Talk:List of fatwas

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 June 2022. The result of the discussion was keep.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Legal binding or not?

The article about Fatwā itself seems to suggest that they are NOT legally binding, that they are not more than an opinion.

This article now says they are legally binding. Which is true? Could someone who knows correct either article? I suppose the article on fatāwā itself would be correct(seems to make sense to me), but I'm no expert. --Cyberman TM (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Freedom of Expression?

Andjam and I seem to have a disagreement about whether "List of famous fatwas" should fall into Category:Freedom of Expression.

I'll try to articulate my opinion here fairly succinctly and clearly -- I'm not really torn up about it, so if you're unconvinced and still want to add it after reading this, I won't stop you.

Here are my thoughts: A fatwa is just a legal pronouncement, and isn't inherently about limiting freedom of expression. By this reasoning, a Pope's edict should also fall in the same category.

Let me be clear, though. I *absolutely* think that Salman Rushdie's fatwa belongs in Category:Freedom of expression, as do Fatwas like his. But to group all fatwas into this category seems to be overgeneralizing in my mind.

wdaher 06:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fatwas, in general, don't neccessarily have anything to do with freedom of expression, except that issuing a fatwa is an exercise of free speech. But this is not an article on fatwas, but on specific instances of fatwas, many of which relate to freedom of expression. I hope I'm not splitting hairs here... Andjam 09:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I suppose I am convinced -- certainly , the fatwas currently listed there are mostly about limiting freedom of expression. wdaher 22:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fataawa

Shouldn't this page be titled "List of well known Fatawa", which is the plural of Fatwa? - Matthew238 22:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fatwas against Fatwas promoting violence

Is this a fatwa against fatwas promoting violence, or just criticism by a Muslim of a fatwa promoting violence? Andjam 10:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone provides a citation from a reliable source that there was a fatwa against fatwas promoting violence to do with the Danish cartoons, that literally uses the words fatwa against fatwas, I'll treat this as original research. Andjam 23:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to classify unusual (IMHO) fatwas ?

I read the IHT about two rather unusual fatwas, "Breastfeeding fatwa" (see also Reuters) and a "Urine Fatwa". Personally I feel human breastmilk is too sweet and I'm not into "watersports" but hey thats life. That is an aside though the question is,

are they well-known enough ? Is publication in multiple reliable sources in western press enough ?
how do we classify these ?

Keep them coming. Ttiotsw 01:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Nuclear Fatwa

Having corrected the description of this fatwa to reflect the reality that it is unconfirmed, it occurs to me that this should disqualify it from appearing in this article altogether. Any objections to that section's removal? --Memarshall (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My correction of the reference to this fatwa was undone for some reason. The cited reference [2] is incorrectly described as the full text of the fatwa. Instead, it's a mention of the existence of the fatwa by an Iranian official at a U.N. meeting, not the fatwa itself which has never been shown to exist. What was the reason for the reversal? --Memarshall (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2012 (PST)

I have linked two major WP:RS citations, both questioning the existence of the fatwa. Given the high profile with which it is used, I think it should be listed. XavierItzm (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fatwa for Broader Violence section title

I wish to explain my rationale for reverting the title back to "broader violence"[1]

First, it is a copying of the fatwa discussed at the beginning of the section, it looks wrong stylistically and redundant from my perspective.

Second, "broader violence" is more accurate then "Jews and Crusaders". While that may be the title of the actual Fatwa, the title is still inaccurate, as actual "Crusaders", per se, no longer exist and so beyond calling for jihad against simply "Jews" and "Crusaders" it also speaks against "their allies", hence the "Broader Violence" in the title. --Pstanton (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Falwell

The paragraph on Jerry Falwell needs to disambiguate Yadin. If it's Yigael Yadin, or any other Israeli for that matter, why would this bother any Iranian clergy? Anomalocaris (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri Fatwa was directed at the bombings in Pakistan

"The populist scholar developed his document last year as a response to the increase in bombings across Pakistan by militants." From the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8544531.stm
--OxAO (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Necessity of this page?

It seems that this page is mislabeled. This list in no way, shape, or form intends to be a comprehensive list of Islamic judicial rulings-- rather it is merely focusing on what is essentially newspaper headlines of the past couple decades. It would be ridiculous for there to be a page called 'List of Judicial Opinions' which merely focused on American court cases without binding influence on frivolous matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.54.1.127 (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. There is no article for wacky judicial rulings, which is what this is functionally.

100 % agree. This is just a list of the most ridiculous or otherwise strongly controversial fatwas, that do in no way represent fatwas as a whole. I propose complete deletion or at least change of this page's name. --Mikjan (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Winning a Fatwa

For example, the Fatwa against Colonel Gaddafi, https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi, was won by the Americans. Do they get a prize or something? Is the fatwa then legally wound down? Darcourse (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of fatwas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of fatwas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fatwas promoting violence against a particular individual

The use of "affect" in this section's heading is vague, and potentially offensive. There should be a clear distinction between the interpretation that Islamic law and rulings regarding it have no bearing on non-muslims whatsoever and the interpretation that a fatwa ordering violence against a particular non-muslim person or group of people may result in physical harm to them. 220.221.138.204 (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List reorganization and rationalization

Following the keep result of the recent deletion discussion, I have begun making edits to make this article more functional as a list, namely by setting the entries, of which it is a list, in chronological order, as well as removing entries of little note, either because the legal opinions were issued by non-notable individuals or bodies or had little or no impact on real world events. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this work; the article is far less ridiculous than it once was. Ovinus (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Into this Page?

I found this page during random categorization and I think that it may be best merged into here, but my knowledge of the intricacies of Islamic Jurisprudence is amateur at best and I could use input on this.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Fatwas_of_Barelvi_Muslims AevumNova (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Bias in Page

This page seems to be focused on controversial fatwas from a typical anglophone perspective.

I propose that this page is restructured by area and then by chronology and should strive to be more thorough and not just controversial Fatwas.

If this article expands enough it may be possible to split this page into separate articles for fatwas by region. AevumNova (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"1515 fatwa on the printing press"

I am deleting the entry on "1515 fatwa on the printing press" because the sourcing is insufficient and the claim itself appears to be dubious. The sources are two editorial pieces in a blog and a newspaper, whose authors do not appear to have any academic standing and do not themselves give sources for their claims. The specific claim that "Shaykh al-Islam of the ulema (learned scholars) issued a fatwa" makes no sense because "Shaykh al-Islām" is a title, not a person's name. The Sheikh-ul-Islam of the Ottoman Empire in 1515 was Zenbilli Ali Cemali Efendi, and I couldn't find any indication that he made a fatwa against printing. Finally, the idea that there was ever a fatwa and ban on printing in the Ottoman Empire has been disputed, and may entirely originate from one book written by the 16th-century French explorer André Thevet (whose reliability in general has also been questioned). For more on this, see Kathryn A. Schwartz, "Did Ottoman Sultans Ban Print?" Book History, v. 20 (2017): 1-39. Angegane (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems well though out, and yes, on closer inspection, those were weak sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]