This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sharia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 60 days ![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
![]() |
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Iran's Ayatollahs. "According to a geographer living in 13th century, there was an annual custom in Gilan in northern Iran; the ulema would ask a permission from ruler for to order the truth, and when they got, they would gather everyone. If a man swore that he was not drunk and did not commit adultery, scholar would ask him about his trade, and if he said that he was a grocer, he would still whip him for cheating on his customer." 27.147.176.137 (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect Sharia courts can be integrated into the American religious arbitration system has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 14 § Sharia courts can be integrated into the American religious arbitration system until a consensus is reached. Fram (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have tidied up part of the introduction that was not well written grammatically however I feel there is also an issue with the following sentence "There are progressives trying to argue that Sharia is compatible with democracy, human rights, freedom of thought, women's rights and banking." This does not read as neutral language as well as the term progressive being in my humble view somewhat vague and incidental. Imo it would be better to say "some commentators argue that" and leave it there. Firestar47 (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should the term "Sharia" be written in upper or lowercase? JackkBrown (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lede should differentiate between enforcing Sharia law by the state and it being an informal law in some societies. Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]