From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Islam (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Only THE most controversial topic in Islam[edit]

Only THE most controversial topic in Islam - more scholars that look at this, the better.

The very purpose of the Ijtihaad of a mujtahid is that it should be followed, so i'm removing the silly comment about "who had no idea..." HussaynKhariq 19:17, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


This article was moved without any discussion by Timothy Usher. Even ignoring that Timothy has a done this before, the move is unacceptable. We leave articles with their correct names. The example I used was that Jewish Law redirects to Halakha, but of course there are many other articles like that. There is no rule that says we have to accept the translation of the name. Fiqh is the correct and appropriate name for the concept, not Islamic Jurisprudence. So unless Timothy is willing to redirect all wikipedia pages to their rough translations and not just targetting the Islamic ones whenever he finds the chance, he should stop making arbitrary moves. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the banner saying page needs editting[edit]

I understand the article may need editing. However, because of the side bar with the links, the placement of the need to edit banner may confuse readers to think the page is empty and not scroll down. I think for the sake of others, we should take it down but continue working. If the article needs work, I can try to help.ZaydHammoudeh 06:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Scratch the above message. I fixed the problem. Sorry for the mistake.ZaydHammoudeh 07:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The article still reads like a mere list of inter-Wiki links. I am fully aware that the issue is wrought in controversy, but such a controversial topic might deserve a fuller article than the amputated list it is now, no? --Tirolion 12:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Zaidi Shia, Jaffari Shias and Zahiris[edit]

I see we are missing Zaidis - A group of Shia that is very similar to Hanafis in terms of Fiqh.

I once asked a (Yemeni) Zaidi about their fiqh (and the fact that he was willing to pray behind Sunnis whereas most Iraqi Shiahs weren't) and he mentioned there had been a split some time in the past between those who decided to stay close to Shiah fiqh and those who came adopted understandings closer to the Sunni opinion. I'd be interested to hear more about what they actually practice but I've not come acroos any English sources about them. Incidentally the Zaidi madhhab has nothing to do with the Zaidis of the Indian subcontinent. 00:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree the Zaidis as well as Jaffari and even Zahiris should be included - this is an encyclopaedia entry not a partisan sunni page so all should be reviewed on a factual basis Jk54 (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


Why was the reference to Salman removed? --Striver 16:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Salman al Farsi is not the grandfather of Abu Hanifa. --Truthpedia 19:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Islamic Jurisprudence?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

Hi, I am not islamic, but I have come across the Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence article as part of my effort to resolve Backlogged maintenance. The merge proposal has been up since Jan/06 and I would like to have a discussion to resolve the matter one way or the other. Can someone answer if Fiqh is an Arabic word that has a literal English translation? Does Fiqh mean Islamic Jurisprudence? 08:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Move to Islamic Jurisprudence[edit]

Since this is the english wikipedia and not the Arabic wikipedia, can we move this article to the english name?--Sefringle 00:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

FiqhIslamic Jurisprudence – {this is english wikipedia, not arabic wikipedia. The english name makes more sense for this article}--Sefringle 02:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Oppose - It is understandable is to use the translation. However, fiqh is more commonly used and some might be confused by the terminology. Just as Hadith is accepted on wikipedia, so should fiqh. In addition, fiqh has more than one meaning than just Islamic Jurisprudence. For instance, Abu Hanifa entitled his book on creed, "Fiqh al-Akbar." Fiqh has many meanings that Islamic Jurisprudence don't summarize.ZaydHammoudeh 20:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For the same reasons stated above. Fiqh is much more well understood term than Islamic Jurisprudence which is a weak translation of only part of what the original Arabic term covers. --Nkv 12:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, both terms appear to be used in English-language sources, so I don't think using English here is completely necessary. Recury 14:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, Islamic Jurisprudence is the accepted academic subject for discussing fiqh. Though fiqh may have varying usages linguistically, that does not prohibit it from moving this page. Fiqh al-Akbar is a book about creed so should appear under the article under creed (imaan/aqeedah) - however the technical usage has developed and become used in a specialised sense which this article is about, and that is Islamic Jurisprudence. Zaf159 14:31, 09 April 2007
  • Oppose, the above statements do, by and large, tabulate the reasoning as to why this article should remain. Nevertheless, I do agree that an Islamic scholar should be sought in order to rectify the article. Nalco 02:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 13:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Based directly on the Quran and Sunna[edit]

Is it necessary to have "—which is based directly on the Quran and Sunna—" in the lead sentence? This recent change seems to introduce a distracting POV argument into the lede section. I'm no expert in this subject, so I'm asking if others may consider this. / edg 17:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who added that to the lead. The idea is both Sharia and fiqh are often translated as "Islamic law", so it's useful to distinguish between them straight away. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
To a novice reader like me, the interrupted structure seems to emphasize the lineage from Quran and Sunna, almost defensively suggesting fiqh is therefore sacred and beyond revision. (I realize this is not literally stated in this text, or intended, but it reminds me of Catholics I've met who confidently state theirs is the true Christianity because the papal line of succession decends from Peter, appointed by Jesus.)
Does this version work? Same meaning I think, but with evolving nature given equal emphasis. Please revert if this changes the meaning. I'm also wondering if "supplemented" makes more sense than "complemented". Again, I'm ignorant on this subject, and confident in my ability to be wrong here. / edg 23:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation Help[edit]

Hey, help a law student out - and can someone, using IPA or phonetic spelling, add in how to pronounce this word in English? Gautam Discuss 22:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

fɪqh -- I think would be the IPA. It's basically "fick" as you would say it in English but instead of the 'k' sounds it's 'q' which is voiceless uvular plosive--very similar but Arabs can tell them apart. I think the 'ha' at the end is just sort of like aspiration since there is no vowel sound after it... at least that's how I've heard it. gren グレン 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks gren. Do you think it would be appropriate to add that information into the main article for English readers who are not native Arabic speakers? Gautam Discuss 23:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Legal Systems Map Errors[edit]

The legal systems map contains errors or inaccuracies, e.g. in terms of Morocco, the legal system is largely Code Civil with Islamic jurisprudence only applying to family law, and that itself 'translated' into code civil. A similar situation holds in Jordan (although with Common Law influence). It's grossly inaccurate to suggest the legal system is primarily Islamic jurisprudence based, like say in Saudi Arabia. collounsbury (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Methodologies of jurisprudence[edit]

I removed the Quran alone line in this section, this is not a methodology of law but a sect who do not accept that any sayings of Muhammad have been preserved throughout history. This is completely rejected by prety much everyone muslim and non muslim alike. Further more there are no qualafied indaviduals in this sect, they have produced no legal works and there have never been any institutions of higher learning who teach this anywhere they number maybe in the thousands around the world and are hardely noteworthy.

This page is about Law and its methodoligies not reductionist theory by unqualafied indaviduals/laymen.

Ibn kathir (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ja'fari jurisprudence[edit]

i removed the line "the Shia leader for Shia Islam" this isnt an accurate representation of history, since none of these imams formed a madhhab in their own lifetimes but later generations codified their methodologies and established these schools. The imam was also not a leader in his own life time and avoided all attempts to thrust him into positions of leadership.

Ibn kathir (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)