docs(conduct): adopt the Contributor Covenant, with a stance on religious disagreement (#302)

A project inviting international contributors around a religious topic
needs a stated behavioural baseline before it needs one (#284).
Canonical Covenant text (GitHub's copy, not retyped), enforcement
contact filled in, and one project-specific addition: disagreement about
a ruling is expected and legitimate; disparaging a madhhab, a school, or
a contributor's practice is not -- and the route for technical
disagreement is a local attestation or the Compliance & classification
category, never a person. tests/test_code_of_conduct.py pins the
Covenant headings, the filled contact, and the stance.

Author: eaitbrahim

CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

@@ -0,0 +1,151 @@
+# Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct
+
+## Our Pledge
+
+We as members, contributors, and leaders pledge to make participation in our
+community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body
+size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender
+identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status,
+nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity
+and orientation.
+
+We pledge to act and interact in ways that contribute to an open, welcoming,
+diverse, inclusive, and healthy community.
+
+## Our Standards
+
+Examples of behavior that contributes to a positive environment for our
+community include:
+
+* Demonstrating empathy and kindness toward other people
+* Being respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences
+* Giving and gracefully accepting constructive feedback
+* Accepting responsibility and apologizing to those affected by our mistakes,
+  and learning from the experience
+* Focusing on what is best not just for us as individuals, but for the
+  overall community
+
+Examples of unacceptable behavior include:
+
+* The use of sexualized language or imagery, and sexual attention or
+  advances of any kind
+* Trolling, insulting or derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
+* Public or private harassment
+* Publishing others' private information, such as a physical or email
+  address, without their explicit permission
+* Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a
+  professional setting
+
+## Enforcement Responsibilities
+
+Community leaders are responsible for clarifying and enforcing our standards of
+acceptable behavior and will take appropriate and fair corrective action in
+response to any behavior that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive,
+or harmful.
+
+Community leaders have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject
+comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are
+not aligned to this Code of Conduct, and will communicate reasons for moderation
+decisions when appropriate.
+
+## Scope
+
+This Code of Conduct applies within all community spaces, and also applies when
+an individual is officially representing the community in public spaces.
+Examples of representing our community include using an official e-mail address,
+posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed
+representative at an online or offline event.
+
+## Enforcement
+
+Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be
+reported to the community leaders responsible for enforcement at
+eaitbrahim@gmail.com.
+All complaints will be reviewed and investigated promptly and fairly.
+
+All community leaders are obligated to respect the privacy and security of the
+reporter of any incident.
+
+## Enforcement Guidelines
+
+Community leaders will follow these Community Impact Guidelines in determining
+the consequences for any action they deem in violation of this Code of Conduct:
+
+### 1. Correction
+
+**Community Impact**: Use of inappropriate language or other behavior deemed
+unprofessional or unwelcome in the community.
+
+**Consequence**: A private, written warning from community leaders, providing
+clarity around the nature of the violation and an explanation of why the
+behavior was inappropriate. A public apology may be requested.
+
+### 2. Warning
+
+**Community Impact**: A violation through a single incident or series
+of actions.
+
+**Consequence**: A warning with consequences for continued behavior. No
+interaction with the people involved, including unsolicited interaction with
+those enforcing the Code of Conduct, for a specified period of time. This
+includes avoiding interactions in community spaces as well as external channels
+like social media. Violating these terms may lead to a temporary or
+permanent ban.
+
+### 3. Temporary Ban
+
+**Community Impact**: A serious violation of community standards, including
+sustained inappropriate behavior.
+
+**Consequence**: A temporary ban from any sort of interaction or public
+communication with the community for a specified period of time. No public or
+private interaction with the people involved, including unsolicited interaction
+with those enforcing the Code of Conduct, is allowed during this period.
+Violating these terms may lead to a permanent ban.
+
+### 4. Permanent Ban
+
+**Community Impact**: Demonstrating a pattern of violation of community
+standards, including sustained inappropriate behavior,  harassment of an
+individual, or aggression toward or disparagement of classes of individuals.
+
+**Consequence**: A permanent ban from any sort of public interaction within
+the community.
+
+## Attribution
+
+This Code of Conduct is adapted from the [Contributor Covenant][homepage],
+version 2.0, available at
+https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/0/code_of_conduct.html.
+
+Community Impact Guidelines were inspired by [Mozilla's code of conduct
+enforcement ladder](https://github.com/mozilla/diversity).
+
+[homepage]: https://www.contributor-covenant.org
+
+For answers to common questions about this code of conduct, see the FAQ at
+https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq. Translations are available at
+https://www.contributor-covenant.org/translations.
+
+
+## A note on religious disagreement (project-specific addition)
+
+This project exists at the intersection of code and Shariah compliance, and its contributors
+will disagree about rulings — what counts as riba exposure, whether a wrapper is permissible,
+how a token should be classified. **That disagreement is expected and legitimate.** It is not
+disloyalty, not trolling, and not a conduct problem.
+
+What is NOT legitimate, and what this code of conduct will enforce exactly as it enforces any
+other harassment:
+
+- **Disparaging a madhhab, a school of thought, a scholar, or a contributor's own practice.**
+  "The Hanafi position on X is wrong" is an argument; "nobody serious follows that" is an
+  attack. The first belongs in a discussion, the second belongs in an enforcement report.
+- **Presuming another contributor's level of religious observance**, or demanding they meet
+  yours before their technical contribution counts.
+
+The technical route for a disagreement about a classification is a **local attestation** —
+record your ruling, with your source, in your own deployment (`keel assets attest`; see
+`CONTRIBUTING.md`'s governance section) — or a post in the *Compliance & classification*
+category on Discussions. It is not an argument in a pull-request thread, and it is never a
+remark about the person who holds the other view.

tests/test_code_of_conduct.py

@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+"""CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md: a behavioural baseline, before an international community arrives.
+
+A project inviting international contributors around a religious topic needs a stated
+baseline before it needs anything else (#284): the moment disagreement about a ruling can
+read as disrespect about someone's practice, the project is one heated thread away from
+losing a contributor it will not get back.
+
+Two failure shapes these tests guard:
+
+- **A homemade conduct policy.** The Contributor Covenant is the sane default precisely
+  because it is battle-tested language with known edge cases already litigated; a rewrite
+  starts from zero and reads as whatever its author already believed. The canonical section
+  headings are pinned so the file stays recognisably the Covenant.
+- **An unfilled template.** A `[INSERT CONTACT METHOD]` left in place gives an enforcement
+  section that reaches nobody -- the same shape as an unfilled licence appendix, trusted
+  and dead. The contact must be present and unfilled simultaneously impossible.
+
+And one project-specific addition the Covenant cannot supply: a stance on religious
+disagreement itself, which here is expected and legitimate while disparagement is not --
+with the local-attestation route named as where technical disagreement belongs.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from pathlib import Path
+
+_ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[1]
+
+#: Section headings of the canonical Contributor Covenant; their presence is what makes the
+#: file the Covenant rather than a bespoke policy with the same filename.
+_COVENANT_MARKERS = (
+    "# Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct",
+    "## Our Pledge",
+    "## Our Standards",
+    "## Enforcement",
+    "## Attribution",
+)
+
+
+def _coc() -> str:
+    path = _ROOT / "CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md"
+    assert path.is_file(), (
+        "CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md does not exist at the repo root -- the project invites "
+        "international contributors around a religious topic with no behavioural baseline (#284)"
+    )
+    return path.read_text()
+
+
+def test_the_file_is_the_contributor_covenant_not_a_homemade_policy():
+    """Every canonical section heading present: battle-tested text, not a first draft."""
+    text = _coc()
+    missing = [marker for marker in _COVENANT_MARKERS if marker not in text]
+    assert not missing, (
+        f"CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md is missing the Covenant's own section headings: {missing}. "
+        "The point of adopting the Covenant is not to write one from scratch"
+    )
+
+
+def test_no_placeholder_is_left_unfilled():
+    """An unfilled template is a conduct policy that reaches nobody.
+
+    GitHub's canonical text ships with `[INSERT CONTACT METHOD]`; leaving it in is the
+    classic mistake, and it is invisible -- the section reads as configured while the
+    enforcement channel is a blank.
+    """
+    assert "[INSERT" not in _coc(), (
+        "CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md still carries an unfilled placeholder -- fill in the contact "
+        "method so the enforcement section reaches a human"
+    )
+
+
+def test_an_enforcement_contact_that_reaches_someone_is_named():
+    """A concrete, reachable contact; 'the maintainers' is not an address."""
+    import re
+
+    assert re.search(r"[\w.+-]+@[\w-]+\.[\w.]+", _coc()), (
+        "CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md must name a concrete enforcement contact (an address, not a role)"
+    )
+
+
+def test_religious_disagreement_has_a_stance():
+    """The project-specific addition: disagreement is legitimate, disparagement is not.
+
+    The Covenant's generic religion clause cannot carry this project's specific risk:
+    contributors WILL disagree about rulings, and without a stated stance the only
+    interpretations available are 'disagreement is disloyalty' or 'anything goes'. The
+    boundary must be explicit -- a ruling may be argued about, a madhhab or a contributor's
+    practice may not be disparaged -- and the technical route for the disagreement (a local
+    attestation, not a thread) must be named so the stance routes people somewhere.
+    """
+    text = _coc().lower()
+    assert "madhhab" in text, (
+        "the code of conduct must name the line: disparaging a madhhab or school is not "
+        "acceptable behaviour"
+    )
+    assert "expected" in text and "legitimate" in text, (
+        "disagreement about a religious ruling must be stated as expected and legitimate"
+    )
+    assert "attestation" in text, (
+        "the stance must route technical disagreement to the local-attestation route, not "
+        "leave it as an argument in a thread"
+    )