Talk:Religious views on female genital mutilation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

FGM within Orthodox/Eastern Christianity?

I find it rather curious that this article assumes a purely Western Christianity viewpoint when it describes Christian views on FGM and seems to proceed from the bizarre assumption that Christianity in Africa is only the result of recent missionary work. What about Coptic, Ethiopian etc. Christianity? These are branches of Christianity that have existed in places where FGM is practised for many centuries. It would be useful to know their viewpoint on FGM. --87.82.207.195 (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

First Occurrence of female circumcision according to Islamic tradition

I know that the topic of female circumcision does not actually appear in the Quran, and the ancient Egyptians were historically the first to practice it; however I have some religious questions concerning it. Could an Imam Marja or Shaikh please tell wikipedia when the first female circumcision occurs, also are there any cases of female aposthia that are mentioned in Islamic literature outside of the Quran? Lastly, what do the traditions say about Karina the first female Djin, is she circumcised or born with Aposthia? CensoredScribe (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Broken Links

Many of the linked references are broken or are just unusable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.114.86 (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability and OR?

Note: MissMargaretBlack copied the following from Talk:Female genital mutilation [1]:

I'd prefer not to get involved with editing the Religious views on female genital mutilation, but I hope you'll consider rechecking the sources there. There seems to be OR based on primary sources that others can't easily check. For example, you added:

Fatwas have been justified by Islamic scholars for a number of reasons, two major reasons being to fulfill makrumah granted by Mohammed, and to avoid falling into a taboo behavior. Some scholars suggest makrumah means that female circumcision adds to the man's pleasure. The majority of fatwas that permit or recommend Muslim female circumcision lean toward it being commendable or meritorious act on the part of the woman. Zakariyya Al-Birri argues it is better to carry out female circumcision, while Al-Qaradawi leaves the choice to parents according to their beliefs, in spite of the fact that he favours female circumcision, because it protects girls' morality "especially nowadays" claims Al-Qaradawi.

Similarly, Al-Azhar - one of the most respected universities of the Islamic World in Cairo - has issued a number of fatwas on female circumcision over its history. On June 23, 1951, a fatwa from Al-Azhar declared that it does not recognise the abandonment of female circumcision as an option, and that female circumcision is advisable because it curbs "nature". Moreover, this fatwa declared doctors' opinions on the disadvantages of female circumcision as irrelevant On January 29, 1981, another fatwa from Al-Azhar was authored and proclaimed by the Great Sheikh of Al-Azhar. The fatwa insisted that it is impossible to abandon the lessons of Mohammed in favor of the teaching of others, such as doctors, because the science of medicine evolves. The fatwa then recommended to the Islamic community that female circumcision is a duty, and the responsibility of female circumcision lies with the guardian of the girl.

The problem here is twofold. First, it seems to be OR based on primary sources that enwiki readers and editors would have difficulty finding and reading, so it fails verifiability. Second, there is a danger that readers (perhaps particularly those who have immigrated from practising to non-practising countries) will read this and think it confirms that they should carry out FGM on their daughters as a religious obligation. SlimVirgin II (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is #7 a primary source? - it is one of many peer reviewed articles that review and explain literature on this subject. I will take another look at 1-6, and reflect on your comments. Verifiability does not mean internet only; WP:V includes stuff in a good library. I will check the rules. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 01:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I copied and moved the above from FGM talk page to this talk page for further discussion, because the above comment is about this article. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

End of copied section

---

I added more english language citations to Fatwas section. I also left in Osten-Sacken’s Middle East Quarterly paper as second source for first paragraph, because that paper is cited by numerous peer reviewed journal articles and other WP:RS sources. Two examples: 1. Berivan A Yasin et al., BMC Public Health 2013, 13:809; 2. Salah Rasheed, International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, Volume 114, Issue 1 , Pages 47-50, July 2011. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

As I said on the other page, I don't want to get involved in editing this article, but I'm concerned because it's linked from Female genital mutilation, per summary-style. The recent edits here are problematic (OR and UNDUE), and should really be rolled back. Also, some material that seemed well-sourced was removed from the previous version. One example of the problems:

FGM as a cultural practice existed, in many parts of the world, long before major religions were founded. Some scholars claim the practice of FGM reflect the pre-existing customs. Others disagree ...

The above is an example of UNDUE. It equates the scholarship ("some scholars") with unnamed "others" who disagree. "Others" is sourced to two authors in a publication known for strong or contentious views about the Middle East. One is a journalist and the other a director of a German NGO. They don't even say that they disagree with the scholarship (that I can see), but regardless we can't use them as sources for this point. We have to use ancient historians for ancient history, anthropologists for anthropology, etc. Also, do the scholars say that "the practice of FGM reflect [sic] the pre-existing customs"? I'm not sure that's entirely correct; I don't recall Knight saying that, for example, but she's one of the academics you cite.

Anyway, this is just one example of the issues. The article has to be based on appropriate sources (which means academic sources in an article like this) who are specialists in the field. It should also be based on secondary sources for the most part. Primary sources can be used, but only with caution, and shouldn't be used to deviate from the secondary literature. Also, the article has to reflect the majority position and include significant-minority views. Tiny-minority views should not be included.

Foreign-languages sources need a translation of the key parts of the text in the footnote. Foreign-language primary sources are best avoided entirely in an article like this, because it's significantly harder and perhaps impossible for the average reader/editor (without English-language secondary sourcing) to determine to what extent the views of the primary sources deviate from the current mainstream position. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I added some more citations to address your concern. If you would like more, let me know. But see WP:OVERCITE. Thomas von der Osten-Sacken or someone's affiliation with WADI or a university is not a wikipedia WP:RS criterion. If it is a peer reviewed journal article, and the paper has high impact factor, and the paper is being actively cited by many scholars in peer reviewed journals, a wiki article can use it.

I trimmed the following: A Greek papyrus from 163 B.C. mentions girls in Ancient Egypt undergoing circumcision[1] but it is not widely accepted to have originated in Egypt and the Nile valley at the time of the Pharaohs.[2] By Graeco-Roman times, however, it was an accepted practice.[3] Evidence from mummies...

I trimmed it because that is 'history of FGM' and belongs in FGM article. This is 'Religious views on FGM' article. See WP:COATRACK and WP:OWN.

On primary and secondary sources, I checked wiki guidelines. Qur'an and Hadiths are primary sources. Secondary sources include commentaries on Qur'an and Hadiths by Islamic scholars, and reviews by scholars of commentaries/fatwas of Islamic scholars. If you disagree, please link me to specific wiki page / policy section and paragraph.

English language peer reviewed journal articles and books, and encyclopedia articles satisfy WP:RS requirement. If there is something in this article that lacks one of these, please let me know. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Once again, the article can't be constructed out of primary sources. See WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."

The article now uses the following sources, without English translations in the footnotes (per WP:NOENG), with no indication as to whether religious opinions from 1952–1986 would be valid in 2013, or whether they were representative of mainstream thinking at the time.

1. Fatwa 'Abd Al-Halim Mahmud, v 2, pp 304-305
2. wajib: Dr. Wahba A;-Zuhayli, Al-Fiqh Al-Islami wa Adillatuhu, 3rd Ed, Damascus 1989, v 1, pages 306-311
3. al-Sharabāṣī, Aḥmad 1980, Yas'alunak fi'l-din wa'l-hayat, 4th Edition, Vol I, pages 253-254
4. Rashid Rida, Fatwa Rashid Rida, 1st Edition Beirut 1970, v 1, pp 245-246 (fatwa no. 1904)
5. Sheikh 'Allam Nassar, Al-Fatwa Al-Islamiyaa, Cairo 1982, v6, pp 1985-1986 (see fatwa June 23 1951)
6. Makhluf, Fatwa Shar'ia waBuhuth Islamiyya, Cairo 1952, v 1, pp 208-209
7. Ibn Babwayhi (1957), Man la Yahduruhu Al-Faqih, 4th Ed, Najf, Vol 3, pages 314-319
8. Majallat Al-Azhar (November 1981), pp 315-318
9. Fatwa 'Abd Al-Halim Mahmud, Cairo 1986 vol 2, pages 304-305
10. Makhluf, Fatwa Shar'ia waBuhuth Islamiyya, Cairo 1952, v 1, pp 208-209
11. Jad Al-Haqq 'Ali Jad Al-Haqq (Jan 29 1981) in Al-Fatwa Al-Islamiyya, Vol 9, pages 3119-3125
12. Sheikh Muhammad 'Ali 'Abd Al-Rahim, Majallat al-Tawhid, Sha'ban 1408, no 8, pp 20

Have you read these sources yourself, and have you read Mary Knight? I ask the latter because I don't recall her saying what you're using her for, and you don't give a page number. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the english language citations that go with each of these, and elsewhere in the article? They are peer reviewed journal articles and encyclopedia and books and UNESCO and UN-WHO etc, all WP:RS.

For example, with first two in your list, I listed the following UNESCO published source with page number: Abdelwahab Bouhdiba and Muḥammad Maʻrūf al-Dawālībī (1998), The Different Aspects of Islamic Culture, ISBN 9231027425, UNESCO, page 436. If you can get hold of this UNESCO publication, and read lines 12 through 15 of page 436, counting from the top, you will find direct support. UNESCO is WP:RS, and you yourself use it in the FGM article.

On Mary Knight, check first 11 lines of page 318, and 328-331 in the Medical Procedure or Temple Rite section - it discusses Aetios' account and current FGM practice in Egypt. FWIW, Knight was in this article before my first edit. I left it in there. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, look, I've avoided reverting because I can see you've put work into it, but the article has to be made policy-compliant soon, or I will revert. That means it has to reflect the majority view of reliable, published secondary sources, and for the most part this means academic sources (people with jobs in universities). Please look at this from the point of view that we don't want Wikipedia to be a source of false information that might cause someone to think cutting their daughter is a religious duty. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It is policy compliant. It reflects majority view from reliable, published secondary and tertiary academic sources, including peer reviewed journals, UNESCO/UN-WHO/UN-FPA/others, widely respected books and encyclopedias on 'religious views on FGM'.

If you identify sources that you consider as majority view, I am willing to read them, and work collaboratively with you. Of course, you are welcome to add additional WP:RS derived content on 'religious views on FGM' to this article. You have so far made vague allegations; it would be more productive if you list on this talk page, few sources that you - correctly or incorrectly - believe summarize the majority on 'religious views on FGM'.

Your allegation that summarizing majority scholarly views may cause someone to cut their daughter is unpersuasive, because the article presents alternate views and disagreements.

Please see WP:OWN and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I urge you do not get into revert and edit warring. Let us collaborate and improve this and FGM-related articles together. Or, let us take them to dispute resolution boards and appropriate process per wikipedia community agreed guidelines. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Reverting

I've given this 14 days to see whether there would be improvements, but as nothing has changed I'm going to revert to the previous version. That version is problematic too, but less so. Significant parts of MissMargaretBlack's version are based on non-English-language primary sources and suggest that FGM is an Islamic religious requirement. The academic secondary sources say that it isn't, and Islamic scholars are increasingly speaking out against it.

FGM is getting a lot of attention in the media at the moment, so it's a particularly inappropriate time for us to be hosting an article on it that contradicts the scholarship. Also, the focus on south-east Asia seems UNDUE, given that it's not one of the areas in which FGM is concentrated. So although I'm not keen on the version I'm about to revert to, it seems to be less problematic than the current version. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Your claims that the article is 'significantly' based on non-English-language primary sources is false. It is based on English-language secondary and tertiary sources; in some cases, the English-language sources are supplemented with non-English language secondary sources, as a resource for wikipedia readers who may wish to research this topic more. The article is well supported even if some of these non-English supplementary sources are removed.

I am not new to FGM field. I urge that you consider my offer that we collaborate, per above discussion. Also see WP:OWN. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I have tentatively moved all non-English supplementary resources into a Further Reading section, including items in the list above. I have left English language sources from UNICEF, WHO, encyclopedias, etc. in the article. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you would respect the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. I waited two weeks to give you a chance to fix the problems, but you stopped editing. Now that I've reverted, you appear again.

The problem is, in part, based on a misunderstanding of the policies. But that aside, it has been difficult to collaborate because you tend to answer questions with questions. For example, when I asked whether you had read the non-English sources you're citing, you asked me if I had read something else. It isn't possible to make progress that way.

The version currently on the page is based on violations of the NOR policy, and it's making Wikipedia take a position on a sensitive subject that the mainstream academic sources don't take. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the previous version again, plus a copy edit and removal of unsourced and poorly sourced material. I also added something about the Christian Copts, the animists and the Beta Israel, and expanded the lead a little. Please build up the article from this version. That way, anything problematic can be discussed straightaway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Please know I have read all sources in the article, and many more. Please assume good faith, and see WP:OWN. Even WP:NOENG reads: "Citations to non-English sources are allowed." The older version supplemented cited English sources for verifiability, with non-English sources. In the latest version, the article cites English-language sources only.

I have incorporated your suggestions. Almost all of what you added/restored is in the article. You also restored content for which “citation request” has been pending for a while. I have cleaned that up.

This is an article about "Religious views on FGM". I do not understand the need for Egyptian history in the article. So I tagged it; will delete it unless you offer convincing arguments as to why it is not off topic. See WP:COATRACK.

The version you created mentions Mohammad Salim Al-Awa, which means you consider his scholarly work reliable. But, he has numerous articles on ‘religious views on FGM’, which I have summarized in this article. Why delete the summary on various hadiths, quran and fatwas on FGM from publications by Mohammad Salim Al-Awa? Why WP:CHERRYPICK?

Why call WHO, UNICEF, encyclopedias as poor sources, while you cite the same sources in Female Genital Mutilation article? MissMargaretBlack (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The UNICEF July 2013 report, on page 71, 69 and elsewhere, mentions that both 'females and males reported that FGM/C is required by their religion'. I have therefore deleted the qualifier 'among practitioners', to avoid misleading the reader.

See WP:OFFTOPIC on why I took out the irrelevant discussion of Africa and tribes. Also if we add Africa, for balance, we will need to mention non-African parts such as Kurdistan, and lot of other things. My concern is that this may invite edits in future, by others, that lead to a conflicting competing article with main FGM. Anything irrelevant to 'religious views on FGM' should not be in this article. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Structure

The structure of this article is likely to promote the idea that FGM is a Muslim issue. In addition, there are factual issues which i have also raised.

I have asked for a source for the statement "FGM is found only within and adjacent to Muslim communities" the main article makes reference to Mackie but this appears to be an journal paper focused on african countries. Furthermore, that it is restricted to Muslim 'communities' would seem to be contradicted by

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation_by_country

for instance, in Burkina Faso "73% of traditional religions, 69% of Roman Catholics and 65% of Protestants."

Furthermore, the statement is contradicted by the continuation of this sentence and the rest of the paragraph "but the practice predates Islam" ... how can it only be found in Muslim communities if it existed prior to Muslim communities? Additionally "It is also practiced by the Christian Copts in Egypt and Sudan, and by animist groups.[1] The only Jewish group known to have practiced it are the Beta Israel of Ethiopia." Though these communities may be adjacent to Muslim communities as stated, the structure of this introduction renders the subject more FGM in Muslim countries' than FGM in and of itself. The introduction provides ample evidence that the practice is not restricted to ISlam nor endemic in Islam, nor intrinsic to Islam and does provide the qualification "is not required by it, and is not found in most Muslim countries." However, there is therefore a need to re structure the introduction so as not to give the impression that the practice is solely the concern of Islam and/or those concerned with Islamic practices. This impression does no-one any good and I doubt that it does justice to truth or the authors intent.

The article perpetuates this impression by leading with 'Islam', even before and overview. It would be better to utilise an overview to discuss the practice in the context of religious and/or cultural practices. This is the place for the statement about FGM being found only within and adjacent to Muslim communities, if indeed this statement is factual and can be referenced.

I would propose a restructuring of the section by the author along the following lines

Introduction (revised) 1 Overview (giving context - religious influences in context of georgaphy/history/culture) 2 Religious Views on FGM 2.1 Islam 2.2 Christianity 2.3 Judaism 2.4 Other — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermenaught (talk • contribs) 18:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have added the source you requested.

On Burkina Faso, please do not ignore the 82% of Muslim women data. On rest, see FGM article. On content structure, see WP:RS, WP:LEAD and WP:MOS. You are welcome to add reliable scholarly sources on religious views on FGM from Christianity, Judaism, etc. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Contradictory and confusing content

The opening paragraph starts by saying that FGM only occurs in and around Muslim communities, however there is a source cited just a few paragraphs down that says "In Kenya, by contrast, prevalence is highest among Catholics and Protestants...Thus, there is no unequivocal link between religion and prevalence".<ref>Obermeyer, Carla Makhlouf. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10322603 "Female Genital Surgeries: The Known, the Unknown, and the Unknowable"], ''Medical Anthropology Quarterly'', 13(1), March 1999 (pp. 79–106), p. 88 (also [http://csde.washington.edu/fogarty/casestudies/shellduncanmaterials/day%202/Obermeyer,%20C.%20%281999%29%20Female%20genital%20surgeries.pdf here]).</ref> This is confusing yet I don't know how to reconcile this. Perhaps the opening paragraph can be rephrased. ozziegt — Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added another sentence to the opening paragraph which hopefully clarifies things a bit. Ozziegt (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Severely imbalanced

Although I see many issues here, I will point this one out.

In every paragraph of the Islamic view there is a sever imbalance. First paragraph:

"but it is not required by Islam or practiced in most Muslim countries, and prevalence rates vary according to ethnicity, not religion"

And the second:

"the prevalence is 80 percent among Muslims, 40 percent among those with no religion and 15 percent among Protestants, and in Sudan the prevalence is highest among Muslim women ... In Kenya, by contrast, prevalence is highest among Catholics and Protestants compared with other religious groups ... Thus, there is no unequivocal link between religion and prevalence."

There are two instances where fgm is much higher in Muslim populations and one where it is not, with the conclusion that there is no link. This seems to be grossly simplified. The first two paragraphs are also biased toward the opinion that there is no link between Islam and fgm.

Third article:

"The former Grand Mufti of Egypt Ali Gomaa stated in 2007 that "excision is a practice totally banned by Islam because of the compelling evidence of the extensive damage it causes to women's bodies and minds."[14] Egyptian Islamist scholars such as Mohammed Emara and Mohammad Salim Al-Awa have opposed FGM, arguing that it is not an Islamic practice and is not endorsed by Islamic jurisprudence"

Again, a severely biased quote from a country which has a prevalence of 91% fgm. Absolutely laughable, this is - like my salmon - irresponsibly sourced. Fourth paragraph:

"Gruenbaum has emphasized that followers of Islam – “have at times practised female circumcision and consider their practices sanctioned, or at least not prohibited, by God.” Despite the fact that FGM/C predates the birth of Islam and is not mandated by religious scriptures, the belief that it is a religious requirement contributes to the continuation of the practice in a number of settings. - UNICEF"

Emphasis on ye olde tautology 'just a big misunderstanding so we slice the clitoris of little girls open'

Basically, this article reads like a big, feeble, fate excuse. Nothing is mentioned on the Hadith's, supposedly Muhammad's divine and perfect words/life, endorsement of fgm. Nothing is mentioned as to the highest rates of fgm. Let me clue you in for the sake of education. Somalia, 98%; Guinea, 96%; Djibouti, 93%; Egypt, 91%; Eritrea, 89%; Mali, 89%; Sierra leone... Gambia... Ethiopia...

The vast majority of fgm occurs in islamic countries, purportedly for religious reasons. I am all for balancing, but this article is sickly sweet and biased. Someone add some weight before I poke my eyes out.

Someone should start with some real statistics, valid conclusions, reputable quotes and actual references to all Islamic texts on the issue. Maybe replace some of the nonsense with some of this real evidence, me thinks. 85.210.104.115 (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Read wikipedia policies/guidelines at WP:WWIN, WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:NPOV. Wiki articles summarize scholarly sources, explain all sides, we don't take a side as you are doing. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Christianity and FGM

I have removed the content that was derived from blogs and opinion websites, as they violate WP:RS and WP:WWIN guidelines. Please find some WP:RS sources, summarize those without WP:COPYVIO.

I have also removed Al Azhar University latest views on FGM. See WP:LEAD, WP:CHERRYPICK and WP:ADVOCACY. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2014 (UT

Propaganda

This is all total bullshit. I'm a Muslim, and well familiar with all of the Madhabs they listed, and the part about the four Imams considering it desirable or mandatory etc, that's what they said about MALE circumcision, not female. Abu Hanifa, Ash-Shafi, Imam Malik, and Ahmed ibn Hanbal, NONE of them hold FEMALE circumscription to be desirable or required in any way. the only truth is that there are some spurious hadith people made up supporting it. This is ridiculous anti-Muslim Propaganda of the type usually reserved for "The 700 Club"50.53.148.252 (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted your recent edits because they broke the article with reference syntax problems, and they seemed to involve copying bits of later text into the lead in a way that was confusing. There is no urgent problem—please calmly explain what text in the article is a problem and why. When starting a new topic on a talk page, click "new section" at the top. Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Bahá'í

@Wtmitchell: I have removed Bahá'í section because it makes no mention of Bahai's "religious views on FGM", is offtopic and an organization's WP:PROMOTION. If you would like to keep parts of it, please explain what and how is it relevant to this topic? MissMargaretBlack (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

FGM and Judaism, possible plagiarism

It seems to be the start of this section (and perhaps more) has been plagiarised from here. Sorry, I don't have time to fix it. --TimSC (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it was. I cleaned the copyvio, as well as the content forking. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction?

"It is generally accepted that there is no close link between the practice and religious belief."

"The historical religious view of Islam, on FGM, varies with the school of Islamic jurisprudence:[21]

   The Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence considers female circumcision to be wajib (obligatory).[22]
   The Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence considers female circumcision to be makrumah (honorable) and strongly encouraged, to obligatory.[23]
   The Maliki school of Islamic jurisprudence considers female circumcision to be sunnah (optional) and preferred.[23]
   The Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence considers female circumcision to be sunnah (preferred).[23]"

So: the practice is not linked to religious belief; and yet all four schools of Islamic jurisprudence consider it either obligatory, honourable, or preferred.

Surely Islamic jurisprudence is a matter of religious belief? Is Islamic jurisprudence un-islamic? Or perhaps the opinions of Isalmic jurists are facts, and not beliefs?

MrDemeanour (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)