as to whether or not a non-Muslim living in the Islamic state should be punished according to the Islamic law for the offence of Zina. Maliki School is of the view that the Hadd (hudud) applies to Muslims only. Shafi'i, Hanbali, and Zahiri schools are of the view that the Hadd applies to citizens of the state, whether Muslims or non-Muslims. Hanafi School is of the view that the Hadd applies to Muslims, and as to non-Muslims, only lashing applies to them, not stoning to death."

Regarding "Punishment of a dhimmi for wine drinking"

"There are divergent views as to whether or not a Dhimmi is to be punished for wine drinking. The majority view is that the Dhimmi is not liable for punishment of the Hadd of wine drinking. This view is subscribed to by the Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafi'i schools. But a minority view that is attributed to Hanbali School has two conflicting views: the first view says the Dhimmis is punishable for wine drinking, but the second view is that the Dhimmi is not punishable if it is a small quantity that does not intoxicate him. However, if he takes a large quantity which intoxicates, then it is punishable with hadd."

(This explains why in Saudi Arabia, which strictly follows the Hanbali school, alcohol is prohibited for all persons, regardless of religion).

In sum, there is no doctrine that says "imposition of Islamic law on non-Muslims is inconsistent with Islamic law," only that non-Muslims are permitted in matters concerning only themselves, to handle their affairs according to their own law.

In fact what Glenn is likely referring to is that Muslims are subject to requirements like the payment of zakat and conscription into the army, while non-Muslims are exempt from the payment of zakat and are exempt from and in fact prohibited from conscription. Instead, non-Muslim subjects, or dhimmis, are required to pay the jizyah, or poll tax, and of course, have all the usual disabilities of not openly exhibiting their faith, not building their churches or synagogues too high or building new places of worship etc.. None of this precludes the application of Islamic law to non-Muslims in their relations with Muslims, and with the Islamic state, which is by definition, Muslim.

And finally, since it is quite clear from the foregoing sources, that the hudud punishments are the main source of disputes between Muslims and non-Muslims with respect to sharia (as per The enforcement of hudud punishments aroused widespread opposition to the Nimeiri government."), I am restoring the text in question.

I have removed for now the reference to the UNHDR, which, like the OIC, you are apparently not very fond of. It's being used solely as a standard reference document for human rights in international law, and for the fact that the OIC member nations have serious objections to it based on sharia. In fact, there is even one book that is solely devoted to trying to reconcile Muslims to the UNHDR specifically.Jayzames (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

........................

And once again, "Today, it is said that the dhimmi are excluded from the explicitly Muslim privileges, but on the other hand they are exempt from the specifically Muslim duties" ≠ "Imposition of Sharia on non-Muslims is inconsistent with Islamic law itself." That is original research.Jayzames (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sad ironies

I just wasted 3 hours going over Jayzames latest attempt to add some controversial material as a fourth paragraph in the lead of the Sharia article. This is the same deplorable piece of handiwork he has been trying to insert for the past two or three months, that I have flagged and discussed repeatedly, that he has said he would get around to improving.

Although it was (and is) a detestable hack-job, I assumed there were some truths to be had somewhere in some pieces of it, if it could be worked out. In this [[1]] latest, re-re-readded, version, I went and read each citation. In doing so, I realized why no better citations have been provided. In fact, the situations with regards to Aceh, Nigeria and Sudan appear much more nuanced than I had originally thought. That's the first sad irony, that these so-called "impositions" of Sharia are much more complex than I had originally supposed, and this exercise of blocking out vandalism has enlightened me.

This piece of work, this fourth paragraph in the article lead (I linked to above), contains substantial misrepresentations (see my edit remarks pointing these out). This is the work of the very same person who personally fact-checked, and removed, voluminous citations from first-class minds in this area of knowledge. This brings into question every single edit Jayzames has made on this article, and Wikipedia as a whole. And that is the second sad irony.

(WRT the foregoing jeremiad, I will again refer you to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. You're seemingly the only person on Wikipedia who doesn't understand what happened here and why Jagged's edits might need to go. I suppose I haven't tried sufficiently hard to "short bus" the explanation for you, I just assumed the Wiki link was sufficient. Give me a while and I'll see if I can come up with something easier to understand. P.S. If you feel too sad about Wikipedia, I have found a more dawah friendly home for you at http://islam.wikia.com.Jayzames (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

I invite anyone who might happen upon this Orwellian nightmare to check the fourth paragraph, click the citation links and actually read whatever comes up.

Aquib (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC

I'm not sure what your problem is, I'll go over it again:

Attempts to impose Sharia have been accompanied by controversy,[3][4][5] violence,[6][not in citation given][7][not in citation given][page needed]

"Thousands of people have been killed in fighting between Christians and Muslims following the introduction of Sharia punishments in northern Nigerian states over the past three years." Now what part of "thousands killed" doesn't sound like "violence" to you? If you're referring to the sentence occurring later in the article: "The violence may have been caused as much by economic envy as religious disputes," that still doesn't make "attempts to impose sharia have been accompanied by ... violence" inaccurate.

I'll get more page numbers for the hardcover soon, though I had planned to use it for multiple references with a refname.

and even warfare (cf. Second Sudanese Civil War[unreliable source?]) [8][not in citation given]

The Wiki link is just a "see also," not a source. As for the rest: "The factors that provoked the military coup, primarily the closely intertwined issues of Islamic law and of the civil war in the south, remained unresolved in 1991. The September 1983 implementation of the sharia throughout the country had been controversial and provoked widespread resistance in the predominantly non-Muslim south. "

Other sources: Bassam Tibi- Islam’s Predicament with Cultural Modernity. Religious Reform and Cultural Change p/173

"In short, and to reiterate: the call for shari'a is a source of tension, and can lead to war, as has been the case in the Sudan. The non-Muslim Sudanese do not accept being subjected to a shari'a order, and therefore rebel against its imposition."

From PBS Frontline:

"Civil war was sparked in 1983 when the military regime tried to impose sharia law as part of its overall policy to "Islamicize" all of Sudan."

due to discrepancies between Sharia and internationally recognized concepts of human rights[citation needed] (particularly with respect to the rights of women and non-Muslims [citation needed]),

I had already used the UNDHR as the standard reference document for "internationally recognized concepts of human rights" in international law. I listed specific articles where the sharia is at variance with the UNDHR. You wept and gnashed your teeth and tore your clothes so much I took it out, but I will be happy to put it back in again.

The most contested aspect of the Sharia involves the canonical hudud punishments (e.g. amputation, stoning, lashing, and beheading)[citation needed].

"Opposition to the sharia, especially to the application of hudud (sing., hadd), or Islamic penalties, such as the public amputation of hands for theft, was not confined to the south and had been a principal factor leading to the popular uprising of April 1985 that overthrew the government of Jaafar an Nimeiri. "

(Again) "Thousands of people have been killed in fighting between Christians and Muslims following the introduction of Sharia punishments in northern Nigerian states over the past three years."

That seems pretty much on the mark to me.

Sharia's prohibitions on blasphemy and apostasy also depart from internationally recognized concepts of religious freedom[citation needed].

Again I had previously listed specific articles wherein the sharia was at variance with the UNDHR. I will be happy to put them back in.

Article 18 UNDHR

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19 UNDHR

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Prohibiting apostasy and blasphemy would inevitably violate these two.

And with respect to Orwellian doublespeak, to me surely the most superlative example is insisting that the stoning to death of homosexuals is "subjective" and not persecution, or the endless attempts to censor this article so that it doesn't offend your religious sensibilities, even with manifest facts. Jayzames (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, before you climb up that cross again, you might want to consider reading Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.Jayzames (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)