Talk:Sharia/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Miscellaneous

Sharia (Islamic Law) states that Christians, Jews and Muslims all woriship the same God (the god of Abraham) and all these people should be treated with respect and dignity. Jews and Christians are therefore given special protections that are not granted to outright pagans (since both Christians and Jews worship the same God as Muslims -- albeit with some major differences). However, Sharia does provide for a special tax on Christians and Jews that is not levied on Muslims (which acts as an incentive to convert). Nowhere, in my knowledge, does Sharia state that war can be brought on Jews and Christians just because they do not accept this tax. maveric149

I beg to differ. All Muslim sources from the Quran onward state that both Chrisitians and Jews may never be considered as equals to Muslims; rather, they are designated as second or third-class citizens, called "dhmimms". This doesn't merely mean "protected"; it is second-class citizenship, and that only at the best of times. Sharia (Islamic law) has always stated that Muslims may go to war against and kill Christians and Jews in Arab lands who reject this status. The Sharia considers it unaceptable for Jews or Christians to be equals in what they Muslims see as Muslim lands. If you disagree, please cite some sources. I would truly be interested in reading them. Its just that I have not yet seen anything from Muslims that would teach differently. RK

Are you sure that you are describing modern day Islam, or historical Islam? Or, as it seems to me, are you actually describing the view of a handful of Muslim friends? I have never heard (yet) of any Islamic schools or islamic governments that teach the pluralistic and tolerant view that you do. I wouldn't be surprised if a handful of such schools existed around the world, but if so, they are clearly in the minority. If we dofin such sources from Muslims, we should look into howthey deal with the quotes in the Quran and Sharia which teach otherwise. RK

Sharia is based upon the al-Quran. Here are some relevent and interesting parts of Sharia that are based on the al-Quran (Quarnic passages are in parenthesis): Islam commands Muslims to struggle against injustice and encourages them to forgive those who have committed injustices against them. (2:109, 3:159, 5:85; 7:56,74 & 157).

Islam lays great emphasis on justice and how mankind should execute justice toward individuals, groups, communities, and humanity at large, so that they can live together in peace. It advocates equality and justice, to improve the dignity of all human beings, and to bring peace through justice. [http://www.submission.org/suras/sura3.html 3:58

& 108]; 4:135; 5:8; 16:90 and 48:4

HOWEVER, this may be what you are referring to: Mankind is ordered by Allah to be tolerant toward each others, but not toward aggressors, oppressors and tyrants (2: 134 & 190; 60:8 and 103:1-3

So it is incorrect to lable "Islamic Law" as advocating the making war on Jews and Christians. Quite the opposite is true (unless a group is being an aggressor and tyrant). maveric149

Maveric, none of this is what I am referring to. I am talking about the vast array of other parts of Sharia (Islamic law) that argue against Jews; quotes that you have not dealt with. Islam is not based upon the 40 or so quotes that Westeners find in accord with liberal 20th/21st century values; Islam is a 1300 year-old faith that includes the Quran and the Sharia, as it has been interpreted and practiced by Muslims for 1300 years. Have you read the new entry on the Dhimmi yet? It is just a start, but it already gives many facts that your above quotes leave out. There is so much more to Islam that you don't seem aware of yet. Muslims may agree with these other parts of it; you may disagree, but they exist as mainsream views nonetheless. RK

Maveric, you are arguing against a position that I did not hold. I never said that Islamic Law advocates making war on Jews and Christians." Rather, I said something different: That Islamic law allows making war on Jews and Christians living in Muslim lands who do not accept the status of a dhimmi. That is a different proposition! Further, it is true. Its the traditional Muslim belief, and is still taught today. RK

Oh and, RK. Please do not misunderstand me, I was not arguing against your position in particular. I just stated some parts of Sharia that are based on the al-Quran -- as a case in point to be used in the discussion. However, my knowledge of Islamic Law only comes from several classes I took in college, so I am the first to admit my lack of knowledge on Islam (as I am neither a Muslim or even a well informed Jewish person like yourself). However, I do have at least a foundation of knowledge on the subject combined with an emotionally unattached interest in the subject.So even though you obviously know a great deal more than me on this subject, lets not loose our objectiveness here. Also, please show me what part of the al-Quran/Sharia supports the strongness (i.e. "making war") of your arguments (I am very interested in this, as my Shi'a instructor may have left out some important facts). maveric149

Look maveric, maybe I'm wrong. I am still revising what I wrote in the dhimmi article. It may well be unbalanced, and I already am looking to improve it. Your own quotes and references have helped, and you can and should add in material. I just really am used to seeing certain points of view represented as mainstream Islam, and I want to see some sources for other Islamic points of view. I know that they exist; I have three such moderate, if not liberal, Islamic works myself. However, two of those authors have received death threats for their books. They seem to be better received in the West and in the Arab intelligenica than among the masses.RK

I understand (or at least can vaguely imagine) where you are coming from. Perhaps it is the RIGID interpretation of Islamic Law in some current nations, and not Islamic Law in the larger and more inclusive sense, that is acting as an influence here. Maybe, some distinction between the two should be included somewhere.I will re-read several related articles and see what I can do (wont be for a couple of hours though, I have company coming over). BTW, the dhimmi article seems to be coming along nicely (few minor things I need to look at later, though) maveric149

Like Jewish law and Christian canon law, Islamic law has no one, set meaning for all time and places. In the hands of moderates, religious law can be moderate, even liberal. In the hands of post-Englightenment readers of philosophy, religious law is relegated to ritual (as opposed to law in a civil sense), or even to just being history. In the hands of zealots, it becomes legally enforced against all people of a faith, and even against all people that come under their control. Islamic law to American Muslims in Boston is a very different thing than Islamic law to religious Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Gaza, or Pakistan. Both are following Islamic law, yet it varies as much as individual Muslims vary. (As is true for Jews and Christians, etc.) I think that this will have to enter somehow into the main entry, on a number of religion oriented articles.RK

Excellant description! Yes, that should be included in Sharia. Lets not give the impression that the hard-line of Islamic Law is the only line. maveric149

Maveric, I am not a student of Islam in the sense that you appear to be, but nonetheless I am curious - shouldn't you either say "The Quran" or "al-Quran," not "The al-Quran," which means "The the Quran?" --Alex Kennedy

(the smaller Shi'a branch of Islam uses a system of jurisprudence called Jafari). As the Sunni branch is by far the dominant branch of Islam, Sharia is often simply called "Islamic Law".

This was removed. Is it untrue, or simply misleading? Martin

See comment at top of page. --mitch

Is hitting one's wife permissible?

I restored the hadith - which, you will note, are accepted as genuine (and quoted!) even by those who argue in favor of the orthodox interpretation of the verse[1] - and restored the translation point which is highly relevant and which you gave no reason for deleting. - Mustafaa 19:21, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Hello Mustafaa. Could you kindly clarify why "beat", the foremost agreed upon translation, is inappropriate? When we analyse the Arabic and English Qur'anic verses (not just 4:34 alone but the surrounding and relating verses), we do get some clarification. Now there are three clauses, the third has Arberry, Dawood, Ali, Shakir and many others using "beat". Yes, the Arabic wording is ambiguous, but so are numerous words in Qur'anic-Arabic. And further, when we read the Arabic text and even English translations... "admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them", I fail to see your addition "then, if all else fails, the husband may hit her". This is simply not what the Qur'an says and your interpretation of "darabaan" (in this verse particularlly) is at odds with the Arabic itself. Idreeb, used more then ten times in the Qur'an, is meant strike in 8 of those cases. For example... ""Strike" off their heads, "strike" off the very tips of their fingers" [8:12] The Arabic is refering to a form of physical strike, but this is not the issue. Downgrading it to "lightly" striking or "softly" striking could also justify someone equally interpreting it to "harsh" striking. The hadeeth you quote goes against the Qur'an and is highly questionable in authenticity, which basically renders it useless, but I will agree to it being in the article for neutrality. I just hope you're not going overboard here because your unexplained deletions and additions seem to promote the Muslim apologist view. We are not here to defend our faith but to provide a free encyclopedia written in a neutral point of view. It is clear though that, if God wanted the meaning softly inserted in the Arabic Qur'an, he would of done so Himself. Usedbook 15:00, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

"then, if all else fails, the husband may hit her": that's not my idea, that's the standard interpretation of the verse - as a sequence of three steps to be taken as the situation escalates. For instance, [2]. I've never heard any Muslim deny that; do you have sources?

You claim the hadith mentioned contradict the Quran. They don't - especially if you accept the idea that daraba has been mistranslated - but even if they did, would you be prepared to delete the section on adultery here, given that the hadith on which it's based clearly contradict the punishment mentioned in the Quran? You also claim they're ill-attested; why? They're in al-Bukhari, which is considered pretty authoritative.

And finally, why keep some random Fuengirolan and delete ash-Shafii? - Mustafaa 21:59, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

In fact, you know what? The Fuengirolan imam cited those hadith: [3]. Should we remove him as well? - Mustafaa 22:11, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand this objection, but are you saying there's a difference in meaning between "hit" and "strike"? If so, "hit" is certainly the commonest meaning of "daraba". - Mustafaa 22:21, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

In the mind of the literalists who hold abrogation to valid, certainly many hadeeth are now rendered null. When a slapped woman, still marked by the hit, complained as to what her husband had done, Muhammad replied "Get even with him," but then said "Wait until I think about it." 4:34 was revealed, after which the Prophet declared: "We wanted one thing but Allah wanted another, and what Allah wanted is best." Similarly, when 50 daily prayers were bestowed upon the Muslims, it was later lowered to 5. 50 daily prayers has no place in the 5 Pillars of Islam because it has been annulled. So lets not waste time with things Muhammad desired before revelations but concentrate on the revelation. Regarding your ascertain questioning the adultry and Fuengirolan contributions, that I have not been involved with as far as I can remember, so I really cannot comment. Many of the scholarly quotes at this article seem to say the same thing, so perhaps in fairness, we should replace one with another having a different perspective. I will agree with your suggestion of using "hit". There is a narration of Muhammad's farewell message which you may consider. Sahih Muslim Sahih Muslim, on the authority of Jabir, who had quoted the Prophet as saying in his farewell pilgrimage: "And fear Allah in women, for they are your aides, and their duties towards you is that your beds should not be shared with someone you dislike. Therefore, if they disobey you, beat them lightly, and your duty towards them is that you should maintain and buy them clothes in a reasonable manner." Although the Qur'an does not mention "lightly", it's Islamic to say 'lightly' is fine because it is Sunnah. Usedbook 20:46, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

You call commenting on the semantic ambiguity "apologetics". It's nothing of the sort: Wikipedia has a right and duty to report on debates of interpretation within a religion. This principle is affirmed elsewhere: eg Mary, the mother of Jesus#Virgin birth of Jesus mentions the controversy over bethulah. - Mustafaa

The tenor of this article

I read this article because I wanted to learn a little more about Shari`ah, and I was disappointed at what I felt was only superficial objectivity in what is otherwise a very apologetic article.

Let me clarify - the information presented is, as far as my limited knowledge goes, correct. However, as each part of the article is put down, there seems to be an attempt to justify or "explain away" a lot of the actual history and practice of Shari`ah as not being representative of what it actually is. For example, instead of quoting scripture and academic/religious analysis to explain how Shari`ah should be interpreted, it would be nice to just have a description of how it is interpreted in various places.

I'm not about to edit the article, but I think it might be better to break down the information differently. After the intro, there could be sections on origins, history, differences with "Western" law and political structures (to provide some perspective for those of us who are not familiar) and how it is practiced today in various cultures without any effort to justify or criticize it.

Clearly, there is some controversy surrounding this issue. There really isn't any need to defend (or attack) Islam or Shari`ah in this article, though describing viewpoints would add value. The best way to handle this would be to address it in a separate section. You could do an analysis of different modern interpretations and reforms and their origins (in the al-Quran, in scholarly work, etc.). You could also directly address the controversy presenting arguments for and against various practices (e.g. rules concerning women).

Just my $0.02. This is a very good article, but I think it could be better!

ADDENDUM: here's an example - there's a section explaining why women don't have to cover their heads or bodies or be restricted outside the home under Shari`ah. Clearly, though, under many interpretations, these restrictions exist. In your section on women in Islam, the best approach would be to simply describe what restrictions or regulations (if any) are placed on women in different cultures under Islamic law, and how each culture justifies it under its interpretation of Islam. It's not your place to explain why these rules are wrong, or to place "blame" for them. Arguments for and against various practices should be saved for a different section, or at least a different paragraph - and they should be described objectively!

2nd ADDENDUM: I also don't think a (PBUH) is appropriate in an encyclopedia article.

deleted incomplete sentence

Most Muslim scholars have based the amount of covering that a female Muslim must wear in front of those that are considered non-mahram (people she can marry) men on the

deleted that sentence as it wasn't complete, and didn't make sense.

I wasn't what the author was trying to say there either.

(It's spelled "sentence", not "sentance". Christ.) /anonymous

other religious law

The article mentions Like Jewish law and Christian canon law,...

Do Wikipedia articles on these exist? Jewish law, Christian canon, Christian law ? Would a link to Chinese law be appropriate ?

--DavidCary 10:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Someone please check Mahram

The article states that having sex with one husband/wife is incesteous. Now this can't be right, can it?
It also isn't mentioned in this main sharia article. Is it under another spelling already?

I was just going through DeadEnd pages when I found it. Thanks for anyone knowledgeable who can help.--ZayZayEM 03:21, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done!

I re-wrote the article on mahram, so the confusion is now cleared up.
I also added the concept of mahram to the dress code section.

--Pouya 00:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

India does not have largest Muslim Population

"several of the countries with the largest Muslim populations, including Indonesia, Bangladesh and India have largely secular constitutions" This sentence says that India has largest Muslim population which is untrue. India basically has people belonging to Hindu religion and Muslim population is only 12% to 15% of the whole population.

It means large (compared with other countries) in absolute numbers, not as percentage of the total population.--Patrick 10:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

confusion about five pillars

I'm just learning more about Islam and a difference on the two pages about "Sharia" (this discussion) and "The Five Pillars of Islam" have confused me.

The Sharia page says "Fundamental to the obligations of every Muslim are the Five Pillars of Islam.", but the Pillars page says "The term is not used in Shia Islam."

So which is it? Are the Five Pillars almost universally accepted, or is it a Sunni-specific doctrine?

Shia have difrent clasifications, but in those clasifications are the elements of the "five pillars" included. --Striver 12:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

"Honor Killings" and Non-Muslims in West Africa

I don't know where the contributors to this article got the idea that non-Muslims in West Africa engage in honor killings, but I can say with certainty that it is a blatant falsehood, likely perpetuated with the idea in mind that no actual West Africans would ever come along to refute it (and no one else would know enough about the region to care). Apologists for Sharia are free to engage in as much casuistry as they please to make the system seem palatable to Wikipedia readers (though from what I've seen of it in practice with my own eyes, one would have to be a fool to buy this supposedly "objective" article's claims), but you don't have to blacken the reputations of West Africa's non-Muslims in order to do so.

countries not implementing the sharia

Perhaps someone should add to the article of the sharia the muslim take on countries that do not implement the rules of the sharia. I know there is a name for those countries but Idon't recall what it is and won't make an attempt as I speak no arabic at all. there is also a name for countries that actively prevent muslism from living their lives according to the sharia.

Lao Wai vs. IP

Lao, Islam does not do something, there are Muslims schools that disallow women from divorcing, but there is no rule "in Islam" that means all school have that. mostly it will be discussed in the main article so put general but factually true statements here leaving further discussion for the main article.

IP, many brands of Islam have throughout history made it difficult for women to have certain rights, deal with that and don't delete it. There can't be a detailed discussion here so don't make any claims that need lots of backing up. Speak in general terms. Please resolve it without turning this into an all out revert war. gren グレン 17:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree about the phrasing. I think I inherited some of it. I also agree about the variation in Islam with a minor exception - there are core issues in Islam. It is hard to imagine anyone who was a Muslim and worshiped Hindu Gods. I know there are some, but most people would probably say they are not Muslims. As factually true statements go it is surely more true to say that women do not have the same rights in divorce as it is to say they do? I can accept that many schools have differing interpretations about what women's rights are. I am less sure about it being difficult for women to have certain rights (as that presupposes they do). I was speaking in general terms. In general terms divorce is a right for men, not for women. And I do not want a revert war - I thought everyone accepted the statement was wrong. Lao Wai 18:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Using the word "Allah" or "God"

Non-Arabic speaking Muslims tend not to use the word "Allah" when talking about God. For example, Iranian Muslims use the word "Khoda". And English speaking Muslims just use the word "God".

I'd like to suggest that since this article is written in English that the word "God" be used instead of "Allah". I (and in fact my whole family) have always found it very strange when people say or write "Allah" instead of "God" (when speaking or writting in English). (This seems to have become common lately on television.)

(And yes, I'm Muslim.)

-- Charles Iliya Krempeaux 10:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

"Shariah States"

Should we have a category for the states in Nigeria that have "Sharia" as state law?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 01:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of: Confronted with such arguments...

Deleted paragraph:
Confronted with such arguments, many Westerners can be driven into attitudes reminiscent of, or actually partaking in, Islamophobia, although it should be noted that religions are as open to criticism as any other form of idea (even though this can often cause more offense than is intended).

>"Confronted with such arguments, many Westerners can be driven into attitudes reminiscent of, or actually partaking in, Islamophobia"
The attidudes that westerners can be driven to, given a construed situation, constitute an imputation at best, an accusation at worst. Anyway, neither is POV, and imputations are not encyclopedic. The same applies to the inference drawn from aforementioned imputation.

>"although it should be noted that religions are as open to criticism as any other form of idea"
This would be a truism ...if it wasn't a logical fallacy: religions are open to criticism only in a context that allows free discourse. This is not true for any given social context, e.g. any society, any country or any moral system.

>"(even though this can often cause more offense than is intended)."
Now this is a truism.

'nuff said: nihil, nisi bene. --tickle me 00:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of "The process of consensus..."

Deleted paragraph:
The process of consensus, as outlined by Muhammad, may have contributed to various political movements among non-Muslims and Muslims alike, such as green parties. For example, some environmentalists defined Four Pillars of the Green Party, to some degree in imitation of Islam's Five Pillars, inspired by the idea of a consensus-driven process of a community coming to some reasonable conclusion compatible with science and scholarship. However, this process of coming to a consensus often has to cope with the reality of tension between conservative, liberal, secular and other forces.

I took the liberty of bolding "may": The whole paragraph is hence speculation and thus not encyclopedic. Besides, the Four Pillars of the Green Party gives no indication, not even a speculative one, as to the purported muslim origin of their agenda. Let's not talk about the last sentences' more than superfluous truism. --tickle me 00:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of: "such as the necessity of four eyewitnesses..."

Deleted sentence:
such as the necessity of four eyewitnesses, with a woman's testimony counting no less than that of a man...

Improper generalisation: The number of required eyewitnesses depends on the severity and the quality of a given crime, the same applies to the value given to woman's testimony. --tickle me 00:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of: "Such measures are usually introduced..."

Deleted sentence:
Such measures are usually introduced to gain support of local ulema who are often community leaders in rural areas.

This is speculation, the statement would need to be backed up by statistical evidence or sociological research data. --tickle me 00:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved HTML commentary from article page, the author is unknown

Most notable translators like Arberry, Dawood, Ali, Shakir, Khan, etc. use "beat". Even orthodoxist scholars in institutions at Makkah and Medinah today favour "beat." Others use "scourge" and "hit." All verses in the Qur'an that contain “darb” against a human are understood by their context, and agreed by the Islamic “modern scholars,” to mean "beat" or "strike" that human. -- There is considerable controversy, however, even among mainstream Muslims, on the question of whether early commentators skewed the interpretation of this verse. See [4] --tickle me 01:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Circumcision

The article says:

"The use of the term 'circumcision' is highly confusing, as the practice ranges from a mild superficial act that does not reduce any physiological function (the 'real' circumcision) to various forms of partial or even complete removal of female genital organs."

It is not clear if this refers to male or female circumcision, but either way it is wrong. Since the prepuce is erogenous tissue, circumcision always reduces one's capacity to experience sexual pleasure. Some countries, such as France, South Africa, Denmark, and Norway have been considering the possibility of outlawing circumcision entirely, as it is clearly a human rights violation. - Stormwatch 19:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Some vandal's geolocation info

history

64.9.10.166, Pennsylvania, Berwyn, TELCOVE, Tredyffrin Easttown School District
66.137.225.149, Texas, Irving, SBC Internet Services, PPPoX pool, BRAS12 RCSNTX.588842
70.59.235.71, Arizona, Fountain Hills, U S WEST Internet Services
203.153.231.50, Australia, Western Australia, Scarborough, Amnet IT Services Pty Ltd
198.236.58.30, Oregon, Marylhurst, Oregon Public Education Network

--tickle me 04:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

External links

Someone added a label, BROKEN, to one link. I looked at the links and I was sad to see that one link was fonsvitae linkspam, one link was to what seemed to be a highly partisan, off-the-beaten-path site, and the two critical links were links to anti-Islamist pages. Islamism is not at all the same thing as following sharia. There are many countries where Muslims follow the strictures of sharia re personal behavior, marriage, inheritance, etc., as a matter of personal choice, and do not agitate for the adoption of sharia as state law. Just so, Orthodox Jews follow their personal and family laws wherever they happen to be and -- except in Israel, and that's a whole other flamewar, so don't start, please -- don't agitate to have the same laws adopted as national laws.

It would be nice to have some good, informative, neutral external links. Zora 00:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Divorce

According to the article:

In theory, Islamic law allows spouses to divorce at will, by saying "I divorce you" three times in public. In practice divorce is more involved than this and state proceedings vary.

However, every source I have seen refers to the husband, rather than "spouses". Women can only initiate divorce in specific circumstances, such as abuse or lack of support - while men have more freedom to initiate divorce.

Unless there are mainstream Islamic opinions to the contrary, I think "spouses" should be changed to "husband". Please comment. Michael Voytinsky 21:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Dress codes

The article says that 'for women, the emphasis is on modesty' but then goes on to say that for both men and women the aim is to stop them being sexual objects: surely what modesty means in this situation? The greater restriction doesn't necessarily mean that the emphasis is different: I would not say that the emphasis was on modesty for women's swimming costumes as they have to cover more bits than men's.

131.111.8.99 13:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that "modesty" here may refer to more than just sexual modesty. For example, if a woman is very wealthy, she should not dress in such a way to accent her wealth. The ultimate goal may be to stop them from being sexual objects, and may also include other motives.

Keep in mind I am pretty much clueless when it comes to this topic, I'm just speakng as a linguist. I would be interested to see how the word is translated in various situations before offering anything of a proper analysis.

Technotaoist 19:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech??

The recent entry on Freedom of Speech is blatantly POV. It reads like a pamphlet handed out at a mosque rather than an encyclopaedia entry. Unless anyone has plans to do a major edit on it, I think it deserves to be deleted. Thoughts? Michael Voytinsky 08:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I am also seeing this as very POV. First a complete replacement of the previous text with copied religious tract, then gradual editing to wrap around the subject "Freedom of Speech". I had almost reverted it, but stopped only because I was interested in how clumsy this manipulation would be. Shenme 08:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

66.71.57.211 quotes lengthily the documentary "Legacy of a Prophet", no "authoritative source" at all: Wikipedia:Five pillars. It cites the caliph Umar and infers thereon: No original research. The rest is a substandard English Essay -> Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. I reverted accordingly. --tickle me 08:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

66.71.57.211 has again added the copied religious material, replacing the previous text. I have put a request on their IP user page for them to come to the talk page to discuss. I have also reverted their changes. Shenme 00:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I tend to be less lenient -for once, the second paragraph is a copyvio- and suggest vandalism warnings better sooner than later. --tickle me 02:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Freedom of speech

My past addition to the article showed that there was a freedom of speech concerning matters unrelated to religion. In other words, freedom of speech itself was not forbiden by sharia, instead, arguing about the of sharia itself was forbiden.

I deleted the second paragraph "the denial of freedom of speech by Muslims is not only restricted to those Muslims ..." because it seemed that it didn't reflect the sharia in any way, but rather actions taken in muslim countries.

Severe-punishment & execution-authorizing holy book passages

Under the "Domestic Justice" section, there are two full pages devoted to an, IMO, very POV-d "white-wash" of the notion that very harsh treatment (beyond mere hitting) of women is not authorized in the Quran or the Hadiths; the section ends with a leading-by-the-ring-in-ring-in-one's-nose paragraph beginning with the sentence "Honor killings are, in the Western world, often erroneously identified as part of Islamic teaching" -- which is, of course, in stark contrast to pronouncements by Muhammad authorizing execution on numerous occasions.

I have twice attempted to balance this section by listing harsh-punishment-authorizing passages, and they have been summarily RV'd by various persons who, in unbecoming displays of chutzpah, characterize the removed passages as "POV", when they in fact merely balance out the existing "white-wash" POV of the pre-existing article.

I will attempt inclusion once again, with comment pointer to Discussion, and if it RV'd again, I will add a DISPUTED flag to this Wiki entry. Mike18xx

Disputed entry:

"Honor killings" are, in the Western world, often erroneously identified as part of Islamic teaching, though they are in fact a cultural practice which is neither exclusive to, nor universal within, the Islamic world. Such killings take place within the Muslim communities around the Mediterranean as well as in the Punjab, India,[5] non-Muslim parts of West Africa, and in Central America; while in Indonesia, the world's largest Islamic country, the status of the practice is unknown.

Mike18xx: To call your well founded, citation rich edit POV ...in contrast to the sillyness above, is chutzpah indeed. Anonymous editor's behaviour is grotesque, given that he's an admin. --tickle me 04:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem here is not a matter of two different edit versions. The problem here is that the material is unsourced. When mike says

However, harsh punishments for adultery, up to and including execution, are authorized by other passages in the Quran and Hadiths, and employed by literalists (usually extra-legally) attempting to justify honor killings:

This is original research. There are no sources on who these literalists are and you are assuming that somehow honor killing is implied by the quotes. There is no evidence here directly relating to honor killing. So Tickle me before getting amazed with sandpaper citations or accusing me of "grotesque behavior" please realize the point of dispute. The citations that Mike included are included with every verse, so there is nothing rich about that. I think mike needs to compromise here and I am not the only one who reverted him. Also Mike needs to read WP:NPOV. The last thing we need are more editors who want to bring controversial material without reading policy. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The shari'a prescribes harsh LEGAL treatment of adultery. The vast majority of Muslims do not believe that just any Muslim can take it into his head to enforce shari'a by killing women. Even the infamous Taliban, which did stone people for adultery, gave them trials first. If men kill women under their control in defense of their honor, that's culture, not shari'a.

Most Muslim regimes, past and present, did/do not enforce such harsh penalties. It is very hard to prove adultery in Muslim law; four witnesses are required. Even pregnancy isn't necessarily proof of adultery; it is allowed that a widow can be deemed to be pregnant by her husband even if he died more than nine months ago -- I don't have the exact figure at hand. It's physiologically impossible, and suggests to me that jurists had a strong interest in making it very hard to stone women. In all the reading I've done in Islamic history, the only stonings mentioned were those in the first few years of the Muslim community -- oh, and Abd-al-Wahhab's impromptu stoning in the 18th century, in Arabia. Furthermore, few regimes strictly enforced shari'a. Since it was left up to the state (the caliph, sultan, emir, pasha, whatever) to enforce shari'a, and since the state usually had interests OTHER than strictly religious, the law was applied somewhat erratically. Furthermore, the judges (muftis, qadis, whatever) appointed by the state were often corrupt and venal. Ordinary Muslims avoided the law whenever they could.

It's only recently that fervent Islamists have been clamoring for the reinstitutionalization of shari'a, often in harsh forms unsoftened by the centuries of equivocation encoded in traditional fiqh. However, I don't think that any Muslim state except the Taliban has stoned women. (Saudi Arabia could be an exception; need info here.) Courts have ruled for stoning, and then other authorities have intervened to prevent an act that many non-Muslims (and Muslims!) would feel to be barbaric. Bad press for whatever secular authorities allowed it.

I'm a woman and a Buddhist. I think the law re stoning is hideous. But I have to be fair and admit that most Muslims seem to have felt that way too. Zora 05:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Re "sources": I listed a source in the first attempt, and dropped it after the whole submission was hosed under the assumption that perhaps the editor did not approve of the source. However, since subsequents edits are still being nerfed, it's presently back in (when I'm around, anyway; check for my most recent edits).

2. > "There is no evidence here directly relating to honor killing...." -- This statement is simply bizarre -- all anyone has to do is toss "honor killing" into Google and discover a good percentage of the hits containing perpetrators confessing their motivations and rationalizations.

3. "Honor killings" -- If this Wiki entry is going to address the subject at all, then it should legitimately and honestly address the reasons those who committ them provide (they are, usually to nearly ubiquitously, accusations of adultry...even in cases of rape...with punishment in accordance with Muhammad's pronouncement of execution for that crime listed variously).

4. Persuant to the above, what "most Muslims" think or feel isn't relevant, if the context is a facet concerning only a few. Suffice to say that the fundamentalists regard the state as subservient to (their interpretation of) the dictates of Shariah, not the other way around. Consequently, they aren't terribly interested in what is "LEGAL". Slavery isn't "legal" either, but it still goes on in Niger, Sudan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, even Saudi Arabia.

5. Regards the claim of "It's only recently that fervent Islamists have been clamoring for the reinstitutionalization of shari'a" -- That's utter nonsense. It's more accurate to say that only recently have westerners became aware of such fervent clamoring due to the spread of communications technology throughout Islamdom. (Has anyone else here ever read a book entitled "The Iranian", pub. 1918? There's nothing new here, folks.)

6. > If men kill women under their control in defense of their honor, that's culture, not shari'a. -- Really? Is so, then it should be quite obvious that the following sentence: "'Honor killings' are, in the Western world, often erroneously identified as part of Islamic teaching" -- is just a smear against the "western world", since the "erroneous identification" is obviously not a problem of the western world, but one of factions within Muslim societies themselves. --mike18xx

I appreciate Zora's hard work and think her edits are usually great, but there is a link between honor killings and Islam. Islam does not punish, and really cannot punish, men who kill their near relatives. In effect, although it does not call for honor killings, it permits them and more or less encourages them. After all murder is a private family affair in Islamic law. If you kill someone their relatives decide whether to seek the death penalty or accept diya. So if you kill your sister, your father decides whether you will die or not. No guesses for which choice is the more popular. It is culture informed by Sharia. Try hanging a few fathers and see how quickly honor killings stop.

It is not the job, or not the sole job, of the state to enforce Sharia in traditional Muslim societies. It is a responsibility on all Muslims to see that it is enforced. So anyone can punish adultery including, of course, parents. But I agree the Hudud penalties are so harsh that even Muslim scholars tried to minimise them.

I have to agree that demands for Sharia are old, older than 1918. The Saudis stone. The Iranians stone. The Nigerians wanted to but were forced to stop. Sudan has stoned I think. Pakistan has imposed the punishment but is yet to carry it out.

One thing I do object to in the discussion of honor killing is the mention of other cultures. You cannot point to a handful of honor killings carried out in the West by Muslim migrants and say that the West has honor killings too. The fact is they are strongly associated with Islam and Muslims. Even those non-Muslim parts of the world where they occur tend to be cultures with long exposure to Islam - South America and northern India for example. It is a distortion to say they are not highly culturally specific. Lao Wai 12:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Mike18xx edits

After several times I tried compromise, Mike still reverts or changes it to the version he wants.

For compromise I agreed with Mike that much of the disputed "honor killing" information should be moved to it's article which he wanted. However he left a paragraph there which still speculates that Sharia prescribes honor killing using punitive verses but completely removed it's counter argument. This is even after I kept all the verses he gave. I had said that for the section to be completely neutral we should keep both paragraphs. He also keeps removing material on honor killing being a pre-Islamic custom, which it is. Mike, that material is necessary if you are going to accuse Islamic societies of practicing honor killing - a paragraph which I still kept. Also Mike please don't use IPs to revert or call your edits a revert when they aren't. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Mike18xx responds: 1. The "counter-argument" was clearly retained at the end of the section. 2. Accuracy is more important than "compromise", and "compromise" in turn is not equivalent to "neutral" (an even more arbitrary term) when it errs against accuracy -- and is bluntly obvious to me that several persons here are not at all interested in accuracy, and one of those persons is you (I cite your several attempts to delete the addition of Quran and Hadith quotations proscribing execution for adultry, as well as deletion of "Prophet Muhammad"). 4. I "kept removing material on honor killing being a pre-Islamic custom" since, with "honor killing" being solely referenced in the last sentence directing readers toward a Wiki link to it, it was no longer relevent. Suffice to say, the Prophet Muhammad's pronouncements regarding death-sentences for adultry (NOT "honor killing") most certainly is VERY RELEVANT -- yet you keep deleting that in preference to re-including the irrelevent ("honor killing") as a red-herring. Your material is not in any way "neutral", Mr. "Anonymous editor"; I do not have any reason to conclude, at this point, that either accuracy (or "neutrality") is in your interest; rather, your pattern indicates that you are interested in "running blocker" to misdirect, offer apologetics, and sweep "bad stuff" under the rung. 5. A reversion to a previous edit is a "revert"; your "edits" are no more meritorious that mine, or anyone else's.--Mike18xx 00:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Mike, you're as much as saying, "I don't have to try to work with other editors because I'm RIGHT". The standard WP answer to that is to step back and instead of using the article to promote your view of the truth, just make sure that ALL sides (all notable sides) are represented and that all arguments are referenced. Instead of trying to ERASE your opponents, just make sure that their views are stated accurately. You must trust the reader to pick the best side. So, have a para about "harsh Islamic views of adultery make honor killings more likely" and then a para about "it's not just Islam, phenomenon more widespread, legal penalties don't have anything to do with extra-legal customs".

I don't have the time or energy to wade into the article right now, but just let me point out here that Islam seems to have adopted stoning from Judaism (just as it adopted kosher meat and circumcision) and any argument that shari'a encourages honor killings applies also to the Torah and to Jews. Are Jews known for their touchy honor and killing of adulterous wives? Zora 01:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Mike18xx responds: Zora, it is *impossible* to work with "editors" who do not come to the talk page to discuss things, and whose obvious interest is in running blocker rather than in accuracy. I will not entertain, as being in the service of accuracy, any attempt to delete (1) justifications within the Quran and the Hadiths regarding harsh punishiments including execution for adultry or extramarital sex, or (2) that they are sourced from Muhammad himself. Furthermore, wherever Islam is alleged to have "adopted" anything is not a relevent "excuse" to "explain away" the fact that such things are happening in Islam now -- particularly not when Muhammad's own pronouncements (the foundation of Sharia, no?) are being deleted by the blockers.--Mike18xx 02:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"Suffice to say, the Prophet Muhammad's pronouncements regarding death-sentences for adultry (NOT "honor killing") most certainly is VERY RELEVANT": Mike18xx, that may be true, but inferring so yourself is original research. You'll have to find an contemporary expert on the field backing this viewpoint authoritatively. I too suspect articles on muslim subjects to be mostly biased (see Muslim_apostates, a sophist and polemic apology), but wikipedic rules must be obeyed. --tickle me 02:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Mike18xx responds: The Quran and Hadith quotations were sourced -- so where do you get off suggesting they're just my "original research"? (I am growing weary of that selectively-applied canard.) For instance, an arbitrary, qualifier-laden, unsourced throw-away phrase like "Many Islamic leaders and scholars..." say this or that appears to be perfectly fine, but heaven forbid the Prophet himself have a say without being "sourced" (or, for that, matter Osama bin Ladin -- a noted scholar of the Quran and Hadiths whom you'll observe I chose not to cite). --Mike18xx 03:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If you cite ...and infer upon it, than it's original research - true or false is not the issue. An encyclopedia is a collection of synthetic knowledge, interpreting a surah needs to be done by a noted scolar - even if you think its meaning should be obvious. I've rooted out quite a lot of rubbish her before (check my contribs on this talk page), Muslim_apostates is next, when I find the time for it. You need patience here and you'll have to accept the occasional devil's advocate, if you want to get things done. Ranting about edits and users won't help, this is a nitty gritty task. --tickle me 03:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

(Oh, he posted first but...) Just to jump in... we do not interpret the Qur'an and hadith here. Islamic tradition does and so do critics, no doubt. Spiritual texts may seem straightforward to you, but they are interpreted in so many different ways that it is original research to cite them as sources for interpretation... So no, you can't just cite Muhammad from the hadith... because not everyone accepts all hadiths and even among Sunni hadiths many scholars place different emphasis on different parts, or try to de-emphasize some hadith. That is why it's so complex and you can't just quote hadith or Qur'an as being necessarily doctrinal. gren グレン ^? 03:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Double Standards and Apologetics

(Continuing the above correspondance in new entry, as the indenting was becoming "pinched".)

The double-standards on display here are simply mind-boggling -- are any of you honestly disputing that recommendations for severe adultry punishment in nations under some form of Sharia Law are not sourced from Muhammad's teachings? Why does the current entry cater to apologists attempting to transmorgify severe adultry punishments (permitted by some interpretations) into "honor killing" (allegedly not permitted; I write "allegedly" because the standard expected of me is not being applied to the "interpreters" who claim it)? --Mike18xx 04:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not double standards, it's precision. It is very clear that the Qur'an does not approve of adultery. However, the Qur'an does not say that adulterers must be stoned. Recommendations to do so are found in the hadith, the recorded oral traditions, which were written down hundreds of years after Muhammad's death. Muslims themselves quarrel over which of the thousands of hadith are authentic. Non-Muslim scholars are extremely wary of hadith, and believe that many if not most of them are complete fabrications. They were invented to bolster positions taken by various groups of Muslims AFTER Muhammad's death. Hence you can't just trot out a hadith and say "Muhammad said this and therefore it's law". Do a little READING before you start attacking Islam. I'd suggest Herbert Berg's book, The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam, as a good introduction to the issues. Zora 08:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is wrong to say that just because hadith verses condemn something that they make honor killing legal. That was the first dispute with your version. Also I already included those hadith that you added, I haven't removed or changed them, they're still there but you keep reverting. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

<sarcasm> Yeah, I noticed everyone fumbling all over themselves to smoosh "Several Hadith urge strongly against beating one's wife..." when it appeared, using the very same reasoning.</sarcasm> Come on -- who do you think you're kidding? Precedent for inclusion of the Hadith is already there in the Wiki entry in that very section. Or are Hadith permissible only when there's "good news"?

> Non-Muslim scholars are extremely wary of hadith...

"Non-Muslim scholars"...as distinguished from whom? The non-non-Muslim scholars who aren't "extremely wary" of Hadith, and who are responsible for erecting wretched dictatorships like the Taliban? The accuracy of the Hadith in accounting for Muhammad's actual opinions isn't relevent; what's relevant is whether they are considered so in various regimes where Sharia Law is in effect.

> Do a little READING before you start attacking Islam....

"I-Cubed" logical fallacy.--Mike18xx 08:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. That should be better cited with scholarly works and not merely with the hadith. You will find that people are more apt to notice things they perceive as being overly attacking or overly apologist. When something is poorly cited but seems to go with what they have read then it will more likely go untouched.

Yes, Muslim scholars often accept a canon of hadith—especially in the more juristic eras. But, it's also important to differentiate between notable religious currents and government imposed religion. They can be similar but Musharraf is no Maududi. That is to say that attempts at sharia in Pakistan are not exactly universally accepted as religious doctrine. When we are discussing in these articles we are obviously limited to the major currents of Islamic jurisprudence and regimes like the Taliban just don't fit. This article really isn't very good. Major rulings on things aren't nearly as important as the concept of Islamic law. We can have views and rulings on other pages. I don't feel that I am well enough equipped to rewrite it... but I am well enough versed to track when many things go against many opinions and need to be more clearly represented.

I think Zora is assuming your I³ based on the fact that what you says contradicts what she has read. And Zora has read a fair amount on these subjects and is one of the most well versed editors we have. You should know the complexities of exegesis and acknowledge it... that might help to quell some of the differences. Point out problems with the page like you did in your first point. That is good. Confidence building measures. gren グレン ^? 08:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I regret to disagree with your last point. No amount of knowledge or contributions to Wikipedia is an excuse for ad hominem attacks. It may be an explanation, but not an excuse.--Pecher 13:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Zora could have put it in a better way. She obviously doesn't know how much he has read on the subject and I didn't mean to say what she did was good. I also don't think it's admonishable, she attacked his knowledge about the subject which is really relevant to this whole discussion. It really wasn't ad hominem, meaning the logical fallacy. Mike asserted what he thought; Zora told him to read more before saying what he thought. The obvious implication is that she believes (and I do too) he needs to research more. gren グレン ^? 23:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I still strongly consider that the last paragraph in the Domestic Justice section, beginning with the sentences Many Islamic leaders and scholars condemn the practice of honor killing that some critics argue, and strongly deny that it is based on religious doctrine. Indeed honor killings themselves are not prescribed by the religious doctrine of Sharia. -- remains a misdirection in that it confuses and conflates killing over honor with the considerably more pertinent aspect of punishments for adultery or extramarital sex. I.e., it's surreptitious apologetics marketed to credulous ears. Suffice to say that in the real world, as opposed to the one with fluffy, hopping bunnies administered by those alleged big-hearted "many leaders", a female accused of extra-marital sex is in mortal danger across a fairly significant hunk of Planet Earth, and lives or dies depending upon how fervently her male relatives adhere to whatever was brow-beaten into them at the madrasses. Regards the "many Islamic leaders and scholars" -- those who matter are the ones who are calling the shots in the various nations subject to Sharia.

The next sentence in that paragraph, Historically honor killing is actually a pre-Islamic, tribal custom stemming from the patriarchal or patrilineal society's interest in keeping full control over power structures within a family or clan. -- is merely a "tu quo" logical fallacy within the context. I.e., "Other people did it too before we did, so there's nothing to see here; move along now...."--Mike18xx 17:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that talking about pre-Islamic cultures is meant to distinguish between cultural and religious values—as much as they can be distinguished. I think if it all is true (and I yield to what Zora has said below) then it is relevant due to the fact that scholars and apologists alike have claimed that it was a pre-Islamic custom. It is in no way putting any moral judgment on honor kill—which is why it's not "tu quo" as you say—it's an attempt to trace the roots of honor killings and how they came to be so prevelant in Islamic societies today. gren グレン ^? 23:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

<quote>it's an attempt to trace the roots of honor killings and how they came to be so prevelant in Islamic societies today.<unquote> -- I cannot fathom how any reader of the article would draw that conclusion just from reading that particular paragraph. Rather, when browsing the "Domestic Justice" section from top to bottom, one gets the sense that whomever wrote the bulk of it felt that Islam or Sharia was "on trial"; prior to my section, it's essentially like examining the transcript of a defense attorney's account of the virtues of his client, and gathering that the man might be guilty of something if his lawyer's lips are moving. E.g., "No! 'honor killing' isn't part of Shariah; Islam disapproves of it!", leading one to wonder "WTF? Are girls getting ganked over there? How many? Where? Why? By whom? 5,000! A *year*! Holy Smokes! How's that possible if it's 'not permitted'?" Etc, etc. But there's no nitty-gritty skinny low-down on why it's happening, or why the madrasses are cranking out psychotic misanthropes despite all the cheery good news on Wikipedia.--Mike18xx 00:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

But you're saying if Islam disapproves why is it happening? Most branches of Islam disapprove of abortion and it happens. That's the problem... the fact that something happens does not necessarily implicate the religion. I really don't understand what you're trying to say with all of that. gren グレン ^? 23:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Grenavitor, when something is allegedly "disapproved" of, but thousands of instances of it happen per year anyway, with few perpetrators ever facing any significant condemnations, let alone reprisal, by Islamic clerics, it because extraordinarily difficult to believe the alleged disapproval in the first place. Rather, one becomes increasingly convinced that it's nothing but al-takeyya propaganda.--Mike18xx 20:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

A thing is forbidden in Sharia , its forbidden . A thing happens in a culture , it happens in that culture . Its plain & simple . Ask scholars if you dont understand anything , not dum bloggers . Too much idiotic sites kill neurons . You can keep on believing whatever you want to . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^{^/c} 20:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever "version" of Sharia which is in effect in an area under "Sharia Law" is determined by the ruling clerics there. When there is a high correlation of harsh punishments for alleged extra-marital sex (usually undertaken independantly by male family members; e.g., "honor killings") with those very same areas, your assertions regarding what is "forbidden" become difficult to swallow. "not dum bloggers . Too much idiotic sites kill neurons" By all means, become even more unglued in your succeeding commentary -- it exposes the al-takeyya agenda against Wikipedia even further.--Mike18xx 21:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no area in the world that is completely under Sharia Law , Bush wont give it a chance to survive .If Quran says you cant kill , no cleric can change it & clerics dont rule in Islam . All killings are done by the Government in Islamic law , only after the Qazi/judge finds the person guilty , not by family members . If a person kills anybody for whatever reason, he is a murderer . What is al-takeyya , where is it found in Quran & Hadith , dont tell me , ask your gurus . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^{^/c} 21:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Of course, it's all evil Bush's fault that the US military is presently occupying Riyadh, Tehran and Islamabad, or, for that matter, (rm blacklisted link)</sarcasm> What is al-takeyya? I'm sure a smart boy like you could pop it into Google and look it up. That is, if you're not alreadly lying straight-up through your crooked teeth, as I increasingly suspect.--Mike18xx 23:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Mike, stop that now. There is no reason to speak to anyone here in such a manner. The fact is that there are many interpretations of sharia. I am sure some do accept honor killing type actions and some don't. The point is that government actions don't mean that those are the prevalent interpretations. So, do talk about the issues at hand (both of you) and Mike, I expect that you never act like that again. gren グレン ^? 00:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Grav, you stop your hypocrisy, vandalism and obfuscation. I've visited your user page;, and your game is transparent. Or perhaps you'd like to tell all the nice people assembled here what "Fascists in Christian Clothing: The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" was all about.--Mike18xx 01:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fascists in Christian Clothing: The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. I stated my reasons there. Now let's get back to the issue at hand. Direct any further comments about this to my user talk page. If you think that's too private and want others to see send them messages but this is not the place. So stop. gren グレン ^? 02:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Honor killing and pre-Islamic custom

That sentence re pre-Islamic custom is, actually, not supportable from the existing evidence (which is thin on the ground). I agree that it's nothing introduced by Islam, but it may not have been a custom in pre-Islamic Arabia, merely one practiced by the Byzantines or the Persians. We'd need a history of honor-killing to sort that out. I spose I ought to read that Wikipedia article ...

It is true that Muslim authorities tolerated the practice, much to the shame of Islam. But then, so did Christian authorities. I think that French law still allows men to kill their unfaithful wives if they find them in flagrante delicto. Christian-majority countries have to a great extent erased the old tolerance; Muslim-majority countries haven't. There are many Muslim reformers who are trying to change this.

Now if there's a widespread opinion, on the part of both Muslim traditionalists and anti-Muslim agitators, that honor killing is either required or condoned by Islam, that should be included in the article on honor-killing. It really doesn't belong HERE, because this article is about shari'a, Islamic law, and honor-killing is not part of shari'a. The argument that shari'a leads to honor-killing is Mike's and is original research at this point. Mike needs to come up with cites from some other thinker, and some indication that his position is widely held. Zora 18:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Laughable Errors

"The Qur'an also places a dress code upon its followers. For women, it emphasizes modesty. Allah says in the Qur'an, "And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts and not to display their adornment (interpreted as the hair and body-shape) except that which ordinarily appears thereof (interpreted as the face and hands) and to draw their headcovers over their chests and not to display their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands fathers, their sons, . . . ." (surat an-Nur verse 31). All those in whose presence a woman is not obliged to practice the dress code are known to be her mahrams. Men have a dress code which is more relaxed: the loins must be covered from knee to waist. The rationale given for these rules is that men and women are not to be viewed as sexual objects.

Turkey, a predominantly Muslim country, has laws against these dress codes in schools and work places. After the declaration of the Republic in 1923, as part of revolutions brought by Ataturk, a modern dress code was encouraged. It is against the law to wear a head scarf while attending public school in Turkey, as well as France, where the recently enacted rule caused huge public controversy."

Is anyone implying that Turkey obliges women to show their naked chests and display their 'adornments'? Turkey only banned the BURQA, and it can be argued that the Quran never specifically perscribed that particular dress anyway. Amibidhrohi 23:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

New important link

I hope the article will be accessible again soon, because I want to add an important link:

Islamic Law: An Ever-Evolving Science Under The Light of Divine Revelation and Human Reason

CuriousOliver 20:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.