Talk:Application of Sharia by country

Situation in the United Kingdom

As explained and reffed on Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, in the United Kingdom sharia tribunals do NOT make legally binding decisions the way courts do, ie can NOT marry and divorce as to change personal status under UK law. The Sharia councils' decisions are no more binding that a contract between the parties. Littledogboy (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed from the article. Littledogboy (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's a newspaper article about the implementation of sharia in the UK: What can sharia courts do in Britain?

"...And a sharia court in Britain has no power to grant a divorce that is valid in English law. Divorce is a matter of personal status. There is a fundamental difference between questions of status — which are for the state to decide — and disputes between individuals, which they may resolve as they wish. "

However, it goes on to say:

"Unless there are procedural irregularities, the arbitrator’s decision — known as an award — will be enforced in the same way as a court ruling."

So it would seem that they do, in fact, have the ability to make legally binding decisions.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, contracts between two people are binding too! But if married by a sharia council in the UK, you are still single under UK law. What sharia councils can do, for example, is to rule on how to divide someone's estate between the heirs. The heirs meet up, and the council can decide it for them – but this is only valid insofar as they all accept it; inherently, no more than if they signed a contract between them. So, the councils definitelly may not adjudicate in personal status matters, merely act as alternative dispute resolution, which private companies can do as well. Besides, they may not apply sharia law, if this constituted a breach of UK law. Littledogboy (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

From the website of one of the largest sharia councils in Britain ([1]), they're mostly concerned with Khula cases (divorce initiated by a woman), for Islamic marriages (and not civil ones). Sharia courts do not conduct marriages even in countries with full sharia, so it would have been strange if they did conduct them.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected, they do not deal with marriages but grant islamic divorces, and also mediate disputes. What I am saying is, whatever they conduct has no bearing on one's legal personal status – no more then of I tell you: You are now divorced. Re marriages, although polygamy is prohibited by law in the UK, if you are in an Islamic marriage, you can still legally marry someone else in civil marrige in this country. Littledogboy (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Decisions taken by a sharia court can be accepted by English courts ([2]), which is more than can be said about sharia in countries like Turkey, where it has no legal standing whatsoever. Instead, the situation in the UK seems similar to the one in Indonesia (other than Aceh), where there is a choice between secular and religious courts. The British sharia courts operate under the Arbitration Act 1996, which makes rulings binding once both parties have given authority to the arbitrator. Given all that, the entry for the UK should be kept in the article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting aricle you link to, Mr, and these quotes it contains:

1/ "It is right that agreements decided privately in family cases must be authorised by a judge applying English law if they are to have any legal effect." — shadow justice secretary Nick Herbert.

2/ "Sharia law has no jurisdiction in England and Wales and the government has no intention to change this position." — a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice.

Ergo: Yes, sharia councils can operate as ADR, but may not apply sharia law.

Littledogboy (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The very purpose of these sharia councils is to apply sharia law, if they didn't do that they would have no reason to exist. They do so within the framework of the ADR system, so what? How is that relevant to determine the exclusion of the UK entry from the article?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you have a point there, but I think you would be redefinining the list by adding the UK, as we have asked a different question here: In which non-muslim countries are you legally free to choose a sharia-based arbitrator (or mediator) equally to any other arbitrator, and where is this expressly outlawed. The Economist [3] seems to suggest the USA belongs to the former, for example! Also, we are opening another question: In which countries it forms a de-facto parallel legal system, ie although they have no official legal basis, people still abide by such rulings [4]. Those are complicated questions we have run into, and interesting methinks.

The colour in the map is misleading, though, as sharia councils can not change your personal status, ie they can not rule on personal status issues. Littledogboy (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The British sharia councils can rule on some personal status issues, such as divorce, provided their rulings they don't conflict with English law. If US courts accept and recognise sharia-based arbitrations on similar issues, by all means add it to the article. I've come across some newspaper articles claiming that some Canadian provinces had a system of religious arbitration similar to the British one, but it was since abolished. As for the second question: the idea behind the article was always to limit it to the official, state-sanctioned applications of sharia, otherwise it would be almost impossible to classify each country in any meaningful way.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

In the UK cannot rule on divorce! Cannot divorce a marriage valid in the face of English law. Littledogboy (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Quoting own message from 4 days ago, "from the website of one of the largest sharia councils in Britain ([5]), they're mostly concerned with Khula cases (divorce initiated by a woman), for Islamic marriages (and not civil ones)." I think we have established that by now, haven't we? They don't issue civil divorces, and neither does any other sharia court in the world, by definition. So that's not a valid objection to the inclusion of the UK to this article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, no bearing on personal status in the UK. Personal status = single / divorced; pronouncement by an islamic tribunal: no change. On the other hand, "Recognition of full Talaqs performed overseas [...] will be recognised if either spouse was: [...] a national of that country." [6] My understanding: Talaq will change your UK personal status only if performed in, say, Pakistan, but not if performed in the UK. How else to look at it? Littledogboy (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Then, the decisions of sharia-based arbitrations don't change the personal status. But what do they do?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Why does this article portray the UK as both grey (on the map) and red (in the legend)? Seems like one should be changed to be in concurrence with the other. 2001:983:BBCF:1:8DFE:16FA:A0A6:54CA (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Guayana and Suriname are not countries with a majority of muslim population, the map is wrong

in the map sharia in the world, (if you click and enlarge the map) appears that Guayana and Suriname are: Muslim-majority countries and members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation where sharia plays no role in the judicial system, but they are not! The percent of muslim population in these countries is 7% in Guayana and 13,9% in Suriname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.67.124.226 (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Both Guyana and Suriname are members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Kuwait and IP 62.232.16.82 edits

User at 62.232.16.82 - I have kept your constructive edits, but removed offtopic stuff. The Kuwait reference must be read in its context, which is commercial and trade related. It is not a reliable source for criminal and civil laws for Kuwait. Your contributions are welcome, but please do not delete citations. Let us discuss your concerns on this talk page. RLoutfy (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"Law No. 16 and 17 of 1960 provide the penal and criminal codes", but Law No. 16 and 17 of 1960 aren't relevant to the application of Sharia law in Kuwait because Kuwait's penal/criminal codes aren't based on Sharia Law. The source doesn't mention Sharia Law's affiliation to Law No. 16 and 17 of 1960 (penal and criminal codes). There is no need to mention that "Law No. 16 and 17 of 1960 provide the penal and criminal codes", because it's not relevant to the application of Sharia law in Kuwait. SamaraAhmed (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Elements of sharia are there in Kuwait's criminal and penal code on capital punishment, laws relating to same sex relations, media law, hisbah, etc.; For example, see Article 193 of Law 16. I acknowledge the NYU source does not mention sharia's affiliation to Law 16/17, so I am removing that sentence. I will later add Law 16/17 along with Law 19 of 2012 for Kuwait, citing scholarly sources that explain sharia's affiliation to these. RLoutfy (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Kuwait has various media laws, it is better to clarify that the internet filtering is faith-based. The source itself doesn't not mention that internet filtering is based on Sharia Law, but rather "faith-based". SamaraAhmed (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The table on page 262 does mention sharia, column 2. Page 261 too. The ideology/blasphemy/etc blocking are all related to sharia. Non-internet media too has restrictions in Kuwait, as do proselytization laws against non-Muslims under its criminal code. I will hold off till I find time to get more sources. RLoutfy (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The case of Morocco

About the recent changes to the entry for Morocco, I have found a copy of the Moroccan Penal Code, which I assume is up to date with the latest developments. The articles 220-221, which are all cited in the article, criminalise perceivedly unislamic behaviour such as breaking fast publicly during ramadan or proselytising while "exploiting the weakness" of others. But they don't apply any sharia provision in doing so, given that the punishments (a fine or up to six months in prison) have no basis under any interpretation of Islamic law. (From a rapid Google search there doesn't seem to be a prescribed punishment for breaking fast in the hadith, other than hellfire). I don't see how they're relevant in an article titled "application of sharia law by country", they might be worth discussing in other places such as Human rights in Morocco, but not here. @RLoutfy:--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There are two parts to Islamic law - what is a crime/forbidden/prohibited/unislamic behavior, and what punishment/provisions must be sentenced after a crime/forbidden act is established. The text in the Morocco section doesn't claim they apply sharia provisions. It says "Articles 220-221, 268-272 of its criminal law similarly codify those activities as crimes that are prohibited under Sharia.[40]". See pages 122-124 of the cited Leon Buskens source for support. RLoutfy (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If no claim is made that sharia provisions are applied in those laws, they should not be mentioned in the article at all: the notes are there to provide evidence in support of the classification in one of the three categories (sharia plays no role / personal status only / full sharia), and in this case, the source cannot be used to claim that Morocco applies sharia for criminal law. Buskens mentions article 222 as a "norm derived from Islamic law", which is not to say that it applies or codifies sharia, which is the threshold for including a country in the 'full sharia' category.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sharia is another term for Islamic law. Articles 220-221 etc should be mentioned, because not mentioning it is misleading. The default assumption would be "sharia plays no role" in Moroccan law, which is incorrect. Or, "personal status only", which is incorrect as well. Sharia/Islamic law does play a role in Moroccan criminal law, in defining what is a crime, as Leon Buskens explains. It is secondary matter whether the punishment may or may not be according to Sharia.

The old classification is flawed and misleading - it should have more than three categories (sharia plays no role / personal status only / full sharia). One of the additional categories should be "sharia plays some role in criminal/civil law". RLoutfy (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I do know that Islamic law and sharia are synonymous, the critical distinction here is that it is merely "derived" rather than an application of sharia, and the difference is crucial, because in one case the law is simply a man-made regulation meant to protect Islamic morals, while in the other the law is an acknowledgement of the divinely revealed will of God. The rules laid down by those articles are no different from the ban on pornography or restrictions on gambling, which are also derived from Islamic morals, but are not an application of sharia, hence they have no place in this article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with you, and agree with Leon Buskens' article in Jan Otto's edited publication. Buskens writes, "Article 222 is one of the few stipulations of the criminal code that explicitly refers to a norm derived from Islamic law." You are partly correct that some Moroccan criminal code is based on Islamic morals, not Sharia. Buskens too acknowledges that on page 124, when he writes, "Other articles that can be understood as a protection of Islamic norms without being directly founded on classical Islamic law...." Our goal for this encyclopedic article, should include completeness, balance and neutral presentation. Our goal should not be to mislead by silence or hide information. If some parts of law for a country apply laws derived from sharia law, we should include it and clarify that it is so. Not doing so leaves the reader with misleading information. RLoutfy (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't intend to mislead anyone nor to conceal any information, and I'm sure the same goes for you, so let's avoid similarly unhelpful comments in the future. You wrote: "some Moroccan criminal code is based on Islamic morals, not Sharia"; is any part of the Moroccan criminal code based on sharia? From what I read so far, I would say no. If you think otherwise, what grounds do you have to support your views?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Same as Buskens, "Article 222 is one of the few stipulations of the criminal code that explicitly refers to a norm derived from Islamic law." We both agreed that Islamic law and sharia are synonymous. RLoutfy (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I replied to this same objection yesterday. Article 222 is a man-made law based on Islamic morals, it's not an application of (divine) sharia, as is clarified by the further examples cited by Buskens. There is a substantial difference between the two.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That is not what Leon Buskens has published. He writes, Article 222 "explicitly refers to a norm derived from sharia". I did not include all Articles that Leon Buskens' wrote about such as those on page 124; I included just those that he links to sharia. For your view on Article 222, find a verifiable scholarly source, or one that refutes Leon Buskens. I am fluent in French and Arabic, have visited Morocco, met lawyers there, have read the Quran and Hadiths and other Islamic literature, and I believe you are wrong. But, this talk page is not the place for a private discussion. You should find and provide a reliable source that contradicts Leon Buskens, and I will reconsider. RLoutfy (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I could not possibly find a source to refute a claim Buskens does not make. He never claims that Art 222 applies sharia (which is has a different meaning from derived from or inspired by), and neither have you provided any source that makes that claim so far, so it should not be included in an article titled "Application of sharia law by country".--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Neither does the article version over the last few days. The article reads, "Article 222 of its new criminal code is derived from Islamic law." Leon Buskens source states, "Article 222 is one of the few stipulations of the criminal code that explicitly refers to a norm derived from Islamic law." Will you be okay if we rephrase the current wording in this article to, "Article 222 of Morocco's criminal code, states Leon Buskens, explicitly refers to a norm derived from sharia"? RLoutfy (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Article 222 has nothing to do with the application of sharia in Morocco, Buskens never claims it does, and in fact strongly hints it doesn't. It has no place in this article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I already replied to this, so I will not repeat my arguments. You can find Buskens stating exactly what I quoted above, on page 122, paragraph 2, line 1. This article should include a summary about legal code that are "parts of and based on norms derived from sharia". We have a dispute, our discussion is getting circular. I am starting an RfC. RLoutfy (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Secular system and controversy section

@Underlying lk: - you removed the controversy section, with this edit. I had added this because the article uses the term 'secular' later, and the context of this word is unclear. We can do one of three things - (a) scrub the entire article of the word secular, because as you put it, "this article is about whether, and to what extent, sharia is applied in a given country;"; (b) include the controversies section to help clarify the context of word "secular" used later in the article (and may be re-introduced/used in future versions of this article by other editors); or (c) clarify the term's multiple meanings in another way. What are your thoughts? RLoutfy (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I would go with (a), the word 'secular' is used mostly where sources explicitly stating that this or that country does not follow sharia are hard to come by, but trying to define secularism here in relation to Islam would add another layer of complexity to an article that already relies on many potentially confusing distinctions.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: some common sense should be applied in every case, and when the outcome of this 'scrubbing' is leaving a whole section blank, or twisting the meaning of the sentence with awkward coinages such as 'non-sharia' in place of 'secular', the original word should be left in. I won't agree with a carpet ban on every use of the word 'secular' within the article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The term "secular" is misleading. If you want 'secular' in places, we should make the effort and explain the context. Which of the other options you like - (b) or (c). I am open to either.

For caption, you should look for sources, "explicitly stating that this or that country does not follow sharia in civil and criminal laws". I will not agree to "but otherwise have a secular legal system" in caption - as this is incorrect, is original research, and lacks WP:V with reliable published source for each country colored that way. RLoutfy (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

We should not try to define the word 'secular' within this article. But we could, as a compromise, add an interwiki to wikt:en:secular the first time the word is used.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That interwiki link by itself would mislead. Find sources requested above, for each country, and I will reconsider. I am fine with the use of word 'secular' or 'derived from secular system' if and only if a reliable source explicitly states so (just like above for Morocco). RLoutfy (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Use of colour for accessibility purposes

I love the use of colour through this article for a person like me, who likes to use this to define sections. I do, however, believe that this might inhibit people whose accessibility issues might be prohibitive in gaining the meanings of the colours. I suggest that each colour be supplemented with a letter or number key with which to further disambiguate each of the stati so that everybody can benefit from reading through this page. --150.101.222.216 (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia

The three regions have passed laws, as attested by the cited sources. This is notable and relevant to the topic. For balance and neutral point of view, we should include, and the article does include, that the regional laws face federal opposition and challenge. The lack of implementation needs better source, not opinion of a political party. RLoutfy (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

By choosing to reinstate an ambiguous claim based on a 12-year old source ("this law faced federal opposition") you have created more POV issues than you might have solved by removing a weak (in your opinion) source. I hope you'll be satisfied with my latest attempt at compromise because this petty edit warring is becoming tiresome.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Your new edit looks much better. It summarizes all sides. RLoutfy (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC: question about "application of sharia" in the article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should "application of sharia" in this article include "legal code that applies parts of and norms derived from sharia"?

The context for the dispute and discussion can be found on talk page here; and therein, the terms sharia, Islamic law and religious law of Islam are synonymous. RLoutfy (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Notes: (a) See clarification of question below (bolded to help find it) (b) (User: Underlying lk | eh bien mon prince) and (User: RLoutfy) are parties to the dispute.

• No After reading the linked context of the dispute, it appears the crux of the question is whether even merely customary references to the hadiths that have been codified into statute qualify a nation as being a user of "sharia law" - a term that has a peculiar and specific meaning in pop culture. This seems overkill and would be akin to putting in a WP article that Texas is governed according to Mosaic Law because there's a Ten Commandments sculpture on the front lawn of the state capitol. This type of application will only serve to confuse the average reader. DocumentError (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That Texas example suggests the RfC question is unclear. To clarify - (a) the question is not about calling a nation as a user of sharia law, (b) the question is not about inferring or doing original research from sculpture or other social artifacts whether a country is a user of sharia law. The question is about (c) whether this article should include summary from published reliable sources that discuss which parts of sharia are in legal code of that country, and (d) whether we should include summary of parts of the legal code of that nation when it is derived from sharia, where published reliable sources state so.

For depth to the context of the dispute between (Underlying lk | eh bien mon prince) and I, here is what Article 222 of Morocco is about - "A person commonly known to be Muslim who publicly violates the (sharia-required) fast during Ramadan, without having one of the justifications allowed by Islamic law, shall be punished by one to six months in prison and a fine." That Article is based on norms derived from sharia, states Leon Buskens in a Jan Otto edited book that has been widely cited in this article. I believe including a sentence about Article 222 and other legal code derived from sharia in Morocco, is useful information and would enhance the reference value of this article.

FWIW, the current article already summarizes cases of implementation of parts of sharia, in the context of personal and family laws. This sharia-based personal law summary has been included by numerous wikipedia contributors of past. Extending this article's summary to include legal code that partially implements sharia in criminal, civil, economic and other laws, whether as positive law or customary law, would be a useful addition. RLoutfy (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

From the above clarification, you seem to agree that Art 222 and the rest cannot be considered an application of sharia law, yet you still want to include them in the article. I think that a similar approach would make the article more confusing than necessary, but I would support their inclusion in Human rights in Morocco or a similar article that is not strictly about sharia.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Great. The answer is still "no." DocumentError (talk) 04:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

(Underlying lk | eh bien mon prince) - You seem to agree that Article 222 of Morocco refers to sharia and is derived from sharia. That then is application of sharia through positive law. RLoutfy (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"Application of sharia through positive law" is an oxymoron.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Not to scholars. See Jan Otto's other papers, and Yasrul Huda's publication, for example. Even Abdullahi An-Na'im acknowledges that many Muslim nations have been busy legislating parts of sharia as positive law. RLoutfy (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Laws that draw from Islamic morals but are not sharia should not be used in this article as evidence that a given country is applying sharia. For example, the Code of Personal Status in Tunisia is derived from Maliki and Hanafi family law (ie, from sharia), but it is considered secular because it is a positive (man-made) law, rather than divine law.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• No - per well argued comments by DocumentError. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Greece

In Greece sharia law applies in civil law issues (marriage, inheritance etc) for the muslim minority of Western Thrace, I think it shouldbe added on the catalogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.45.67 (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It should be, if you can find a reliable source for that.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

POV

User:Underlying lk:

• When it comes about laws in specific country, then official data should be used, not interpretations by third side which are often dubious and biased.
• Article is about sharia law, not "flogging" or "stoning". That's selective pick-up one out of hundreds of specific laws.
• Regarding alleged "stoning in Iran", it can be found only in Sunni hudud on paper, but it doesn't exist in practice for many decades. Similar situation is in Yemen.

--Qizilbash123 (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Qizilbash123: you didn't even read the source, did you? "Article 83: Adultery in the following cases shall be punishable by stoning: (1) Adultery by a married man who is wedded to a permanent wife with whom he has had intercourse and may have intercourse when he so desires […] Adultery of a married woman with a minor is punishable by flogging". This is directly from the penal code of Iran, how more official do you want it?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Underlying lk:, of course I did but I've made clear distinction between theory and practice. Iranian hudud (Book 2 of the Penal Code) is collection of various Shia Ja'fari & Zaydi and Sunni Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki & Shafi'i laws, according to the Article 12 of constitution (this should be added inside), so local judges applies their own rules depending on Islamic branch. As you probably know, stoning is based on Sunni hadiths (Bukharia and Muslim), not Quran or Shia texts. Since 1979 Iranian judiciary is centralized and capital punishment must be approved bi high court, which consists only of Usuli Ja'fari Shia judges. Since their jurisprudence isn't of fundamentalist type (literary interpretation) like Wahhabi and because Khomeini & Ardebili banned stoning in 1981, they change every single such verdict. It's not my own interpretation, for example Mohammad Ali Asfanani (chief of judicial committee of Majlis) personally stated that no such verdict was carried out since revolution. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Qizilbash123: If you have a reliable source for the lack of enforcement, you can add it to the article where it mentions those punishments, but not mentioning flogging and stoning at all while they're still on the statute books would be a disservice to the readers.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Members vs observers

Why is Bosnia shown as a "Member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation" when in the linkthrough to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Organisation_of_Islamic_Cooperation the country is shown as only an observer? By this stretch, Russia might as well be a 'member'. Either that or Bosnia needs to be removed. Are there others? This needs to be revised.

Indonesia

As the article explains, Sharia is only optional and people can choose if they want a civil law court or sharia law court as such it doesn't seem fitting to use the same colour as Malaysia where Muslims have to go to sharia courts and cannot go to secular courts. Wouldn't it be more fitting to use another colour for Indonesia? Gati123 (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

"Islamic law"

Sharia means "Islamic law". Saying "Sharia law" is redundant. Therefore, I'm moving this to "Application of Islamic law by country", though "Application of Sharia by country" would also be a valid title.Bless sins (talk) 08:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Application of Islamic law by country. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141020031048/http://www.lup.nl/do.php?a=process_visitor_download&editorial_id=1562 to http://www.lup.nl/do.php?a=process_visitor_download&editorial_id=1562
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141020031048/http://www.lup.nl/do.php?a=process_visitor_download&editorial_id=1562 to http://www.lup.nl/do.php?a=process_visitor_download&editorial_id=1562

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

No citation on Edit-summary assertion

In this removal of content from the article, Edrussia567, the citation (also removed) still supports the material about Algerian law. If the law has changed since '09 or so (the apparent date of the State Department document cited), a new cite with the new status would seem the better edit. Just removing the old status seems a step backwards; particularly with the unsupported assertion in the Edit summary. If I were in the situation of knowing a fact was outdated and having no possibility of finding a cite to show the update, I think I'd put in the best statement of the new status I could along with {{Citation needed|date=December 2016}} (and leaving the old status in the article, with its cite, for historical value). I'm glad to consider this in different ways and would appreciate response. Thanks for your contributions. Swliv (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

First citation - mission

First citation is bad, can anyone find the original? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bidimaker (talk • contribs) 21:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Aceh 2009 law implementing Islamic law was vetoed and not in effect

Aceh 2009 law implementing Islamic law was vetoed by the governor and did not become effective. So I removed reference to this law from the article [7]. RS'es confirming this: ... the provincial administration under then governor Irwandi Yusuf refused to sign or implement the bylaw (Jakarta Post) or The measure was not approved by the governor and so it has been unenforceable (paper in the Journal of Islamic Studies), provided as requested by Eperoton in his edit summary. Besides, I'm working on Islamic criminal law in Aceh which hopefully will shed more clarity on the subject. HaEr48 (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@HaEr48: Thanks. We should either replace the BBC ref with your source, if it covers what's left of the statement but gives an update; or, if it doesn't, we should add your ref to it. Otherwise, someone may just add the removed part per the cited source. Do I understand correctly that the governor vetoed the part about stoning but not the part about caning? Eperoton (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton: He vetoed the entire thing, but another law was passed in 2014 (this time approved by governor) covering most of the 2009 law - the notable difference was that stoning was no longer included. Therefore, as far as I understand caning is currently enforced (based on the 2014 law) but stoning is not. I have sources to back this up, currently updating Islamic criminal law in Aceh with them. HaEr48 (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@HaEr48: Ok, when you get a chance, please update the text and sources in this table too. The timeline and sourcing here are now a kind of garbled approximation of what you're describing. Eperoton (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Application of Islamic law by country. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402122013/http://unpos.unmissions.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=RkJTOSpoMME%3D to http://unpos.unmissions.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=RkJTOSpoMME%3D
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151022020506/http://dubai.usconsulate.gov/emergency_uae_court.html to http://dubai.usconsulate.gov/emergency_uae_court.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006151535/http://7daysindubai.com/news-14918/ to http://7daysindubai.com/news-14918/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006154624/http://7daysindubai.com/expat-faces-death-stoning-admitting-court-cheating-husband/ to http://7daysindubai.com/expat-faces-death-stoning-admitting-court-cheating-husband/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Germany

"Sharia is part of Germany's private law through the regulations of the German international private law. It applies to people with nationalities from countries using Sharia. Its application is limited by the ordre public."
This is a gross misrepresentation of what the source actually says. The Sharia is most definitely not "part of Germany's private law", and international private law is not German but, as the name implies, international law. The source comments on a minor legal technicality that, in my view, has no place in this article.
Does anyone want to defend this entry or can we just delete it? --EnOreg (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it's misleading to state that "Sharia is part of Germany's private law", but I don't think it's a minor technicality that in some cases "a German civil court is obliged [...] to apply sharia", or as another source puts it "The marriages of a man with several women under Muslim law abroad are recognized as valid marriages. Social benefits such as widow pensions are shared among the widows." [8] I don't know this area of law well enough to say what other Muslim-minority countries have such provisions, but I don't believe that's the case everywhere. For example, polygamy is a felony in some parts of the US, and many US states have recently passed legislation that blocks any provisions of foreign laws from being enforced, as a way to impose a Ban on sharia law. This article should provide information about such distinctions, so I think similar information should be added rather than removed. Eperoton (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Note, though, that all examples I could find concern only questions of marriage, no German national must be involved, and they are further constrained by the ordre public. How about this wording:

"Sharia rules on matrimony may be recognized by German courts based on private international law if no party has German citizenship. Their application is further limited by the ordre public."

--EnOreg (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and polygamy is neither legal nor recognized. It just may have legal implications where it concerns entitlements such as inheritance or pensions. Source in German. --EnOreg (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I think your phrasing is fine. The question of recognition is complex, and it sounds like we have a disagreement between RSs. According to this editorial, "Die deutsche Justiz [...] gewährt nur solche Ansprüche, die auf den Ehemann gerichtet sind". But, for example, what about hospital visit rights (big issue for same sex partners)? We would need some technical legal publications rather than journalists quoting politicians. Probably best to keep out of further specifics for now. Eperoton (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for the good discussion. I've made the change. --EnOreg (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I object to the current phrasing. "may" is inocrrect because the application of the law is obligatory. Also the application is not limited to marriage laws but potentially covers all of what is determenied in the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

"May" was supposed to express that there are further conditions to applying Sharia rules that we cannot discuss in detail. I agree that, if all conditions are met, applying the rules is not optional. Can you suggest a better wording?

I don't see any evidence that the application extends beyond family law, certainly not the entire BGB. Do you have any references for what you'd like to see included? Thanks, --EnOreg (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it shoud say "has to be applied". Concerning the other point is says so in the introductory law for the BGB. But at least it should be made clear that in these cases sharia also applies to inheritance and child custody issues. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

OK: ″Under certain conditions, Sharia rules on domestic relations are recognized by German courts [...]″ — Better? --EnOreg (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Myanmar (Burma) is wholly missing except for the map.

Myanmar is on the map as orange, meaning regional variation. Yet there is no reference to either Myanmar or Burma in the article. Not in text, not in tables. I suppose this is because the article uses two systems or organization, one by region and the other by degree of Sharia applicability. In any case the current crisis in Myanmar makes this a serious omission.

Update of the map file

the map featured on the article has not been updated since 2017, several changes have taken place since then, such as sudan abolishing sharia law and state religion entirely, i dont know the procces but if possible could someone update the file to have it include relevant information regarding the topic. -Nickknee, 22 August 2021

Germany

Germany should be changed from gray to yellow, as sharia law is the only option non-citizen permanent Muslim residents have in family matters. The legal system of Germany despite being well known ever since the end of WW2, as a very Westernized and liberal one, is in fact less secular than many Muslim countries like for example Turkey, Uzbekistan, and even sometimes like more orthodox Muslim countries such as Sudan or Chad because of the many German Muslims who are forbidden the right to secular family legal matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis the Texan (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Situation in the Maldives?

Any idea where this country would fit in the table? SpamHunters (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)