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)
From "Reliance of the Traveler"
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.
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)
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)
Agreeing with this statement in principle, but pointing out it is a complex subject. Suggestions? Aquib ( talk) 17:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
Aquib ( talk) 03:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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 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)
Aquib ( talk) 17:47, 30 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)
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.
Aquib ( talk) 05:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
(UTC)
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.
Aquib ( talk) 12:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Please make your points on the talk page:
"Attempts to impose Sharia on peoples of other religions has been accompanied by controversy..."
"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)
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.
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
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)
From "Reliance of the Traveler"
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.
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)
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)
Agreeing with this statement in principle, but pointing out it is a complex subject. Suggestions? Aquib ( talk) 17:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
Aquib ( talk) 03:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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 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)
Aquib ( talk) 17:47, 30 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)
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.
Aquib ( talk) 05:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
(UTC)
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.
Aquib ( talk) 12:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Please make your points on the talk page:
"Attempts to impose Sharia on peoples of other religions has been accompanied by controversy..."
"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)
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.
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