Talk:Ban on sharia law

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ban on sharia law article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Europe High‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam High‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ban on Sharia law → Ban on sharia law – Since 'sharia' is a common noun and treated as such in this and other relevant articles, the word 'needs to be rendered in lower case. The justification is at New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors – The Essential A-Z Guide to the Written Word. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005, p. 349. Somehow, I'm unable to make the move myself. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to find this source you cite, Could you quote the relevant bits. When I look at google news it looks like the lower-case version is not used consistently and by my count it looks like upper-case is a little more common When I do a book search I see that upper-case also appears to be more common, although lower-case sharia is also very common. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 04:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NODWE(2005)at page 349 gives "sharia (also shariah and shariat) Islamic canonical law (not ital)". There is no more reliable print usage authority than this dictionary. Bjenks (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment its frequently treated as a proper noun... 70.24.247.40 (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, when used as a common noun or adjective, it is often incorrectly capitalised as though it were a proper noun. So, too, are common law, canon law, statute law, etc. Writers of websites and journal articles often get it wrong, but Wikipedia requires both verifiable correctness and consistency. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If common usage is for it to be a proper noun, then so be it. It's how Wikipedia works (ie. what the world uses, not what a dusty book says should be used) unless it is explicitly wrong (ie. 1+1=2, not 4, despite how many people get it wrong) 70.24.247.40 (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Firstly, for consistency (one of the key criteria of WP:AT) with the parent article, which writes sharia as a common noun throughout. Secondly, Bjenks has so far provided the only source (and a authoritative source, at that), which shows that it is a common noun. Jenks24 (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Incorrect capitalization is a pet peeve of mine, and this is one I've been miscapitalizing myself. Thanks for finding a clear source.--~T P W 12:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree with Bjenks, no further comment from me. ῤerspeκὖlὖm in ænigmate_(talk)(spy) 15:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Further move

Proposing that the article be moved to Restrictions on Islamic law, since the term "sharia" is often confused with "fiqh", and bans can often be limited in nature - hence restrictions.Bless sins (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Current title is what secondary sources talk about.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every source I have seen on this matter does use the term "Islamic law" somewhere in the body. And this term is also more accurate. In any case, I do not want people to drop by and "vote", rather a careful discussion.Bless sins (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your dismissal of my comments as being by someone who drops by and votes. I looked in vain for your name on the the list on contributors to the article. Who was it who just dropped by and voted?--Toddy1 (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sharia has a rather strict definition that doesn't include rulings given by Islamic scholars. For example, though in Islamic law Muslim women may not marry non-Muslim men, this position is not found in the Qur'an, and hence not the sharia. But it is strongly agreed upon opinion of Islamic scholars, hence a part of fiqh (and thus Islamic law). Islamic law would be more accurate than sharia.Bless sins (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey as part of Western Europe

Turkey is not part of Western Europe. Even since the Turks conquered this part of the Eastern Roman Empire, it has been a Muslim country. The reasons the government stopping Sharia Law there in the mid-20th Century are entirely unrelated to prejudice against Sharia Law in Western European Countries such as Italy, France and the United Kingdom.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey may be a part of Europe, but definitely not a part of Western or central Europe.Bless sins (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is unclear about what happened to the 2nd amendment in Oklahoma. The first was rejected, to my mind it was open to the fairly obvious objection that it singled out Sharia law, clearly discriminatory. However the second would have restricted all forms of religious law across the board, was it ruled to be unconstitutional and if so why? PatGallacher (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is beginning to be confusing as to which states have enacted bans on sharia law, which ones voted and failed to, and the situation in Oklahoma. Someone should make a map of the states that have and have not. There isn't a comprehensive map that is up to date anywhere that I can find. 9 January 2015

Opening paragraph is Confusing

The author needs to look at what this is saying and eliminate contradiction from a) not defining concepts and b) quoting from different sources. I.e.,

As of 2014 - more than 24 U.S. states have considered measures to restrict judges from consulting sharia law.

Seven states have have "banned sharia" i.e. passed foreign law bans - i.e., Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Tennessee, North Carolina and Alabama

In 2010 and 2011 more than two dozen states considered measures to restrict judges from consulting Shariah, or foreign and religious laws more generally. Is this the same two dozen that are in opening-sentence "as of 2014 group"?

As of 2013 all but 16 states have considered such a law. And two dozen states have considered "measures" to restrict judges from consulting sharia law. Need to clarify the difference between "laws" banning sharia law and restriction on judges from consulting sharia law. I imagine a "measure" need not be the same as a law; however a measure has to follow the law if it is not a law.

The politically correct will argue that Muslims should be free to use whatever law they want but the constitution does not recognize it. Any laws used by Muslims must first conform to all federal and local laws; they cannot be a carve out focusing on specific groups to have their own set of laws inconsistent with U.S. laws.

Sharia law practices in UK

How effective are they? Saeeda abbas (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

French paragraph

in metropolitan France , there is the Laïcité (see it on wikipedia), therefore there is no application of law from a religious book. I don't understand why speaking of no-go zones, this concept is mainly from US, even if there is no-go zone, the law in these zones are the french law . Why speaking of a US governor opinion ? I don't understand how the opinion of of US governor become a fact on sharia law in France . If you want to speak about of sharia law in France, the author should be looking on the island of Mayotte ,a foreign territorie of France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.154.201.198 (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US Map

Hi just wondering can somebody make a Map of the US map with the states that have a ban on sharia law. Leftwinguy92 (talk) 04:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basis of opposition

There should be more on some of the reasons for opposition in Western countries. Some opponents are straight-up bigots, of course, but many others are somewhat well-meaning, but unable to grasp the distinction between semi-private family-law arbitration tribunals and Hudood Ordinances (or worried that opening the door just a crack for semi-private family-law arbitration tribunals will inevitably lead in time to demands for Hudood Ordinances) -- and typical U.S. media coverage doesn't help them much in making such a distinction... AnonMoos (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]